Someone please De-Bunk this system before I take out a second mortgage
- Thread starter AsparaChief
- Start date
Peace On
Folks, the reality of the Martingale negative progression, or basically any progression, is that it gives you no more or no less advantage than flat betting. It's the truth! Short term, anything can happen and Martingale can for extended short term runs, give the player a slight win. But long term, you are eventually going to lose that BIG ONE and wipe out those small overall wins. In the end you can expect to lose whatever the advantage to the house the game employs. Somewhere between .14% and .70% of the TOTAL amount wagered. Percentage wise, you will come out even with flat betting, however, that assumes that you have a large enough bankroll to play the progression without restriction of table limits. It's that TOTAL amount wagered that will get you. Flat betting, you will lose the same percentage but it is a lot smaller percentage than Martingale or any other progression.
Folks, the reality of the Martingale negative progression, or basically any progression, is that it gives you no more or no less advantage than flat betting. It's the truth! Short term, anything can happen and Martingale can for extended short term runs, give the player a slight win. But long term, you are eventually going to lose that BIG ONE and wipe out those small overall wins. In the end you can expect to lose whatever the advantage to the house the game employs. Somewhere between .14% and .70% of the TOTAL amount wagered. Percentage wise, you will come out even with flat betting, however, that assumes that you have a large enough bankroll to play the progression without restriction of table limits. It's that TOTAL amount wagered that will get you. Flat betting, you will lose the same percentage but it is a lot smaller percentage than Martingale or any other progression.
Will someone do the math for me and prove that this does not work?
7,7,15,30,60,125,250,500 start over if another loss...Everyway I look at it, it will make money maybe slowly, but in the long run, it will make money. I respect everything you all are explaining, but Id like to see the math to back it up.
7,7,15,30,60,125,250,500 start over if another loss...Everyway I look at it, it will make money maybe slowly, but in the long run, it will make money. I respect everything you all are explaining, but Id like to see the math to back it up.
Remember the story of the King who nearly lost his kingdom because he agreed, for one month only, to double the previous day's pay for services of person, starting with only 1 penny for the first day? Blackjack with Martingale can do that to you, take your 'kingdom' away.
In theory, Martingale works with unlimited money, but if you had unlimited money, why be gambling? Because you have limited money.
If you have the bankroll to endure a number of streaks of 8 losing hands in a row, then maybe it can work for you. BUT you must have a plan for the winning side too. If you lose 8 in a row, you have lost a total of $994 up to that point. Now, you go on a winning streak....what are you going to do? Flat bet $7 until the next loss and start the Martingale again?? $994 divided by $7 is 142. To get back that $994 you lost, you are going to have to be 142 wins on the plus side from thereon, provided you flat bet $7 on wins. This way you are practically waiting for another losing streak to have a thrill ride on.
One way to do this is to bet $987 on the next hand, hoping for a double win. If you lost then you are practically twice in the hole than before. I wouldn't restart the Martingale from $987!!!! You are better off just flatbetting the minimum, waiting for another win and betting the total of your losses up to that point, hoping for a double win, which theoretically eventaully happens. This can work if you have a big enough bankroll.
I hope this can give you something to think about.
In theory, Martingale works with unlimited money, but if you had unlimited money, why be gambling? Because you have limited money.
If you have the bankroll to endure a number of streaks of 8 losing hands in a row, then maybe it can work for you. BUT you must have a plan for the winning side too. If you lose 8 in a row, you have lost a total of $994 up to that point. Now, you go on a winning streak....what are you going to do? Flat bet $7 until the next loss and start the Martingale again?? $994 divided by $7 is 142. To get back that $994 you lost, you are going to have to be 142 wins on the plus side from thereon, provided you flat bet $7 on wins. This way you are practically waiting for another losing streak to have a thrill ride on.
