21gunsalute said:
Happened again tonight. Must be the curse of Spock! 
How would this betting strategy not work
- Thread starter I split tens every time
- Start date
There is one good way of getting rid of that curse. You must make or buy a pair of 'Spock ears' and wear them for 24 hrs. straight. Be careful when you wear them in the casino for they may want you to remove them which would cancel your attempt. Good luck.
why martingale ?
i have read a lot of these posts and they dont make sense to me .i am a basic strategy player ,dont count .i play about once a month.i dont understand why anyone would raise their bets on a losing streak. i understand that counters bet according to the count.i mean anyone else.i understand the martingale system.it makes no sense to me.after a loss i always drop back to my base bet. i increase my bet after a winning hand(i always increase after the second winning bet) i keep increasing after each succesive winning bet.not doubling.say it was 10 then i would go to 15 then 20-30-50-75-100 and so on.the highest i got to was 300.lost then went back to 10. i rarely have a losing session. any thoughts on this type betting pattern ?
i have read a lot of these posts and they dont make sense to me .i am a basic strategy player ,dont count .i play about once a month.i dont understand why anyone would raise their bets on a losing streak. i understand that counters bet according to the count.i mean anyone else.i understand the martingale system.it makes no sense to me.after a loss i always drop back to my base bet. i increase my bet after a winning hand(i always increase after the second winning bet) i keep increasing after each succesive winning bet.not doubling.say it was 10 then i would go to 15 then 20-30-50-75-100 and so on.the highest i got to was 300.lost then went back to 10. i rarely have a losing session. any thoughts on this type betting pattern ?
You mentioned the word streak. A streak is only discernible after the fact. At any point along the way, it may end on the next hand. Raising your bet on a losing streak is no more risky than raising your bet on a winning streak.
Increasing your bet after a winning hand is the best of all the losing progression betting schemes. You at least have a chance to parlay your money into a substantial win, unlike the negative progressions where you risk huge amounts to win minuscule amounts. I know many gamblers who are not APs but who have at least learned how to play so that occasionally they win large amounts of cash. Over time, however, they invariably lose more than they win.
Increasing your bet after a winning hand is the best of all the losing progression betting schemes. You at least have a chance to parlay your money into a substantial win, unlike the negative progressions where you risk huge amounts to win minuscule amounts. I know many gamblers who are not APs but who have at least learned how to play so that occasionally they win large amounts of cash. Over time, however, they invariably lose more than they win.
What most people perceive as streaks are just wins (or losses) occuring in sequence. In most games (especially roulette and slots), this is purely random property (some people call it variance), and the frequency of those "streaks" can be perfectly explained by probabilities of independent hands.
However there are games where streaks are real, think of a game between two player with a (strong) favor for one player (i.e. he is the one acting last) - with the rule that the winning player has the favor for the next game.
In such a game, streaks ARE real, there is a clustering of wins and a clustering of losses (because you are more likely to win if you have won before (carrying the favor), and hence you are more likely to lose when you lost before.
On roulette with independent spins, certainly there are no (other than purely random) streaks.
From my understanding of Blackjack there should be (to a very small amount) anti-streaky. Blackjack games are not memoryless (because of the shoe), and hence not necessarily streak-less. The chance of winning a hand depends on the composition of the shoe, and with an excess of high cards you are more likely to win. However after you did win - which has happened more likely with high cards - the shoe is more likely to have less high cards, and you are more likely to lose. Think of a natural, once you got one (and won the hand), chance of getting another one decreases immediatly (because an ace is removed).
But I don't think such an anti-streaky behaviour can ever be noticed without a very large number of hands played (asking for a sim), or has any practical value in terms of progression systems...
However there are games where streaks are real, think of a game between two player with a (strong) favor for one player (i.e. he is the one acting last) - with the rule that the winning player has the favor for the next game.
In such a game, streaks ARE real, there is a clustering of wins and a clustering of losses (because you are more likely to win if you have won before (carrying the favor), and hence you are more likely to lose when you lost before.
On roulette with independent spins, certainly there are no (other than purely random) streaks.
From my understanding of Blackjack there should be (to a very small amount) anti-streaky. Blackjack games are not memoryless (because of the shoe), and hence not necessarily streak-less. The chance of winning a hand depends on the composition of the shoe, and with an excess of high cards you are more likely to win. However after you did win - which has happened more likely with high cards - the shoe is more likely to have less high cards, and you are more likely to lose. Think of a natural, once you got one (and won the hand), chance of getting another one decreases immediatly (because an ace is removed).
