Double your bet every time you lose.

[ck85abc3]

Simply double your bet every time you lose and when you win you will be ahead. For this to work there would have to be a lot of tables around with a wide range of possible betting.

Your chances of losing 20 in a row is practically 0. You would need a bankrole of like 2million though.

 

[Sonny]

Your chances of losing 20 in a row is practically 0.

The problem is that the odds may be slim, but they are not zero. You will definitely lose 20 hands in a row if you play long enough (many of us have done it several times), at which point you will go broke. That is the main reason that this system is a loser in the long run.

You would need a bankrole of like 2million though.

You would also need the casino to get rid of their max bet limits in order to double-up after losing several hands in a row (including splits, doubles, and both). Here are a few recent posts about this system (we seem to get a new one every few days!):

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=2488
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=2807

-Sonny-

 

[ihate17]

Yes it works, but to work you just need two minor things

The 2 little itty bitty things you need you do not have!

You need an unlimited bankroll
You need a casino with no maximums on their tables

Then after you have lost 20 in a row and you luck out and win your 21st bet of just $5,242,880, you will be up a whopping $5.

I have lost over 20 hands in a row at least 3 times in my life, so it happens. I have probably lost over 10 in a row hundreds of times, your $5 can be made on your 11th bet by only betting $5,120.

Statistics show that in a period of a little over 1,000 hands or around 20 or so hours of blackjack, you should have a 10 hand losing streak.

The martingale system will give you loads of small winning sessions but your losing ones will wipe out all those small wins.

ihate17

 

[QFIT]

Actually, it fails even with an infinite bankroll, infinite table limits and an infinite amount of time. You will lose an infinite amount. This is in addition to the fact that you would need to bring an infinite amount of money to the casino whcih would take an infininte amount of space and lose an infinite amount of interest.

 

[shadroch]

Actually, it fails even with an infinite bankroll, infinite table limits and an infinite amount of time. You will lose an infinite amount. This is in addition to the fact that you would need to bring an infinite amount of money to the casino whcih would take an infininte amount of space and lose an infinite amount of interest.

Balderdash.
Someone having an infinite bankroll would easily qualify for an infinite line of credit,negating the need to bring said BR to the casino,eliminating the need for space and would not lose a dime of interest because in the end,he'd never owe the casino and his line of credit would never come due.
Don't discourage the guy. Its bad enough he needs to scrounge up the infinite bankroll and find a casino that has no limits.No need for red herrings like -infinite space to store your infinite bankroll.

 

[ortango]

You also need one more thing to win with this very interesting strategy. An alernate universe in which in over 80s years of blackjack, and thousands of years in gambling, you ARE THE FIRST ONE TO EVER THINK OF THIS AWESOME STRATEGY and apply it. All 1 trillion other humans who are on earth and in heaven bow to your amazing insight and simultaneously think... "why didn't I think of that?"

You guys have to admit, I came up with decent one this time. Anyone want to make a collection of smartass Martingale retorts? :whip:

 

[QFIT]

The problem with an infinite bankroll is that if you bet it and lose, you have nothing. But if you bet it and win, you still have an infinite bankroll.

 

[ScottH]

The problem with an infinite bankroll is that if you bet it and lose, you have nothing. But if you bet it and win, you still have an infinite bankroll.

The only problem is the stupid person feeling the need to gamble for money with an infinite amount of it.

 

[sagefr0g]

The only problem is the stupid person feeling the need to gamble for money with an infinite amount of it.

:laugh: it's human nature you always want more, more, more!

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[shadroch]

To Infinety....and Beyond!

 

[Liquid Chips]

Leaving the hidey hole again....

The only way I would ever use the Martingale progression is waiting until I get a win, THEN do a Martingale wager. If you lose, then back to the minimum bet until you get another win and continue again with the Martingale wager. You would lose if you never get two or more wins in a row but a bunch of one wins standing by themselves amongst the losses. So I further adjust by only using the modified Martingale above when I am regularly getting at least two wins in a row. I still further adjust if I suddenly lose 3 Martingale wagers in a row by just betting minimums until I again start winning more than one hand in a row. If this fails, then it's not your night. Come back again the next night or go the another table or start again on the next shoe. I have more winning sessions that make up for the losing sessions.

Back to my hidey hole.....

 

[Sonny]

The only way I would ever use the Martingale progression is waiting until I get a win, THEN do a Martingale wager...You would lose if you never get two or more wins in a row but a bunch of one wins standing by themselves amongst the losses.

You would also lose if you win significantly less hands than you lose. Unfortunately, that is the case. The variance of the Anti-Martingale system may be lower but the overall results will be exactly the same. If you want a "safe" progression system (if there is such a thing!) you might think about a nice slow one like Oscar's Grind...or the safest progression system there is: Sonny's Grind. Just bet 1 unit until you lose two in a row, then bet 1 unit after that until you win, then go back to betting 1 unit.

So I further adjust by only using the modified Martingale above when I am regularly getting at least two wins in a row. I still further adjust if I suddenly lose 3 Martingale wagers in a row by just betting minimums until I again start winning more than one hand in a row. If this fails, then it's not your night. Come back again the next night or go the another table or start again on the next shoe.

That sounds almost as complicated as card counting!

I have more winning sessions that make up for the losing sessions.

One slight correction: You have more winning sessions which almost make up for the losing sessions. Your small frequent wins will not overcome the occasional large losses. You are still fighting the same house edge as everyone else and losing the same amount of money, just at different times.

-Sonny-

 

[mattmd]

----------