Reverse the Martingale for a betting progression

[p8ntballsk8r]

So the Martingale has been proven over and over to lose a lot of money. What if, we turn this system upside down and into a betting progression. Find a table that will let you spread 1-20 units. Start by betting 1 unit. If you win, "let it ride" so the next bet is 2 units, and continue until the limit gets in your way (16units would be the max bet). This progression requires you to win 5 straight bets in order to win a total of 32 units.

Any time you lose a bet, you drop back to 1 unit and start the progression over. Essentially, you are making it so the casino is playing the martingale system.

Can someone please point out why this "new system" that I have described above will fail?

 

[FLASH1296]

It will fail because it is a mathematically proven FACT that ALL progressive betting "systems" are B O G U S.

Pssst. That is why casino earn billions in profits.

 

[p8ntballsk8r]

good answer. I guess the better question is what is the probability of winning 5 straight hands?

 

[FLASH1296]

Discounting pushes, your wins will occur 42.9% of the time;
so the answer is found by taking the 5th root of .429.

Just multiply .429 times itself (four) 4 times.

To get the probability of losing 5 in succession — substitute .571 for .429

The probability of winning or losing a lot of hands "in a row" is almost
meaningless when considered outside of the larger picture —defined by
what is the chances of winning / losing X hands in a row SOMETIME within
Y number of hands — with Y being a "large" number representing your play
for a week, a month, etc. Viewing it in that context — of course you will
soon experience 5 losses or wins in succession, and 6 and 7 and 8 too.

A simple example of this common error that you are making can be seen
this way. The odds of rolling 1-1 ("snake eyes") with a pair of dice is 35-1
and rolling it twice in succession has odds of 1,295 to 1. When the number
is rolled twice "back-to-back" some wag will remark "What's the odds?"

As he has been standing there shooting craps for several hours he has
viewed perhaps 300 rolls of the dice. So 1,296 / 300 = 4.3 The odds
were about 4 to 1 for him to see 6-6 followed by 6-6.

 

[MangoJ]

Essentially, you are making it so the casino is playing the martingale system.

The difference between you and the casino is 2-fold:
First: While you play a -EV game, the casino plays a +EV game.
Second: The casino has a much much larger bankroll than you do.

The only option to break a casino bank (even on a player's -EV bet) is to consistently force the casino into overbetting (betting more than twice the corresponding Kelly fraction). First you would need a much larger bankroll than the casino to "suck it out". Second, you are also likely to get broke. Third (more important) No reasonable casino would allow you to place bets that large.

 

[aslan]

Discounting pushes, your wins will occur 42.9% of the time;
so the answer is found by taking the 5th root of .429.

Just multiply .429 times itself (four) 4 times.

To get the probability of losing 5 in succession — substitute .571 for .429

The probability of winning or losing a lot of hands "in a row" is almost
meaningless when considered outside of the larger picture —defined by
what is the chances of winning / losing X hands in a row SOMETIME within
Y number of hands — with Y being a "large" number representing your play
for a week, a month, etc. Viewing it in that context — of course you will
soon experience 5 losses or wins in succession, and 6 and 7 and 8 too.

A simple example of this common error that you are making can be seen
this way. The odds of rolling 1-1 ("snake eyes") with a pair of dice is 35-1
and rolling it twice in succession has odds of 1,295 to 1. When the number
is rolled twice "back-to-back" some wag will remark "What's the odds?"

As he has been standing there shooting craps for several hours he has
viewed perhaps 300 rolls of the dice. So 1,296 / 300 = 4.3 The odds
were about 4 to 1 for him to see 6-6 followed by 6-6.

Actually, the way I have been trained to understand it is that once he had thrown the first 6-6, the odds for the second were still 35 to 1. What you are talking about is the odds for a 6-6 being followed by a 6-6 somewhere in those 300 rolls, not on the last two rolls. The 300 rolls are meaningless on the 301st roll-- it's still 1,296 to 1 to roll two 6-6s in a row as the dice have no memory of the previous 300 rolls. But you know that.

 

[FLASH1296]

Just to make sure that we understand each other ...

will you give me 100 to 1 odds on $20 against my

throwing consecutive rolls of 6-6 (given 200 rolls).

 

[aslan]

Just to make sure that we understand each other ...

will you give me 100 to 1 odds on $20 against my

throwing consecutive rolls of 6-6 (given 200 rolls).