But I don't think such an anti-streaky behaviour can ever be noticed without a very large number of hands played (asking for a sim), or has any practical value in terms of progression systems...
The thing about blackjack is that even when the count is positive, the house still has the number-of-winning-hands edge, that is, the house is still favored to win the majority of hands. Therefore, you won't get any predictable streaks of wins as a player, only streaks of winning more splits, double downs and getting more blackjacks.
I came up with a similar betting scheme a few months ago just out of curiosity. I played a few thousand hands on the basic strategy trainer, 6 decks, h17, DOA. I would bet 1 unit until I won twice in a row. Then I would bet 2 units, then 3, then 4, etc....until I pushed, lost at least one of two split hands, or lost. I would go down to about 800 then surge back to even or a little positive and slowly lose.
The first time I simmed it at home using chips and one deck just for fun, I quadrupled my money super fast.
However, keep in mind that the advantage from a positive shoe only exists from doubling, splitting, and blackjacks paying 3:2. You still win about 43% of your hands, just the hands you do win have a much higher percentage of successful doubling splitting and blackjacks (not to mention insurance I suppose).
Basically, for the non AP, that is the best progression system. A bunch of little losses offset by the occasional gigantic win. Martingale is a bunch of little wins offset by the occasional gigantic loss.
Would you rather win a tiny bit often, then lose a ton on a bad streak, or lose the minimum on a bad streak and be betting huge during an amazing streak?
You won't win long run, but it would be hard to tell through the joy of your large wins.
The first time I simmed it at home using chips and one deck just for fun, I quadrupled my money super fast.
However, keep in mind that the advantage from a positive shoe only exists from doubling, splitting, and blackjacks paying 3:2. You still win about 43% of your hands, just the hands you do win have a much higher percentage of successful doubling splitting and blackjacks (not to mention insurance I suppose).
Basically, for the non AP, that is the best progression system. A bunch of little losses offset by the occasional gigantic win. Martingale is a bunch of little wins offset by the occasional gigantic loss.
Would you rather win a tiny bit often, then lose a ton on a bad streak, or lose the minimum on a bad streak and be betting huge during an amazing streak?
You won't win long run, but it would be hard to tell through the joy of your large wins.
Truly the choice of serious non-AP gamblers the world over. They lust for the occasional large win. The little losses over time, they can tolerate... the one gigantic win seems to make it all right, worth past pain and all the waiting. This time they are really "due"! They don't keep records, or they'd see they usually break even (oops! except for the house edge!! ). :laugh: And who knows, if they get lucky, they may win a few more gigantic ones than the average Joe. Hey! Luck! That's what it's all about, right?! It is for them. In every large and dangerous bet they have their eyes glued on how it could have been, if only.... And sometimes it is. That's what they live for! Not to mention the feeling of laying it all on the line...WIN :grin: ...or... LOSE :sad: ! Ah, the joys of gambling (and sometimes living in your car) !
). :laugh: And who knows, if they get lucky, they may win a few more gigantic ones than the average Joe. Hey! Luck! That's what it's all about, right?! It is for them. In every large and dangerous bet they have their eyes glued on how it could have been, if only.... And sometimes it is. That's what they live for! Not to mention the feeling of laying it all on the line...WIN :grin: ...or... LOSE :sad: ! Ah, the joys of gambling (and sometimes living in your car) !progressive bettor
i do keep track of how i play.winning is my objective ,but after i get comped for my room and meal ,breaking even isnt so bad.i usually play once a month , and over the last three years ,i am up low four figures.not enough to retire or quit my day job, but enough to have fun .i dont risk my bankroll since i only bet my base bet after a loss.even a long losing streak, i only bet the base bet.i dont mind losing a big bet ,since that means i was on a good streak .
i do keep track of how i play.winning is my objective ,but after i get comped for my room and meal ,breaking even isnt so bad.i usually play once a month , and over the last three years ,i am up low four figures.not enough to retire or quit my day job, but enough to have fun .i dont risk my bankroll since i only bet my base bet after a loss.even a long losing streak, i only bet the base bet.i dont mind losing a big bet ,since that means i was on a good streak .