Doubling bet after a losing hand..

[Kasi]

After reading your post I dicided to make a simple sim. I let this simple sim run until it lost. The simed player started with $100,000 and with a minimum bet of $1. You think he cant lose? well he did. These are the numbers:

Highest amount of cash reached: $150,000 +/-
Number of hands played before reaching $150,000: 100,000
Number of hands played before losing: 557261
House edge: 0.0%
Highest bet: $65,536

Oh and if the player doesnt have enough money to double the bet he goes back down to $1.

This just proves that if your careful you can earn $50,000 in 100,000 hands although if your playing 50 hands an hour your only earning $25 an hour. So now next time you have 100 grand lying around you know what to do with it :devil:

Thanks Moon - was this for a coin flip?

And if u were talking to me, I never said he can't lose.

Any chance u know the total wagered?

 

[Turtleman]

After over 22 years of playing BJ, I finally witnessed a player using a (slightly modified) Martingale at the Fremont last month. He started at $5 and increased bets after each loss. Strange thing though, he went up to $7 after the first $5 loss, and then started doubling his bets after subsequent losses. It was quite a show to see someone actually placing $100 plus bets chasing losses to come out a dollar or two ahead. After a win, he'd resume betting at $5. I was actually hoping he'd lose just to see if his next bet was as predicted; it always was, and soon found myself concentrating more on his play than my own!

After he managed to lose what he brought to the table, I thought he was going to leave, but he drew a handful of black chips out of his pocket and continued playing. I expected to witness a total meltdown, but he quickly recovered his previous losses and left with a profit. Prior to putting on the above-mentioned "floor show," he plopped down at my table a half-hour earlier, placed a single $100 bet, lost, and scampered off. Most rabbits don't hop as often as this guy!

As is usually the case, I don't have a clue regarding this player's background and past victories and defeats. All I know for sure is that he was an older, somewhat chubby guy who looked like he was in constant misery (terminal hemorrhoids perhaps) with some type of foreign (maybe Russian or eastern European) accent. He wasn't much on conversation and would never have received the most cordial player of the day award.

As far as trying this system for real … NEVER!!! I learned a long time ago exactly how many hands you can lose in a row – all of them! :grin: T-1

 

[Tarzan]

Martingale Does Not Work...

...in the long haul. Eventually the casino will whack you and roll off your last 4 months of hard-earned bankroll in one or two shoes if you rely on this alone for any supposed advantage or strategic value in itself with no other factors. There are people out there that wish to sell you the amazing "Target" system for like...$450.00 and others like it that have the claim to fame of "being able to play advantage blackjack without counting cards". Unfortunately, this is mathematically impossible. The "amazing systems" that enable you to win without tracking put heavy emphasis on betting strategy and what is a martingale betting progression or a few other known betting progression systems. Cool catch phrases and some cool "techno-speak" stuff are in this course(from what I hear anyway) but it has been evaluated by Stanford Wong, Arnold Snyder and others and has been shown to be impossible to mathematically prove on computer simulations as to any real validity.
I play roughly 30 hours a week in Atlantic City and have seen people get ruined from betting progressions. I watched a guy some months ago lose about 40,000 all in about an hour trying to use a betting progression. He lost...and lost...and lost some more. Ultimately he went on tilt and started doing max bets on two spots. To this day I wonder if he was the one I heard about that did a swan dive off the parking garage.....

 

[ihate17]

Only for players who have not played very long

Martingale will eventually kill you and you should thank the casinos for having table limits.
In 30 years of play, I have lost over 20 straight hands 5 times, with the most recent one and largest streak coming a few weeks ago. So, my only statement is martingale one of those streaks!

As far as smaller streaks go, statistically, in 24 hours of blackjack play you should have one streak of of 10 straight.

ihate17

 

[GeorgeD]

Martingale will eventually kill you and you should thank the casinos for having table limits.
In 30 years of play, I have lost over 20 straight hands 5 times, with the most recent one and largest streak coming a few weeks ago. So, my only statement is martingale one of those streaks!

As far as smaller streaks go, statistically, in 24 hours of blackjack play you should have one streak of of 10 straight.

ihate17

in a straight martingale betting $10, I only win $100 in a streak of 10 wins. Four straight loses and I lose $150-$10=down 140. With a typical 43% win 48% loss rate that doesn't seem too encouraging.

Make that last loss a double and I'm out $230-10 down 220

If I also double the 10 wins and go back to 10 after a loss then I win $8360. (if I don't hit the table max) Lot to risk and my win rate is only 5310 at 9 wins and !270 at 7. Guess if that $8630 was doubled I'd hit $17260. Not as likely as the 10 wins, and will eat you up in the end.


How can people not see this? Either way you have to win more hands than you lose and that's not likely in even a moderately long session

 

[AnIrishmannot2brite]

Martingale wannabees should go to the video poker with the "Double up" feature. At least there won't be any house edge on the double up.