One way to do this is to bet $987 on the next hand, hoping for a double win. If you lost then you are practically twice in the hole than before. I wouldn't restart the Martingale from $987!!!! You are better off just flatbetting the minimum, waiting for another win and betting the total of your losses up to that point, hoping for a double win, which theoretically eventaully happens. This can work if you have a big enough bankroll.
I hope this can give you something to think about.
One thing to consider.
On any given hand,you are a 53-47 underdog in BJ.
ANY HAND.
On your first hand you are 53-47 dog.
On your fourth hand,you are a 53-47 dog.
Suppose you lose 8 hands in a row,what are your odds of losing the next hand?53-47 against.
Neither the dealer nor the cards will know or care that you've lost 6 in a row and the odds of losing 7 in a row are huge. They are concerned only with your latest bet,and you having $128 or $256 or $512 out on the table doesn't affect your odds either. Its still 53-47 against.
On any given hand,you are a 53-47 underdog in BJ.
ANY HAND.
On your first hand you are 53-47 dog.
On your fourth hand,you are a 53-47 dog.
Suppose you lose 8 hands in a row,what are your odds of losing the next hand?53-47 against.
Neither the dealer nor the cards will know or care that you've lost 6 in a row and the odds of losing 7 in a row are huge. They are concerned only with your latest bet,and you having $128 or $256 or $512 out on the table doesn't affect your odds either. Its still 53-47 against.
Clarification of Original Post
I cant believe how many times I've seen people on this board first point out that the house always has a long term advantage, and then follow up by declaring the best strategy is grinding out small profits with flat bets. I'm sure the casinos are delighted with contradictory logic of these self-proclaimed experts.
The house has an advantage in the long term. This is undisputed.
The key to winning, I think, is maximizing your profits quickly. People have shown that losing streaks, though unlikely, are possible. But the same is true of winning streaks (as I implied in my original question). I think one key would be setting targets for quiting (or at least re-starting) and avoiding long sessions.
Assuming you double your bets every time, how about three rules: Quit if a) you double your money, b) get 3 consecutive wins, or C) 5 consecutive losses?
Could someone run that on a simulator?
I cant believe how many times I've seen people on this board first point out that the house always has a long term advantage, and then follow up by declaring the best strategy is grinding out small profits with flat bets. I'm sure the casinos are delighted with contradictory logic of these self-proclaimed experts.
The house has an advantage in the long term. This is undisputed.
The key to winning, I think, is maximizing your profits quickly. People have shown that losing streaks, though unlikely, are possible. But the same is true of winning streaks (as I implied in my original question). I think one key would be setting targets for quiting (or at least re-starting) and avoiding long sessions.
Assuming you double your bets every time, how about three rules: Quit if a) you double your money, b) get 3 consecutive wins, or C) 5 consecutive losses?
Could someone run that on a simulator?
**My responses
AsparaChief: I cant believe how many times I've seen people on this board first point out that the house always has a long term advantage, and then follow up by declaring the best strategy is grinding out small profits with flat bets.
**Only the uninformed would make a silly claim like that...
People have shown that losing streaks, though unlikely, are possible. But the same is true of winning streaks (as I implied in my original question). I think one key would be setting targets for quiting (or at least re-starting) and avoiding long sessions.
Assuming you double your bets every time, how about three rules: Quit if a) you double your money, b) get 3 consecutive wins, or C) 5 consecutive losses?
Could someone run that on a simulator?
**...and only the uninformed would request such a sim! With correct BS the house still has a .004 (approx) advantage. No hybrid combination of progression + stop loss/win will overcome it.
**BTW, Chief, do you even know correct BS? When is it correct to split 9s? (DON'T CHEAT AND LOOK IT UP!) zg
AsparaChief: I cant believe how many times I've seen people on this board first point out that the house always has a long term advantage, and then follow up by declaring the best strategy is grinding out small profits with flat bets.
