i guess what i am trying to say is if you branch out your martin galeling to 10 lanes. yess you might lose in 1 or 3 lanes but the other 7 will make up for the3 lossed ones. (if you dont go overboard in doubling) i remember going with 6 of my friends to a casino and all 6 of us martin galed. only 2 of them walked out with nothing the rest walked out with double or more there money.. *playing war 1/1 payout* (so technicly if you picture the people as differnt lanes.. 4 lanes come out with double or more there money. and 2 lose it all. but the 2 that lose it. can be payed back by the 4 + have extra. over all. considering there is that chance that all 6 just go on a huge losing streak
Doubling bet after a losing hand..
- Thread starter archer1131
- Start date
If you take the martingale out of martingale by finding ways to slow down the action and risk, then all you have effectively done is moved toward a flat bet or modest progression where the house edge will eventually eat you alive. There is no way to arrange your bets so that you escape the house edge----N-O W-A-Y. If you run a simulation of what you are saying, you will see it plain as day. You don't even need a simulation package where you can run a billion plays, just set it up on a spreadsheet and you will see what happens in a few hundred or thousand plays.
the thing is i have been doing simulations. with free online roulette tables. and i just keep going up and up.
if i start with 1000 i eventually make my way up to 2000 slowly 100 here another 100 there. its never a big fall. if you cap how far you martingale the 3 lanes due to it being 2/1 odds. when you hit you hit double. and your hitting double on all 3 lanes. sure one lane might make it to 40 or 80. but by the time it does that the other 2 lanes cover the loss.
if i start with 1000 i eventually make my way up to 2000 slowly 100 here another 100 there. its never a big fall. if you cap how far you martingale the 3 lanes due to it being 2/1 odds. when you hit you hit double. and your hitting double on all 3 lanes. sure one lane might make it to 40 or 80. but by the time it does that the other 2 lanes cover the loss.
Mathematically, you're either doing something wrong in your simulations or you just haven't done enough of them. House edge is impossible to defeat in the long run where house limits exist and bankrolls are limited, unless you have an advantage play. Martingales have been proven conclusively not to be an advantage play.
well. it does have a motive. but ive tried alot of things and i normaly lose it all but this way seems to be consistant.
(Dead link: http://casino-directory.lots0cash.com/roulette-play-free.htm)
i try to run my money down to like 300 b4 i start making it more relistic i wont walk into a casino with 1000$ credit. so i try not to do the simulator with 1000$
(Dead link: http://casino-directory.lots0cash.com/roulette-play-free.htm)
i try to run my money down to like 300 b4 i start making it more relistic i wont walk into a casino with 1000$ credit. so i try not to do the simulator with 1000$
Forget about the simulations. As Aslan said, the software may not be reliable and your methods of testing are not accurate. Read the sticky threads at the top of this forum. They will tell you everything you need to know. Learn about the Gambler's Fallacy. Any system based on it will obviously fail. You can't recognize a winning system if you don't understand what makes all of these systems losers. Once you understand the Gambler's Fallacy you will be able to spot a losing system from a mile away without having to waste time running simulations.
-Sonny-
-Sonny-
Scammer jammer
Reading through (at least some) of this thread I clicked on the link that went into Cipher's amazing system. It was very old stuff from way back in which LiquidChips was basically defending and advocating Cipher's amazing system (which is progression betting based on streaks and runs and total garbage)... but I saw in that just how Cipher's amazing system really and truly WORKS! Take your player, LiquidChips for example, and get them all psyched up that this sh*t really works somehow. Maybe you can even get them to endorse your amazing system (hoping that your candidate has never read Snyder's cute little "Swami Pastrami" story). If you can REALLY sell them as on this as being totally legit, perhaps they will really go to bat for you on blogs and various internet posts and such and then---- $20,000 later... the system has WORKED! The problem is that it only works for Cipher and not anyone else...
Reading back over those old threads that I hadn't seen previously brought to mind some things I wrote about Cipher and his amazing system way back when... betting progression based systems? Well, you can pretty up a pile of dog poop in a pretty package and perhaps add some perfume to mask the odor but ultimately when someone opens it up, they still have nothing more than a pile of dog poop!
I was a bit stunned at LiquidChips' comments back in that period of time having all the faith in the world about his buddy Cipher and his system. Look at what he was saying some period of time later and there's quite a different tune being sung!
Casinos love progression betting types because it's only a matter of time...
Reading through (at least some) of this thread I clicked on the link that went into Cipher's amazing system. It was very old stuff from way back in which LiquidChips was basically defending and advocating Cipher's amazing system (which is progression betting based on streaks and runs and total garbage)... but I saw in that just how Cipher's amazing system really and truly WORKS! Take your player, LiquidChips for example, and get them all psyched up that this sh*t really works somehow. Maybe you can even get them to endorse your amazing system (hoping that your candidate has never read Snyder's cute little "Swami Pastrami" story). If you can REALLY sell them as on this as being totally legit, perhaps they will really go to bat for you on blogs and various internet posts and such and then---- $20,000 later... the system has WORKED! The problem is that it only works for Cipher and not anyone else...
