Martingale Blackjack Forum
Martingale comes in other guises. One of them, some call a 'Super Martingale,' where you add one unit to your next bet after doubling it. It looks like this: 1-3-7-15-31 and so on. Some hucksters have marketed it as a roulette system and sold it for $40 in a very popular gambling magazine. The Martingale Betting System is said to be one of the oldest betting strategies in the gambling world. It is believed that it was invented in France, however it got its name from a famous British casino owner Mr. Henry Martindale in the 18th century.Even though he wasn’t the person who had come up with this betting system, it was named after him because he made it popular.
Obv you suffer from Mathematicians Fallacy. Lol
Yes but my doctor has me on something to control it.
when playing bj, i strictly follow this guide http://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/
no one has answered my question. I know all the pitfalls and fallacies involved with this system, thanks anyway for the advice. All I'm asking is, given the same bankroll and the following bj rules, which gives me better odds, bj or roulette?
dealer hits on soft 17
BJ pays 3:2
dealer uses 6 decks
no surrender
no double after split
What are the table limits on your BJ and craps games? If I was dead-set on playing a marty, I might consider doing it on a game like craps where splits/doubles weren't a concern. BJ starts with a lower edge, but lost splits/doubles increase the effective HE by increasing the likelihood that the table max will bite you.
I started experimenting with the martingale system. I know it's a losing system in the long run but there are a couple things you can do to limit your risk:
1. bring as much to the table as you can (max table limit)
2. set a goal and walk away once you reach it
3. set a max number of spins or dice rolls (roulette/craps).
using these rules, I've won most of my sessions and thus, I am up overall. I was wondering if the house might have less of an edge if I use the same system in blackjack. Obviously, split hands and double-downs throw a wrench in the system so they would be used only with the smaller bets or not at all.
thoughts?
This is absurd. Using martingale, you can expect to be ahead a good portion of the time because it tilts the house edge. Like a delay--instead of a constant stream, you dam it up, then it suddenly comes at you in a flood. What happens is that you will, very quickly--and much more quickly than the worst of players--end up losing all your gains. You are not limiting your risk, you are increasing it. Setting goals is nonsense, you are playing a negative expectation game. A max number of spins/rolls is similar nonsense. Any martingale user will win most sessions. You are playing with the same house edge as everyone else, only with a different standard deviation; martingale changes the variance, not the house's advantage. Of course, since you don't double down or split when it is optimal, you obviously are far from playing perfect strategy. So you are playing with a higher house edge than everyone else. You are basically a very poor player, which results in a higher than normal house edge--using a system that will result in frequent small wins and occasional massive losses. You have been gambling this whole time with a horrible system that does not work. If you don't quit while your ahead, you will regret it.
when playing bj, i strictly follow this guide http://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/
no one has answered my question. I know all the pitfalls and fallacies involved with this system, thanks anyway for the advice. All I'm asking is, given the same bankroll and the following bj rules, which gives me better odds, bj or roulette?
dealer hits on soft 17
BJ pays 3:2
dealer uses 6 decks
no surrender
no double after split
What am I missing? Did you really just ask which game gives you the best odds between BJ (at the above mentioned rules) or Roulette?????
Unless I'm monumentally naive or I have missed something quite blatant, perhaps you should do some more investigation before trying to put more money at risk on games you clearly don't understand AT ALL!
What am I missing? Did you really just ask which game gives you the best odds between BJ (at the above mentioned rules) or Roulette?????
Unless I'm monumentally naive or I have missed something quite blatant, perhaps you should do some more investigation before trying to put more money at risk on games you clearly don't understand AT ALL!
His question is in regards to his system.
When playing a system like that, you want to avoid (I assume) those wild swings (variance), that are mostly caused by (in BJ) splits and doubles. If you're betting on the outside in roulette (black/red, odd/even, first/last 18), you're not going to have that kind of variance. Although, yes, there is a higher HE in roulette, I'm going to say you're probably better off playing roulette than BJ, because you don't have to double down and whatnot in roulette. At least, you might be able to stay alive longer in roulette than BJ. Your best bet is likely to be at a craps table, martingale on the pass (or don't pass).
In my opinion, the best betting system out there today, is not to use one!
His question is in regards to his system.
When playing a system like that, you want to avoid (I assume) those wild swings (variance), that are mostly caused by (in BJ) splits and doubles. If you're betting on the outside in roulette (black/red, odd/even, first/last 18), you're not going to have that kind of variance. Although, yes, there is a higher HE in roulette, I'm going to say you're probably better off playing roulette than BJ, because you don't have to double down and whatnot in roulette. At least, you might be able to stay alive longer in roulette than BJ. Your best bet is likely to be at a craps table, martingale on the pass (or don't pass).
In my opinion, the best betting system out there today, is not to use one!
Yeah, I'm with you. The fact of the matter is still that even with low variance bets such as the even money bets on AR it doesn't change the fact that you are giving away 5.26% whereas you give away 0.5% average on the blackjack tables. If you use his system he is going to perhaps lose money slower on the even money bets but he will still lose money.