 

[CowCantFly]

martingale betting!!!

doubling your bet is a good idea. i did that and win about $400.
so if i bet $10 and lost i ll bet $20 and follow by $40. however, i stop at $40 even if i lose so ill go back at $10 again. because i dont have bottomless amount of money. i also have something in doubt as when i have 15 and dealer have 10 in one of the card should i hit or stand?? i am unsure about it.... but i m sure about Martingale betting system is great. i usually stop when i have earn about few hundred of grand.

 

[Deathangl13]

Is exactly 0, unless you have two little itty bitty things.
1. A casino with no table limits
2. An unlimited bankroll.

6 hands in a row is, sorry but is a joke. In a period of less than 24 hours of blackjack, statistically you should have one losing streak of at least 10 hands. This past weekend, in 16 hours of play I had 4 different streaks of at least 10 straight loses and the biggest was about 15 hands.
What the system will give you is a ton of small wins which must be eventually followed by just one losing streak that wipes it all out.
Your 7th loss $640
8th loss $1280
9th loss $2560
10th loss $5,120
11th loss $10,240

My biggest losing streak took place over three different tables, with dinner in between, but was 23 hands, plus I have had 2 other streaks of over 20 that I remember. Interestingly, in two of the three instances I finished the day a winner and not losing the national budget. Of course if you played Martingale and just kept going, I would take a guess that you could never lose 23 in a row while using the system, no one I know has that much to lose.

The system has been around forever. People actually used to sell it and some may still do so, but just about every gambler comes up with the idea.

Final point: While casinos try to stop cardcounters and other types of advantage players from playing, they do in fact comp progression players very well. (That is only the casinos with table limits)

ihate17

Dude, with the probability of losing that many hands in a row being negative%, you should've definitely played the lotto.... The odds would've been better....

I know this thread is older than dirt, but I couldn't resist....

 

[winr_winr_chicken_dinner!]

Paging Dr. Martingale...

If anyone is crazy enough to go for it, Bally's might be your spot... $5 min to $5000 max tables according to CBJN - 8 deckers though... The better the spread between min and max the better your odds are of not getting killed before making a dollar or two - of course the odds aren't good I'll be eaten by a grizzly bear anytime soon either, but I sure as heck ain't gonna' walk around in the woods with a chuck roast tied around my neck...

Edit... Golden Nugget listed @ $5 to $15K ... 11 losses in a row will win you the table max prize!


Good luck! You're going to need it!

 

[ihate17]

Been playing a long time

Dude, with the probability of losing that many hands in a row being negative%, you should've definitely played the lotto.... The odds would've been better....

I know this thread is older than dirt, but I couldn't resist....

Been an AP for over 30 years and have logged a ton of hours. Since that post (about 23 in a row) I actually had a streak that was longer.
The point though was the person I was responding too stated something along the lines that losing 6 straight was highly unlikely and I wanted to let him know that every experiienced blackjack player will tell him that it is not only not unlikely but in fact is very likely.

ihate17

 

[AnIrishmannot2brite]

Sooner or later anyway. That 2 percent house edge feels like 90% sometimes.

But I can't stand eight deck shoes. Would hardly ever play a six deck one either. I'm a double and single deck guy only. Looking for a late late game or early early game heads up with the dealer. Preferably a fast fast one.

Heads up ONLY. Otherwise I consider them a waste of time. With that speedy dealer i don't have much time before he/she may expose my tricks. or at least this is the way i feel.

But most of my doubling of bets is done as cover. Perhaps i may triple or quad a few in very positive situations though.

 

[aslan]

Been an AP for over 30 years and have logged a ton of hours. Since that post (about 23 in a row) I actually had a streak that was longer.
The point though was the person I was responding too stated something along the lines that losing 6 straight was highly unlikely and I wanted to let him know that every experiienced blackjack player will tell him that it is not only not unlikely but in fact is very likely.

ihate17

...sooner or later.

 

[clearmist]

hey question.

hey i have a question. i am from canada. and i tested the martingaling in a casino it worked for the most part you just need to know when to quit.. but there were times you walked out losing everything...

now here is the question.

i was looking at roolet (bad spelling) and i was thinking 5 on black 10 on black 20 on black. then eventualy winning and getting all your winnings.

because as long as you win one of the bets you only progress.

now my buddy was like why dont you put 5 on black and 5 on red??? thus your winning on both of them.. if it hits red or black you get your winnings thus if you do the math and work it out your winning 5 $ per spin... now here is my question it takes 16 spins to make 80$ and 5 losses in a row to get to $80. so if i make 11 spins and win. then i make my 80$ i was thinking if i lost to 80$ and went back to 5$ again... is that good odds? like since i am winning 5 every spin. instead of blackjack. on how i would be winning only every time i hit.. and only my original bet.. this way i would be winning 2times. i guess i just wanna know. will i be walking out with money?? cause

when i did martingailing with 6 of my buddys 4 came out with double or more there money. and 2 walked out with nothing. and that was a card game.

this other way is differnt tho cause if i lose 5 in a row and lose my 80$ on the other side i won 5 in a row and won 25$ so i only actually lost 55$

 

[clearmist]

um add on from last comment

what i want to know am i more likely to win the 80. b4 losing the 80? i dont know how to calculate the odds

 

[muppet]

you are more likely to lose your $80

 

[assume_R]

now my buddy was like why dont you put 5 on black and 5 on red??? thus your winning on both of them.. if it hits red or black you get your winnings thus if you do the math and work it out your winning 5 $ per spin...

