OMG im asking about a martingale system!!!!

[Ferretnparrot]

Alright, so i went ahead and posted this in the voodoo, just because it has the word martingale in it, but ive always been curious about this, especially after seeing a graph of a martingale posted by one of out members.

What if a back counter played a martingale system at counts yeilding player EV only, in such a manor that he limited his maximum bet, his minimum bet was near the table minimum, and the average for all of his bets was exactly what he shoudl be betting for minimal ROR based on his current finances.

I mean we all know the martingale systems doesnt effect the house edge, but what if the player had the hosue edge to begin with? would it effect his ror for the better or for the worse?

perhaps it would remain unchanged but the rate fo time it happens in gets smaller, so that rather than failing over several months, you fail over several hours? and succeed in a much shorter time frame.

What say you voodoo experts?

[Sonny]

Short answer: He would win less money and have a higher RoR when compared to someone betting properly.

-Sonny-

[standard toaster]

I was astonished to see your post title and was ready to bash you on it... lol no hard feelings... butttttt it wasnt a bad one. You may as well bet properly, that is why it is proper of course. We all know you know how to

edit: sony beat me to it

[EasyRhino]

You're back counting.

The count is +3, you sit down.

Using your progression, you might start with a tiny bet. Why? The count is +3, you should be placing a man-sized bet. Keeping room in your system is just going to cost you EV

And on the upper end, betting really big on the tail of a progression is going to increase your risk unacceptably. And it's risk that kills you. Ask Lehman Brothers.

[vingtetun]

The previous replies are all good but I would add this. A modified martingale would not effect you long term ev but it can modify your risk on a short term basis. What I mean is this, say you limited your doubled losses to four in a row. This would occur 6% of the time in a 50-50 game but because of the nature of bj (splits, doubles and bj) you will not win 50% of the time even in a plus count. For the ease of this discussion let's say it is 50-50. If you ran such a system it would result in many small gains and then one big losing sequence 6% of the time. Risk can always be modified. It can be squeezed and it can be stretched but the underlying risk will always remain the same. Using a reverse modified martingale you would lose many small sequences and then hit a big run every once in a while. As more real life example, if you really wanted to you could win almost every time you went to the casino. Just take enough $ for a five sequence loss in martingale and try to win 1 unit. The vast majority of the time you will win. However, the time you lose it will equal out all your wins to return you to your proper ev (if you do it enough times)

My response is not meant to answer, why would you want to do this? But instead, what the effect would be.

[blackjack avenger]

OMG = Oh Mother of God
If you are not a woman you need to be banned

[Ferretnparrot]

Originally Posted by vingtetun

My response is not meant to answer, why would you want to do this? But instead, what the effect would be.

Thats what i was curious to know, the reaons i ask about this is because i felt there may be SOME way, that betting in some manor similer to this could make the probibility of total failure the same, and the probibility of success the same, however the time frame on average to do so is less.

Due to the effect of a martingale regaining losses, even if you were only betting ten dollars per hand, each hand is now targeted to become a ten dollar win, making each hand worth ten dollars, instead of 1.5% of whatever you are bettign on a flat bettign scheme.

ALL hands will be worth ten dollars per hand if the system is succesfull, if it fails, it will fail, but in a much shorter time frame than a normal card counter woudl see flat betting only. simultaniously, making each hand worth ten dollars, if the system does effectively double your investment, it will do so in a shorter time frame than say somebody betting 100 dollars per hand flat.

The question is how does it effect ROR if done in a variety of approaches, is it possibel to make a small sacrifice of ROR but see your results with less time spent at the tables?

[Automatic Monkey]

Originally Posted by Ferretnparrot

...
The question is how does it effect ROR if done in a variety of approaches, is it possibel to make a small sacrifice of ROR but see your results with less time spent at the tables?

No. Even if you are playing with an advantage using a Martingale will allow the house to stick that advantage right up your ass, sideways. Stay away.

The only use for progressions at a live table is cover. There's a system I use in single deck games (a whole different universe from what an AC player is accustomed to) where I use one type of progression in positive counts and another type in negative counts, and when you add it all up I'm getting down a somewhat larger spread than you can get away with when straight spreading in a SD game.

The other use for progressions is in online bonus play for hitting targets and eating up WR. Yet another universe.

[SuperTrump]

If you like the idea of combining your card counting with a progression system, I recommend you reading "Take the Money and Run" by Henry Tamburin (1994).

In his book, he uses a 'streak count' which is a combination of a Hi-Lo count and a full progression system. When the count reaches a 'threshold' level the progression changes and is cranked up a few notches.

His argument was that by being seen as a progression bettor, your card counting is disguised so it is an excellent form or cover play. Short term losses can be avoided by employing a progression system (An inherent problem with exclusive card counting) while long term profits are achievable from the card counting.

[QFIT]

Originally Posted by SuperTrump

If you like the idea of combining your card counting with a progression system, I recommend you reading "Take the Money and Run" by Henry Tamburin (1994).

Or not.