**Only the uninformed would make a silly claim like that...
People have shown that losing streaks, though unlikely, are possible. But the same is true of winning streaks (as I implied in my original question). I think one key would be setting targets for quiting (or at least re-starting) and avoiding long sessions.
Assuming you double your bets every time, how about three rules: Quit if a) you double your money, b) get 3 consecutive wins, or C) 5 consecutive losses?
Could someone run that on a simulator?
**...and only the uninformed would request such a sim! With correct BS the house still has a .004 (approx) advantage. No hybrid combination of progression + stop loss/win will overcome it.
**BTW, Chief, do you even know correct BS? When is it correct to split 9s? (DON'T CHEAT AND LOOK IT UP!) zg
Chief, the only time I've seen people recommend flat betting for profit is on-line to get a bonus. Flat bet in a real casino (or on-line with no bonus) and your bankroll will slowly dwindle, as it will with any progression.
As for negative progression stop points, just figure it out: If I lose (ex.) 6 hands in a row, using a certain progression, how many hands will I have to win before another 6 hand losing streak to recoup that loss? It doesn't work. If it did, casinos would have had to have done something about it years ago. Play for fun at any on-line casino that offers it. Use any negative progression you like and play about 1,000 hands. See what happens.
As for negative progression stop points, just figure it out: If I lose (ex.) 6 hands in a row, using a certain progression, how many hands will I have to win before another 6 hand losing streak to recoup that loss? It doesn't work. If it did, casinos would have had to have done something about it years ago. Play for fun at any on-line casino that offers it. Use any negative progression you like and play about 1,000 hands. See what happens.
Can someone call the Doc to get this guy certified?!
You moron. Have a look at your bet progression, I just realised its not even a Martingale. I name it the Bullseye System.
Now some of the others have probably already noticed this, but I got so fired up about Martingales that I missed the point that you are using an even worse system.
If you bet 5 and lose, then bet 5 and lose again, you can never make a profit with a 10 bet, then 20 etc. This makes your system pointless.
I rest my case until further babblings are emitted from the moron.
You moron. Have a look at your bet progression, I just realised its not even a Martingale. I name it the Bullseye System.
Now some of the others have probably already noticed this, but I got so fired up about Martingales that I missed the point that you are using an even worse system.
If you bet 5 and lose, then bet 5 and lose again, you can never make a profit with a 10 bet, then 20 etc. This makes your system pointless.
I rest my case until further babblings are emitted from the moron.
I think you might have misunderstood and maybe they were saying flat betting is the best way to bet, because it will lose the least, because you are actually betting less over time.
The key to winning is to bet only where you have an advantage, as in card counting or something else that gives you an advantage. Everything else, any strategy etc, is just a different way of losing money, usally faster than flat betting.
The key to winning is to bet only where you have an advantage, as in card counting or something else that gives you an advantage. Everything else, any strategy etc, is just a different way of losing money, usally faster than flat betting.
For those who "flat bet", the objective is to lose less and extend the time of play on a BR. Variance will kick in every once in a while and allow a small profit. I would never suggest that anyone try to get rich by flat betting. I would suggest that method for the recreational player who goes into the casino hoping to have a good time without losing a lot of money.
There is no way to win this argument. Those who really believe in progressions are not going to be convinced that they will not be dependable enough to exploit until they hit a series of losing sessions. Typically, a progression bettor "gets down" and then chases his money and ends up losing even more. But then "chasing money" is the very definition of a Negative Progression.
I will not insult the poster who asked the question. I just hope that he has gleaned a little caution from all of this discussion.
There is no way to win this argument. Those who really believe in progressions are not going to be convinced that they will not be dependable enough to exploit until they hit a series of losing sessions. Typically, a progression bettor "gets down" and then chases his money and ends up losing even more. But then "chasing money" is the very definition of a Negative Progression.
I will not insult the poster who asked the question. I just hope that he has gleaned a little caution from all of this discussion.
