Blackjack and Card Counting Forums - BlackjackInfo.com


Go Back   Blackjack and Card Counting Forums - BlackjackInfo.com > Blackjack Forums > Blackjack - Voodoo Betting Strategies

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 28th, 2011, 10:05 AM
QFIT's Avatar
QFIT QFIT is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NO LONGER HERE
Posts: 2,884
Default

Some figures for using Martingale as cover: http://www.qfit.com/blackjackblog/?p=337
  #22  
Old November 28th, 2011, 10:57 AM
Midnightblues Midnightblues is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QFIT View Post
NO. It is an extremely poor strategy with a huge risk of ruin. We are in the Voodoo forum. It is called Voodoo for a reason. Don't read posts in a forum which has clearly been reserved for bad ideas. If this was a medical site, would you read posts in the forum called "Voodoo?"

Sorry if some of us come off as sarcastic. Consider what it is like answering the same questions for decades. Martingale doesn't work -- period. How many times has that been stated in the century since it was first invented?
I posted this in the Voodoo forum specifically because Martingale is a fallacy and I wanted to know how the method I proposed would work. I believe it was a different type of question than the many martingale posts I read and thus decided to post it. Either way, How can you rant on someone for posting in a portion of the forum designated for this type of question?


If you have such a problem with these posts I suggest you take your own advice. Don't read them!
  #23  
Old November 28th, 2011, 11:01 AM
QFIT's Avatar
QFIT QFIT is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NO LONGER HERE
Posts: 2,884
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnightblues View Post
I posted this in the Voodoo forum specifically because Martingale is a fallacy and I wanted to know how the method I proposed would work. I believe it was a different type of question than the many martingale posts I read and thus decided to post it. Either way, How can you rant on someone for posting in a portion of the forum designated for this type of question?


If you have such a problem with these posts I suggest you take your own advice. Don't read them!
I have a problem with poverty, disease, and war too. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away.
  #24  
Old November 28th, 2011, 11:36 AM
Midnightblues Midnightblues is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QFIT View Post
I have a problem with poverty, disease, and war too. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away.

Shocking how you refuse to take your own advice.

QFIT: " Don't read posts in a forum which has clearly been reserved for bad ideas."
  #25  
Old November 28th, 2011, 11:42 AM
QFIT's Avatar
QFIT QFIT is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NO LONGER HERE
Posts: 2,884
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnightblues View Post
Shocking how you refuse to take your own advice.

QFIT: " Don't read posts in a forum which has clearly been reserved for bad ideas."
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you knew I was talking to someone that did not understand the purpose of this forum and are just joking.
  #26  
Old November 28th, 2011, 02:15 PM
zengrifter's Avatar
zengrifter zengrifter is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 10,532
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QFIT View Post
Some figures for using Martingale as cover: http://www.qfit.com/blackjackblog/?p=337
Why does neg-progression underperform pos-progression as cover? Why would "only raise bet in +count after win" out perform "only raise bet in +count after loss?"

Notwithstanding, I stress "quasi-progression" and not the strict adhereance that your sims suggest. zg
  #27  
Old November 28th, 2011, 02:57 PM
21gunsalute 21gunsalute is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Area 51
Posts: 1,144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnightblues View Post
I posted this in the Voodoo forum specifically because Martingale is a fallacy and I wanted to know how the method I proposed would work. I believe it was a different type of question than the many martingale posts I read and thus decided to post it. Either way, How can you rant on someone for posting in a portion of the forum designated for this type of question?


If you have such a problem with these posts I suggest you take your own advice. Don't read them!
You were shown exactly how it would work. It fails miserably. Feel free to ask such questions here, but don't act offended when the truthful answer isn't what you might be looking for. This forum isn't for posting bad ideas that will go unchallenged, or for posting wrong information. Anyone who attempts to do so will be corrected, and that's exactly how it should be.
  #28  
Old November 28th, 2011, 03:03 PM
Sonny's Avatar
Sonny Sonny is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 4,748
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnightblues View Post
1. Is it advantageous in anyway to use a Martingale when you have a statistical advantage over the house?
Here's an old response:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?p=80421

-Sonny-
  #29  
Old November 28th, 2011, 03:08 PM
Midnightblues Midnightblues is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 21gunsalute View Post
You were shown exactly how it would work. It fails miserably. Feel free to ask such questions here, but don't act offended when the truthful answer isn't what you might be looking for. This forum isn't for posting bad ideas that will go unchallenged, or for posting wrong information. Anyone who attempts to do so will be corrected, and that's exactly how it should be.

What are you talking about? Did you even read the thread? Zerg posted a well-thought and reasoned critique of the idea and I thanked him for it as it was very helpful.

The post was a question looking by a for a serious and thoughtful response, not a statement to go unchallenged by any means. I am not offended by the useless "No, that won't work" statements. Conclusory statements without actual reasoning are simply not helpful thats all.

In the mean time, I appreciate the posters who give critique with actual reasoning behind it.

And for people that seem to be so annoyed with these posts, I say again, Don't read them!
  #30  
Old November 28th, 2011, 03:13 PM
Midnightblues Midnightblues is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny View Post
Thanks Sonnny. That is helpful. It is somewhat different than my proposed idea though, which is a quasi-martingale in that it only bets on advantages from a 1-4 unit spread. In other words, there is no chance of going broke like you mentioned.

However, I do see that this is still less than optimal as it is better to simply bet in proportion to your advantage, as someone explained here. Doesn't seem like a bad idea for camo every once and awhile though, eh?
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:26 PM.


Forum Software vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005-2011 Bayview Strategies LLC