First of all, that is incorrect math. Think about it:

You bet:
$5 on red, $5 on black (betting $10 total)

Possible Outcome #1: Red hits. Result? You win $5 for your bet on red, and lose that $5 you put on black, giving you exactly $10 (what you started with)
Possible Outcome #2: Black hits. Result? You win $5 for your bet on black, and lose that $5 you put on red, giving you exactly $10 (what you started with)
Possible Outcome #3: Green hits. Result? You lose $10.

In none of those scenarios are you up any money.

Second of all, if you just bet red or black, or anything with odds like that, you'll be on average even, except with those greens hit. The casino's make money from roulette mostly because of payoffs that aren't exactly what the odds are in some spots on the board, and whenever a green hits (2 out of the 38 spots, so 1/19 times) almost the whole table loses everything.

 

[aslan]

First of all, that is incorrect math. Think about it:

You bet:
$5 on red, $5 on black (betting $10 total)

Possible Outcome #1: Red hits. Result? You win $5 for your bet on red, and lose that $5 you put on black, giving you exactly $10 (what you started with)
Possible Outcome #2: Black hits. Result? You win $5 for your bet on black, and lose that $5 you put on red, giving you exactly $10 (what you started with)
Possible Outcome #3: Green hits. Result? You lose $10.

In none of those scenarios are you up any money.

Second of all, if you just bet red or black, or anything with odds like that, you'll be on average even, except with those greens hit. The casino's make money from roulette mostly because of payoffs that aren't exactly what the odds are in some spots on the board, and whenever a green hits (2 out of the 38 spots, so 1/19 times) almost the whole table loses everything.

I think clearmist was trying to say bet $5 on red and $5 on black, but martingale the red side of the bet, so in the end if he lost all five red, he would only be down $55, not $80. It's a bad way to slow down the hemorrhage, since eventual death is certain. If the house limit in this example happens to be $1,000, it will not afford you even a single extra bet by adopting this failing stratagem. What good will it do, if at the end of nine bets, you are $1,280 down on one side and $45 up on the other?

 

[assume_R]

Ah, thanks aslan for clarifying, yes that would indeed slow down the hemorrhage. You could even slow it down more by splitting up your martingale bets between red and even, for example. But as you stated, it is a losing stratagem. The only question is how fast, on average, you will lose. Well, roulette is a losing game if you're not cheating no matter which stratagem you use.

 

[clearmist]

hey

well i was testing it out on an online roulette table.

i found it wasnt working to well..


but!! what i did find work well

was martin galeing each of the 2/1 odds games if you martingaled it like this..

5 in all 3 lanes

lose 2 and one wins

10 in 2 of the losing.

then 15 in the losing

then 20 in the losing

then 40

then 80

then when you reach 80 you start from scratch 5 in all 3 again. or try it an 80 again if you hit the 2nd 80 you get back to your original amount.

but its a big about to do 80 twice but sometimes it pays off. i found i was going up 400 down 200 up 400 down 200 so i was going up and up and up but recommend starting with minimum 250$ i was testing and testing and $150 was hard to get up and out of small amout cause you cant put down the 40 and 80..


well actually going to 40 is ok. reason why this works. cause alot of the time you win enought in the other 2 lanes to compencate for the loss in the 3rd lane. + the chance to win big with the 3rd lane

 

[aslan]

well i was testing it out on an online roulette table.

i found it wasnt working to well..


but!! what i did find work well

was martin galeing each of the 2/1 odds games if you martingaled it like this..

5 in all 3 lanes

lose 2 and one wins

10 in 2 of the losing.

then 15 in the losing

then 20 in the losing

then 40

then 80

then when you reach 80 you start from scratch 5 in all 3 again. or try it an 80 again if you hit the 2nd 80 you get back to your original amount.

but its a big about to do 80 twice but sometimes it pays off. i found i was going up 400 down 200 up 400 down 200 so i was going up and up and up but recommend starting with minimum 250$ i was testing and testing and $150 was hard to get up and out of small amout cause you cant put down the 40 and 80..


well actually going to 40 is ok. reason why this works. cause alot of the time you win enought in the other 2 lanes to compencate for the loss in the 3rd lane. + the chance to win big with the 3rd lane

If you find you are repeatedly going up 400 and down 200, then be prepared for the INEVITABLE "up 200, down 400" segment of the bell curve, 'cause that's all it is! Throw in the zero and double zero and you are well on your way to Broke City.