Playing with Yahoo Money
Let me tell you a story. My wife used to play for FUN on a gambling site. She was using the play money and turned her initial $1000 into about $260,000. With such a great run, she decided to play with REAL money and opened an account with her credit card for $500 dollars. She lost all of her money within 30 minutes. It seems that it was much easier to hit on 16 and get a 5 with the play money. I'm not saying they cheated her, but I got the impression that the program they use to deal cards with play money is not the same one they use with real money.
Let me tell you a story. My wife used to play for FUN on a gambling site. She was using the play money and turned her initial $1000 into about $260,000. With such a great run, she decided to play with REAL money and opened an account with her credit card for $500 dollars. She lost all of her money within 30 minutes. It seems that it was much easier to hit on 16 and get a 5 with the play money. I'm not saying they cheated her, but I got the impression that the program they use to deal cards with play money is not the same one they use with real money.
Dont call me a moron punk. Look at the system and look at your own math, according to your nimbers this is a profitable system based strictly on numbers... Again I ask if anyone wishes to say it doesnt work prove it with math, back up your points..... The reason you wont, is because the numbers dont lie, and they are in my favor here...
bullseyeguy, You're having a hard time getting anyone with the necessary knowledge to run the simulation for you, because that group of people already know the answer.
No betting progression system can ever make a negative game a long-term winner for a player.
I suppose if I could cobble up a simulation in under half an hour tomorrow, I might consider it. But, I really hate to waste half an hour when I know the answer.
No betting progression system can ever make a negative game a long-term winner for a player.
I suppose if I could cobble up a simulation in under half an hour tomorrow, I might consider it. But, I really hate to waste half an hour when I know the answer.
You mnissed my point
I am not talking about Yahoo. Since they don't let you play with real $, who knows. I am talking about an example of a site that has free play and real play. They entice you in, with a program that lets you win, and then make you play against another program, that may or may not be 'rigged'. It holds true on everything, slots, 3 card poker, etc. Back to my wife. She now plays the slots for FUN on a number of sites. When I ask her how she did, she is always up many thousands of dollars. She goes to the Indian Casino's ,here in San Deigo, twice a week. When I ask her how she did, she ususlly responds with the answer most losers use, "I think I broke even or lost a little"
I am not talking about Yahoo. Since they don't let you play with real $, who knows. I am talking about an example of a site that has free play and real play. They entice you in, with a program that lets you win, and then make you play against another program, that may or may not be 'rigged'. It holds true on everything, slots, 3 card poker, etc. Back to my wife. She now plays the slots for FUN on a number of sites. When I ask her how she did, she is always up many thousands of dollars. She goes to the Indian Casino's ,here in San Deigo, twice a week. When I ask her how she did, she ususlly responds with the answer most losers use, "I think I broke even or lost a little"
neg progression experience
I have a post about neg progression betting in the Card Counting forum. Long story short..
It worked for me the first time, I won alot in very little time. I setup the same situation at home.. tried it 3 or 4 times, I lost ALL very quickly.
When your winning with Neg Progression it feels good and you have lots of options, you can keep playing, you can stop, you can put some of your money away, you can flat bet. When you lose you lose fast with one option, your done.
The only way to justify neg progression is the size of your bank roll. Personally I cant justify.
Im with zg, I love hearing about personal experiences. :joker:
haha, tedloc.. Im sure ive used that line before
I have a post about neg progression betting in the Card Counting forum. Long story short..
It worked for me the first time, I won alot in very little time. I setup the same situation at home.. tried it 3 or 4 times, I lost ALL very quickly.
When your winning with Neg Progression it feels good and you have lots of options, you can keep playing, you can stop, you can put some of your money away, you can flat bet. When you lose you lose fast with one option, your done.
The only way to justify neg progression is the size of your bank roll. Personally I cant justify.
Im with zg, I love hearing about personal experiences. :joker:
haha, tedloc.. Im sure ive used that line before