# Martingale still a fallacy when you have statistical advantage?

Discussion in 'General' started by Midnightblues, Nov 26, 2011.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### MidnightbluesMember

We've all heard of the martingale fallacy and how it is a common failure. However, I've considered doing a limited martingale type only when back counting and when I have an advantage.

For example: Backcount until the count gets to +1/+2 TC, then play one betting unit and double until lost until 4, a 1-4 bedding spread. If I failed at the 4th unit, then I would drop back down to one unit, to prevent losing money too fast. Here are my questions.

1. Is it advantageous in anyway to use a Martingale when you have a statistical advantage over the house?

2. Would this reduce or increase the volatility of blackjack by using this system?

I know that Martingale is a fallacy. I just wonder if martingale is still a bad idea during a statistical advantage. I scanned one book that encouraged this idea, but I didn't know if it worked and don't want to try it without input. Thanks! :joker:

2. ### QFITWell-Known Member

Yes, it is still a bad strategy.

3. ### MidnightbluesMember

Not much help, but thanks though

If anyone can offer a detailed explanation that would be nice, actually answering the questions.

4. ### blackjack avengerWell-Known Member

im with Q

It's always your bet at whatever the EV is, weather + or -

5. ### QFITWell-Known Member

The question has been answered 1,000 times.

6. ### 21gunsaluteWell-Known Member

Itr might be fine for a 1-4 bedding spread but it won't work for any betting spread.

7. ### 21gunsaluteWell-Known Member

And even if you Martingaled "successfully" what have you gained?

8. ### ZergActive Member

1.) Your advantage on any given hand would be best estimated by the count. You are best off Kelly betting according to your advantage. If you base your bet based on Martingale, you will be worse off. For example, your system was "When TC >=2 martingale up to 4X, when TC 1 or lower sit out." You would be playing with a statistical advantage. If your bankroll were large enough you would win long term. I would guess your results would be similar to flat betting 1.5 units when TC>=2. *Note that you could easily improve (win more money in the same amount of time with less risk) using this with this ramp: TC 2 - 1 unit, TC 3 - 2 units, TC 4 - 3 units, TC 5 - 4 units.

2.) I would use the word "skew" to describe your results. If you do a classic Martingale, you will have many small wins and few catastrophic losses. With your 3 level betting system you probably wouldn't notice much of a difference though.

9. ### blackjack avengerWell-Known Member

With Kelly betting in the real world one faces a ror due to table min. If one bets fractional Kelly the ror is greatly reduced.

10. ### ringlejamesBanned

AND YES IT IS A GOOD IDEA

AND YES IT IS AMAZING COVER FOR WONGING

I personally dont know what these jokers are talking about.

Yes you have an advantage using a 1-4 martingale bet spread. I am guessing it is 1,2,4,8, bet spread???

Its stupidity like this that has not moved this game forward.

Probably more profitable even than normal bet spreading.

But of course it is not as profitable as betting max on all TC's +2 or higher wonging

although maxbet wonging at all counts does have a higher ROR

And I am quite sure that playing like you suggested has a lower ROR THAN ALL OTHER FORUMS OF WONGING IN... BUT I COULD BE WRONG

11. ### ringlejamesBanned

comparing kelly to fractional kelly yes your ror is greater. But with what he suggested he WOULD have a lower ROR

12. ### blackjack avengerWell-Known Member

The concept of risk vs reward
This system at times will have you betting upside down in relation to count, which is bad and why you think its excellent camo. It's not sound play.
A martingale is betting that is not based on actual advantage
Regardless when you do it
We try not to use personal attacks

:grin:

14. ### AussiePlayerWell-Known Member

There's a reason it is amazing cover, it doesn't work.

Stranger things have happened!

15. ### QFITWell-Known Member

Obviously, larger font sizes do not confer veracity.

16. ### ringlejamesBanned

Obviously, larger font sizes do not convey sarcasm. Or is it just typed words period.

17. ### MidnightbluesMember

Zerg,

So, basically the martingale with a statistical advantage isn't a "losing" strategy, but it simply isn't the optimal strategy and therefore not the best is basically what I am getting.

Thanks for the answer and explanation. It is sometimes difficult to get an answer around here without rude/arrogant comments with it. For that, I appreciate it. Information like this is why I post on here before trying anything "new" out.

18. ### ZergActive Member

This is a good summary, certainly true for the low spread example you gave. The main thing to watch out for is over betting. I think that is the only way you can be an expected long term loser if you are playing a +EV game.

You are welcome . Though many disagree, I think threads like this are helpful. When you take time to think about why a system will or will not work it really helps with the overall understanding of the game.

19. ### QFITWell-Known Member

NO. It is an extremely poor strategy with a huge risk of ruin. We are in the Voodoo forum. It is called Voodoo for a reason. Don't read posts in a forum which has clearly been reserved for bad ideas. If this was a medical site, would you read posts in the forum called "Voodoo?"

Sorry if some of us come off as sarcastic. Consider what it is like answering the same questions for decades. Martingale doesn't work -- period. How many times has that been stated in the century since it was first invented?

20. ### zengrifterBanned

Using the negative progression to camo the bet raising works well in certain circumstances and its no more voodoo than to raise bets in +EV counts under guise of a parlay, which many or most counters do to varying extent and has been advocated since the beginning by virtually all experts as a camo tactic.

I actually prefer a quasi martingale in a +EV because it can be made to look more reckless and emotional. zg