Somewhere within 200 rolls is one thing; AFTER 200 rolls is another. The fact that you shot craps all day long and did not get a single 6-6 followed by a 6-6 has no bearing on your likelihood of rolling them on your 201st and 202nd rolls. It is still 1,296 to 1. So, yes, you go out and roll 200 times without a 6-6 followed by a 6-6 and I will give you 100 to 1 odds that your next two rolls will not be 6-6 followed by 6-6. :laugh:

 

[The Chaperone]

Mods, please move this thread to the Progression forum.

Better yet, post it in the right forum in the first place.

 

[21gunsalute]

Mods, please move this thread to the Progression forum.

Better yet, post it in the right forum in the first place.

They should start a forum called "outright stupidity".

 

[21gunsalute]

So the Martingale has been proven over and over to lose a lot of money. What if, we turn this system upside down and into a betting progression. Find a table that will let you spread 1-20 units. Start by betting 1 unit. If you win, "let it ride" so the next bet is 2 units, and continue until the limit gets in your way (16units would be the max bet). This progression requires you to win 5 straight bets in order to win a total of 32 units.

Any time you lose a bet, you drop back to 1 unit and start the progression over. Essentially, you are making it so the casino is playing the martingale system.

Can someone please point out why this "new system" that I have described above will fail?

It might well take you all day (if it happens at all) to reach 5 consecutive wins. Assuming a $5 original bet you will have accumulated the grand total of $155 for these 5 consecutive wins (5+10+20+40+80). How much will you have pissed away prior to that transpiring ( and after if you continue to play)? Remember, every time the streak is broken prior to 5 wins leaves you $5 in the hole, and you're obviously going to have losing streaks along the way too. In fact the only way to win any money with this system is when and if you actually do win 5 in a row. You lose money in every other scenario.

If you do eek out a win it would probably be a very small one. No thank you. I'll stick to counting.

 

[aslan]

So the Martingale has been proven over and over to lose a lot of money. What if, we turn this system upside down and into a betting progression. Find a table that will let you spread 1-20 units. Start by betting 1 unit. If you win, "let it ride" so the next bet is 2 units, and continue until the limit gets in your way (16units would be the max bet). This progression requires you to win 5 straight bets in order to win a total of 32 units.

Any time you lose a bet, you drop back to 1 unit and start the progression over. Essentially, you are making it so the casino is playing the martingale system.

Can someone please point out why this "new system" that I have described above will fail?

Personally, I would much rather flat bet and play BS with index plays. I bet I'll win more, and more often, than your system. In the end I'll lose, too, but not quite as often.

 

[NumberCruncher]

They should start a forum called "outright stupidity".

Not really. Do you think stupid people are really trying to come up with betting systems based on math to beat casinos? No, they are in the ghettos and hoods selling drugs, pimping out prostitutes, and doing gang work to make money. Sure, the systems may mostly fail, and people may eventually realize they don't work, but trying to come up with ways to win doesn't mean they are stupid. They're just a victim of the system

 

[Gamblor]

Now now, Reverse Martingale isn't all that bad, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[21gunsalute]

Now now, Reverse Martingale isn't all that bad, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It's worse than Martingale. At least with Martingale you will win money when you actually are winning hands. With this system you could win 4 out of every 5 hands and still lose.

 

[21gunsalute]

Not really. Do you think stupid people are really trying to come up with betting systems based on math to beat casinos? No, they are in the ghettos and hoods selling drugs, pimping out prostitutes, and doing gang work to make money. Sure, the systems may mostly fail, and people may eventually realize they don't work, but trying to come up with ways to win doesn't mean they are stupid. They're just a victim of the system

This isn't based on math and no one is a victim of "the system". They are victims of their own device(s).

 

[Gamblor]

It's worse than Martingale. At least with Martingale you will win money when you actually are winning hands. With this system you could win 4 out of every 5 hands and still lose.

Right, or go WLWLWLWL... and you'll lose money otherwise where you would have been even. Your not going to generate +EV out of a -EV game using any betting system, its like trying to lift yourself up by grabbing your own legs and pulling up.

However, there are other important aspects of this game where a progression type betting system could be useful.

 

[Sonny]

They should start a forum called "outright stupidity".

It's implied. :laugh:

This is another one of those threads that makes me want to rename this forum the "Read The Stickies" forum.

-Sonny-

 

[21gunsalute]

Right, or go WLWLWLWL... and you'll lose money otherwise where you would have been even. Your not going to generate +EV out of a -EV game using any betting system, its like trying to lift yourself up by grabbing your own legs and pulling up.

However, there are other important aspects of this game where a progression type betting system could be useful.

Huh?

 

[Gamblor]

Huh?

Cover and variance. Sometimes I'm probably needlessly vague on this site :grin: But do prefer to err on side of caution.