If he is looking for longevity, you are absolutely right. If he thinks his system will allow him to win, he is gravely mistaken, even in the short term.
]
Yeah, I'm with you. The fact of the matter is still that even with low variance bets such as the even money bets on AR it doesn't change the fact that you are giving away 5.26% whereas you give away 0.5% average on the blackjack tables. If you use his system he is going to perhaps lose money slower on the even money bets but he will still lose money.
If he is looking for longevity, you are absolutely right. If he thinks his system will allow him to win, he is gravely mistaken, even in the short term.
The Wizard, in the blackjack section of his site, lists the effect on house edge of NEVER splitting or doubling as -1.91% (I'm surprised it's not even worse)... So after thinking this over, I believe that using a martingale system in blackjack is much better then using it in roullette. Even under average bj rules, the -1.91 would not get you to worse than roulettes -5.26%. You just play hands like 8-8 vs a dealer 7 like you would play 10-6. It sucks but if your married to your martingale system and hell bent on never losing on a given hand more than you originally put in the bet circle, then this is the better way. Even better is if you get lucky and get dealt a blackjack on the 6th or 7th martingale double up.
Edit: just to be clear I don't use martingale, condone using martingale, or even allow people who use martingale to make direct eye contact with me. I'm just trying to answer the OP's question regarding which game is better suited for it.
The Wizard, in the blackjack section of his site, lists the effect on house edge of NEVER splitting or doubling as -1.91% (I'm surprised it's not even worse)... So after thinking this over, I believe that using a martingale system in blackjack is much better then using it in roullette. Even under average bj rules, the -1.91 would not get you to worse than roulettes -5.26%. You just play hands like 8-8 vs a dealer 7 like you would play 10-6. It sucks but if your married to your martingale system and hell bent on never losing on a given hand more than you originally put in the bet circle, then this is the better way. Even better is if you get lucky and get dealt a blackjack on the 6th or 7th martingale double up.
Edit: just to be clear I don't use martingale, condone using martingale, or even allow people who use martingale to make direct eye contact with me. I'm just trying to answer the OP's question regarding which game is better suited for it.
much appreciated, thanks! If we meet on the street I will avert my gaze.
Most pressers press when they are winning. These people seem to have more fun.
no one has answered my question. I know all the pitfalls and fallacies involved with this system, thanks anyway for the advice. All I'm asking is, given the same bankroll and the following bj rules, which gives me better odds, bj or roulette?
Martingale bettors should be more concerned about the probability of consecutive losses than HE.
Even under liberal rules, the probability of consecutive losses is much higher for Blackjack than Roulette, Craps or Baccarat.
The Banker bet in Baccarat has the lowest probability for consecutive losses.
It wins 50.7% of the time.
This discussion reminded me of a challenge the Wizard accepted ten years ago.
Rainsong
What intrigued me about the challenge was that Rainsong's system lasted 168,621 hands.
The Rules were the most liberal that anyone could imagine.
His book 'Blackjack A winning Procedure -Using Statistical Performances' is available on Kindle.
I saw a hard cover version on E-Bay for $400.
- Page 2 of 3
The Martingale Betting System- A failure by itself. It requires the player to double his/her bet every time she looses, covering previous loses incurred on the losing streak and returning to the player an amount equal to their lowest common bet. It is not efficient because when you inevitable hit a major loosing streak, you risk running your bankroll dry or reaching the maximum bet and not being able to double anymore, all for one measly lowest bet in return.
I documented over 1,000 hands using this technique, taking into consideration every variable, playing with basic strategy, shuffling after each hand, and purposely leaving out the variable of card counting to ensure there was only one variable. I ran the losing streaks out until I had either won, or ran my bankroll dry. Then, I went back and calculated what would have happened had I decided to cut my loses, reset my bet to the original, and continued playing after loosing 8 hands in a row, 7 hands in a row, 6 hands in a row, and so on until I was theoretically flat betting every hand. Most losing streaks did not exceed beyond 8 hands, but if they did, I calculated for that too.
I found that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, reseting your bet to the original low was most effective when you reset after a three-hand losing streak. Whereas reseting after any other number of lost hands either lost money in the scenario, or gained very little for the amount of time it took, reseting at three consistently wielded a positive average of roughly $41 per 70 hands played, using a $1 lowest common bet. At the same time, my bankroll never went more than $23 below it's original value, and steadily increased after that. After testing over 1,000 hands, this is quite definitely the optimum time to reset your bet using the martingale system.
