Search BlackjackInfo

 Blackjack and Card Counting Forums - BlackjackInfo.com Martingale still a fallacy when you have statistical advantage?
 FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

#21
November 28th, 2011, 11:05 AM
 QFIT Executive Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: NO LONGER HERE Posts: 2,884

Some figures for using Martingale as cover: http://www.qfit.com/blackjackblog/?p=337
#22
November 28th, 2011, 11:57 AM
 Midnightblues Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 16

Quote:
 Originally Posted by QFIT 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
November 28th, 2011, 12:01 PM
 QFIT Executive Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: NO LONGER HERE Posts: 2,884

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Midnightblues 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
November 28th, 2011, 12:36 PM
 Midnightblues Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 16

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

QFIT: " Don't read posts in a forum which has clearly been reserved for bad ideas."
#25
November 28th, 2011, 12:42 PM
 QFIT Executive Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: NO LONGER HERE Posts: 2,884

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Midnightblues 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
November 28th, 2011, 03:15 PM
 zengrifter Executive Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: SoCal Posts: 10,532

Quote:
 Originally Posted by QFIT 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
November 28th, 2011, 03:57 PM
 21gunsalute Executive Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Area 51 Posts: 1,144

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Midnightblues 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
November 28th, 2011, 04:03 PM
 Sonny Moderator Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 4,748

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

-Sonny-
#29
November 28th, 2011, 04:08 PM
 Midnightblues Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 16

Quote:
 Originally Posted by 21gunsalute 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
November 28th, 2011, 04:13 PM
 Midnightblues Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 16

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Sonny Here's an old response: http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?p=80421 -Sonny-
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 Linear Mode

 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 Rules
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Welcome to the BlackjackInfo Forums     Site Announcements Blackjack Forums     Blackjack - General     Blackjack - Voodoo Betting Strategies     Blackjack - Card Counting     Blackjack - Advanced Strategies     Blackjack - Variations     Blackjack - Theory and Math     Blackjack - Online Casinos     Blackjack - Stories Land Based Casinos     Las Vegas     Nevada - Outside Vegas     Eastern US     Southern US     Midwest US     Western US     Canada     Australia     Europe     Asia, Africa & Far East     Caribbean & Latin America Online Casinos     Reputable Casinos     Problem Casinos     Latest Promotions Miscellaneous     Other Games     Gambling Law     Blackjack in the Media     Site Discussion     News     Sports Betting     Investing and Financial     Anything Else

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:55 AM.