Reading back over those old threads that I hadn't seen previously brought to mind some things I wrote about Cipher and his amazing system way back when... betting progression based systems? Well, you can pretty up a pile of dog poop in a pretty package and perhaps add some perfume to mask the odor but ultimately when someone opens it up, they still have nothing more than a pile of dog poop!
I was a bit stunned at LiquidChips' comments back in that period of time having all the faith in the world about his buddy Cipher and his system. Look at what he was saying some period of time later and there's quite a different tune being sung!
Casinos love progression betting types because it's only a matter of time...
No doubt
Consider an event probability = p where p< 0.5
Consider two systems:
1) Martingale: Double bet after loss
2) Progression: Double bet after win
Consider two players P1 and P2 having infinite bankroll::
P1 playing system 1 - Martingale
P2 playing system 2 - Progression
case1: Both betting on an event to occur
case2: Both betting on an event not to occur
Since event is ALWAYS more probable not to occur IRRESPECTIVE of previous trials. Both will make Money in case 2. You must agree that they will make more money in case 2.
Now consider case 3 where
P1 playing system1 betting on event to occur
and P2 playing system2 betting on event not to occur
From eyeballing, you can see that P2 will make more money than P1.
Since P2 is ANTI-P1:
If P2 is making money, means P1 is losing money..
Consider an event probability = p where p< 0.5
Consider two systems:
1) Martingale: Double bet after loss
2) Progression: Double bet after win
Consider two players P1 and P2 having infinite bankroll::
P1 playing system 1 - Martingale
P2 playing system 2 - Progression
case1: Both betting on an event to occur
case2: Both betting on an event not to occur
Since event is ALWAYS more probable not to occur IRRESPECTIVE of previous trials. Both will make Money in case 2. You must agree that they will make more money in case 2.
Now consider case 3 where
P1 playing system1 betting on event to occur
and P2 playing system2 betting on event not to occur
From eyeballing, you can see that P2 will make more money than P1.
Since P2 is ANTI-P1:
If P2 is making money, means P1 is losing money..
Look at the graph carefully
Martingale player is not Winning All the time..
The graph is going up slowly and slowly, then all of a sudden: total bankroll will be -ive and Casino bankroll will be +ive..
PLayer's bankroll is +ive for most of the time but highly -ive for few events.
Average out the player's bankroll Vs Time in that graph =
area under graph Vs time, and it has to -ive (assuming game is -EV)
Consider 10 unit sample: player win 5,lose 5
1=+1
2=+2
3=+3
4=+2
5=0
6=-4
7=-8
8=-16
9=+4
10=+5
Average= -1.1
Though the bakroll will be +ive most of the time(assuming infinite bankroll and limits), average bankroll will be -ive for infinite rolls - to justify the unbeatable law of probability..
Martingale player is not Winning All the time..
The graph is going up slowly and slowly, then all of a sudden: total bankroll will be -ive and Casino bankroll will be +ive..
PLayer's bankroll is +ive for most of the time but highly -ive for few events.
Average out the player's bankroll Vs Time in that graph =
area under graph Vs time, and it has to -ive (assuming game is -EV)
Consider 10 unit sample: player win 5,lose 5
1=+1
2=+2
3=+3
4=+2
5=0
6=-4
7=-8
8=-16
9=+4
10=+5
Average= -1.1
Though the bakroll will be +ive most of the time(assuming infinite bankroll and limits), average bankroll will be -ive for infinite rolls - to justify the unbeatable law of probability..
Averaging the bankroll doesn't really make sense in this context. (But then again, if you have an infinite bankroll, gambling doesn't make much sense to begin with. Your bankroll can't get any bigger. 
)
With infinite bankroll, infinite time and no maximum bet, there is no reason to ever bail out in the middle of a progression. You can guarantee that each time you sit down to play, you get up some time later with a small gain.
Thus the progression 'works' in the sense that it gets you to a point where you can either pocket your tiny profit and leave, or start afresh with another progression. This is what progressionists kid themselves into believing will always happen, even in the real, finite world.
)With infinite bankroll, infinite time and no maximum bet, there is no reason to ever bail out in the middle of a progression. You can guarantee that each time you sit down to play, you get up some time later with a small gain.
Thus the progression 'works' in the sense that it gets you to a point where you can either pocket your tiny profit and leave, or start afresh with another progression. This is what progressionists kid themselves into believing will always happen, even in the real, finite world.
I thought maybe you were. lol With an unlimited bankroll, I doubt many would take up Blackjack, or any scheme to make more money. I mean, why interrupt a perpetual cruise around the world, with one's every need attended to by the world's most beautiful women? OTOH, maybe, I'd send a team of crackerjack AP's out just for the fun of it to rattle a few casino cages. lol
There can be no law that applies to infinite bankroll; i.e., if you can never go broke, they can never break you. And if they can never break you, then sooner or later you must win one hand that will make you an overall winner. Are you postulating that at some point there could be an infinite number of losing hands? I believe that flies in the face of probability theory, since it always approaches certainty (or infinity), depends on how you want to look at it, but it never quite gets there. Let's just say that this is a futile discussion; for all practical purposes, the martingale is a failed system and should never be employed. Let's agree on this, and forget what can never happen.