This is a major bonus to Card-Counters, because it fools computer technology commonly employed to catch counters, and it also masks your efforts to the dealer (the most direct link between you and the pit-boss). Most card counters will flat-bet a small amount when the count is low, and then slam their bets up high when the count is in their favor. This is easily noticed by dealers and by computers, which use RFID sensors to keep track of the bets on the table, and another technology to keep count in the game using almost every count system imaginable. If your bet or cardplay matches what the computer has analyzed as close enough to consider counting, you got a one-way ticket to the next casino. If you employ the optimum martingale system instead of flat-betting when the count is low, it will mask your efforts to the dealer especially, and to an extent with the computers. It allows the counter to not risk much money, while also making the swings in his bets not as noticeable. I find it most effective to use the Optimum Martingale, even as the count climbs, but instead of reseting my bet at three, I will continue to climb my bets up, win or loose, until the count begins to decline. By sticking to the style of doubling your bets when the count is high, even if you win or lose, you stray from the average card counter which the computers are looking for while also retaining the ability to place large bets when the count is high and decrease them as it recedes.
I did this all by hand, using ledger paper, taking into consideration these variables: L.C.D. bet, starting bankroll, ending bankroll, starting time, ending time, Bank Roll amount, Hand number, Players Cards, Dealers Up Card, Suggested strategy action, actual action, win/loss/push/bust/dealer busts. If you have a computer to simulate this, with special attention to when to reset your bets on a losing streak, and would like to add on, please do! Otherwise, try it out! Even if you can't count cards it is a fun system and is slightly more effective than it's predecessor. However, I wouldn't play it for money if you intend on using it by itself. After all, betting strategies are not useless, but they're not reccomended by themselves.
I would think that extreme bet variation would indeed bring instant attention even before anyone in the casino started to verify the count when it was taking place.
I think those RFID tags inside the chips with sensors at the table's betting circles do actually exist but I doubt it exists in anywhere near as many casinos as people seem to assume. Its a bit pricey to have such systems and I rather doubt it catches all that much in the way of bet capping or card counting.
If you go from one green chip to three black chips, you are going to be noticed. If surveillance plays back the tape and counts down the deck to the time at which you suddenly started betting big they will be able to confirm their worst, but still foolish, fears: there is a card counter in their midst.
I don't see how any other aspects to the play are going to disabuse them of this notion. If you revert to a lower level of play after three losses, you are still a card counter who has come to their attention.
As far as the 'reset' aspect, the three-loss rule doesn't use any information from the count; it's played using solely basic strategy while keeping track of the count, so you're still not playing your hands like a counter, just someone with a strategy chart. Only when the count is extremely high or low do you begin to change your gameplay according to the count, and double your bets even if you win. I didn't explain that very well :p
I am a Statistical Analyst which is what got me into BlackJack in the first place, and I am very confident in my accuracy. I have taken this strategy to Biloxi on six occasions now and have banked $3,420 in those six trips.
I used maximum likelihood to figure this out. Without knowing the true value of the standard deviation, which is impossible to predict, standard error is impossible to calculate and will only be an estimate, nothing I would take into consideration at the table. Standard Error in a game like blackjack, to me, is a fallacy.
I am a Statistical Analyst which is what got me into BlackJack in the first place, and I am very confident in my accuracy. I have taken this strategy to Biloxi on six occasions now and have banked $3,420 in those six trips.
I've always wondered, when using the Martingale (which I haven't before), what does one do when he has lost several hands in a row, has much more money out on the table, and then is faced with a double-down or split situation. In other words, after you've lost several hands and have doubled and then redoubled your bet accordingly, what is the proper action when faced with a double-down or split hand? Do you double-down or split per basic strategy and risk additional monies (and gains), or should you simply hit or remain with one hand?
Remember: If you bet $10, lose, bet $20, then double and lose, you've lost $50 and your next bet has to be $60 to keep in pace. Some might prefer, once they get to that point, to just bet $50 and hope to merely cover loses before reseting.
I used maximum likelihood to figure this out. Without knowing the true value of the standard deviation, which is impossible to predict, standard error is impossible to calculate and will only be an estimate, nothing I would take into consideration at the table. Standard Error in a game like blackjack, to me, is a fallacy.
I am a Statistical Analyst which is what got me into BlackJack in the first place, and I am very confident in my accuracy. I have taken this strategy to Biloxi on six occasions now and have banked $3,420 in those six trips.
Martingale Blackjack Forum Sites
1. You used maximum likiihood to figure what out? What are you estimating?2. Of course you would estimate the standard deviation, if you do not know it--this is basic statistical inference.
3. I do not wish to get too personal, but from you have written it is clear that you do not know basic, elementary statistics and yet you claim to be a 'statistical analyst'.Martingale Blackjack Forum Yahoo
Martingale Blackjack Forum Reviews
4. It appears that your conclusions are based on a sample of six and you have not used any statistical inference to reach your conclusions.Martingale Blackjack Forum Golf
...............................................n..........
L(0 x1,...,xn)=f(x1,x2,...,xn 0)= II f(xi 0). (I apologize for my lack of accurate characters but you get the equation)
..............................................i+1.........
If it appears there is no statistical inference, it's because the average blackjack player doesn't need to know all this and I don't really want to type it out. I don't feel the need to prove my understanding of statistics to anyone by confusing them into submission. This is a forum, not a classroom, and egos don't belong in mathematics. We're dorks.