Reverse the Martingale for a betting progression
- Thread starter p8ntballsk8r
- Start date
I assume the cover part is obvious 
As for the variance part, Kelly criterion betting is in principle the same as a reverse martingale - I know, not exactly the same, but essentially the same, bet more when your winning. Now, everyone would agree reverse martingale is stupid (especially full reverse martingale), but most wouldn't think the same way about Kelly criterion betting.
I'm not proposing anyone use a reverse martingale, but in combination with other things, might not be too bad. Don't want to get into it more as it would be complex and intricate (at least I like to think so, but most would think its just long and convoluted).
A man eats a bottle of salad dressing and he is sickened by it. He also ate a plain salad, and thought it was pretty gross. So he goes around telling everyone "Never eat dressing, its sickening! Never eat salad, its gross!"
As for the variance part, Kelly criterion betting is in principle the same as a reverse martingale - I know, not exactly the same, but essentially the same, bet more when your winning. Now, everyone would agree reverse martingale is stupid (especially full reverse martingale), but most wouldn't think the same way about Kelly criterion betting.I'm not proposing anyone use a reverse martingale, but in combination with other things, might not be too bad. Don't want to get into it more as it would be complex and intricate (at least I like to think so, but most would think its just long and convoluted).
A man eats a bottle of salad dressing and he is sickened by it. He also ate a plain salad, and thought it was pretty gross. So he goes around telling everyone "Never eat dressing, its sickening! Never eat salad, its gross!"
blackjacktilt said:
You always have to "1 up" me, don't you?
But, yes, I suppose I am well trained in oneupmanship. It's not exactly an endearing quality, is it? Six brothers in a three bedroom house might help explain it. Oh, my poor sister!
Gamblor said:
I assume the cover part is obvious As for the variance part, Kelly criterion betting is in principle the same as a reverse martingale - I know, not exactly the same, but essentially the same, bet more when your winning. Now, everyone would agree reverse martingale is stupid (especially full reverse martingale), but most wouldn't think the same way about Kelly criterion betting.
I'm not proposing anyone use a reverse martingale, but in combination with other things, might not be too bad. Don't want to get into it more as it would be complex and intricate (at least I like to think so, but most would think its just long and convoluted).
A man eats a bottle of salad dressing and he is sickened by it. He also ate a plain salad, and thought it was pretty gross. So he goes around telling everyone "Never eat dressing, its sickening! Never eat salad, its gross!"
As for the variance part, Kelly criterion betting is in principle the same as a reverse martingale - I know, not exactly the same, but essentially the same, bet more when your winning. Now, everyone would agree reverse martingale is stupid (especially full reverse martingale), but most wouldn't think the same way about Kelly criterion betting.I'm not proposing anyone use a reverse martingale, but in combination with other things, might not be too bad. Don't want to get into it more as it would be complex and intricate (at least I like to think so, but most would think its just long and convoluted).
A man eats a bottle of salad dressing and he is sickened by it. He also ate a plain salad, and thought it was pretty gross. So he goes around telling everyone "Never eat dressing, its sickening! Never eat salad, its gross!"
None taken, does seem vague and silly when not fully detailed. Hope casino personnel think its not such a good idea too Sometimes two individually bad ideas, when put together make a good idea. Like multiplying two imaginary numbers and getting a real number A bad idea that controls variance, when balanced with a bad idea that provides EV, might be a good idea. Throw in some cover to boot.
Sometimes two individually bad ideas, when put together make a good idea. Like multiplying two imaginary numbers and getting a real number A bad idea that controls variance, when balanced with a bad idea that provides EV, might be a good idea. Throw in some cover to boot.
Gamblor said:
None taken, does seem vague and silly when not fully detailed. Hope casino personnel think its not such a good idea too Sometimes two individually bad ideas, when put together make a good idea. Like multiplying two imaginary numbers and getting a real number A bad idea that controls variance, when balanced with a bad idea that provides EV, might be a good idea. Throw in some cover to boot.
Sometimes two individually bad ideas, when put together make a good idea. Like multiplying two imaginary numbers and getting a real number A bad idea that controls variance, when balanced with a bad idea that provides EV, might be a good idea. Throw in some cover to boot.
I seem to lose 5 straight more often than I win 5 straight, but that is only from my sense of memories. The dealer has a 3% edge on hands won, so he should win slightly more in a row than the player, no?
In addition, I don't win or lose 5 straight all that often, but when I do, it is often more than 5 in the case of losers.
In addition, I don't win or lose 5 straight all that often, but when I do, it is often more than 5 in the case of losers.
21gunsalute said:
You need to learn to quit while you're behind.
**************************************
A Few of Murphy's Laws of Plus Counts (if it can go wrong, it will go wrong):
Law #1: In a plus count, most of the time all the losing hands will come at the beginning so that it takes all the nerve you can muster to hang in with max bet.
Law #2: If a plus count starts off with several losing hands, you will probably lose all the rest.
Law #3: If a plus count starts off with several winning hands and you keep your bet at max bet, you will usually lose back everything you won at the beginning of the plus count.
Corollary #1 to Law #3: If a plus count starts off with several losing hands and you decide to lower your bet to min bet, you will usually win all your hands at min bet.
Subcorollary #1 to Law #3, Corollary #1: If you then raise your bet to max, you will usually lose all your hands at max bet.
Law #3: Occasionally, you will win all or most all your bets at max bet; this will keep you faithful to bet max in all +4 or better counts. When you least expect it, you will lose your shirt at max bet, but you will hang in there to the bitter end because of this law.
Law #4: You will play for many hours without a plus count of more than two rounds. Eventually a long plus count will come your way and you will lose your shirt.
Law #5: When you have a plus count in your first hour of play and win a large amount, if you do not quit and return home, you will lose it all back and spend the next 10 to 20 hours trying to get even.
Law #6: If you have fought for hours to get even and you finally have a great winning plus count and come within a few dollars of breaking even, if you do not quit immediately, you will begin losing again and continue until you have lost it all back.
Law #7: If you lose a sizable amount in a plus count, but continue to play, when you first raise your bet at the next plus count, you will get the tap and be asked to leave.