1. Welcome to VegasMessageBoard
    It appears you are visiting our community as a guest.
    In order to view full-size images, participate in discussions, vote in polls, etc, you will need to Log in or Register.

Table Games Ok I'm going to defend Martingale

Discussion in 'Table Games' started by Kickin, Apr 9, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kickin

    Kickin Flea

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Messages:
    3,414
    Every other week someone starts another thread about a system to beat the house and inevitably its by using some variation of the Martingale system. It won't beat the house, we all know that and I like to poke holes in it just as much as the next guy.

    But that doesn't mean the Martingale system doesn't have some merit.

    The basic idea is you'll frequently have small wins and occasionally lose your ass. But whether you spend your lifetime wagering a gazillion bucks using martingale or any other method your EV is going to be the same in theory.

    But wouldn't you rather have a bunch of small winning trips and an occasional big loss versus a bunch of trips with a mix of wins and losses? Once you lose do you really care about that during your next trip? When I'm at the casino I just want to win, I'm not thinking about my previous losses and how to make up for them. That's history. I'm not thinking about my lifetime expected loss either. I just want to win on that trip and enjoy beating the house for that moment.

    So yes, martingale isn't a way to beat the house over the long term. But then again no system will do that. So in practical terms what's wrong with allowing yourself to win small a bunch of times and losing big once in a rare while. Lifetime loss will be the same but at least this way you have more winning trips than losing trip and that's more fun in my opinion.

    I'm not advocating Martingale and personally I wouldn't use it. But in general since you have the same lifetime expected loss either way, wouldn't you rather have it broken up into more winning trips and fewer losing trips?

    Thoughts?
     
  2. VegasBJ

    VegasBJ VIP Whale

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    4,473
    Location:
    rolling hardways
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    229
    No, because I do not want to win $5 with the chance of losing $25k...........

    I have been first hand witness to this "system", and YES, you can lose 10 hands / spins, etc in a row.............................
     
  3. ClownHo

    ClownHo High-Roller

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    902
    Location:
    God's country
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    30
    assuming a table minimum of $5 and a table limit of $500 for a wager, i wouldn't want to face losing $635 in order to maintain a succession of $5 wins at roulette. i'll end up betting on the wrong side of 7 in a row without too much trouble, knowing my luck, and that's all it would take to reach the table max. and a higher table max wouldn't make this system any more appealing, even if i can bankroll another $640 or more.
     
  4. nostresshere

    nostresshere Mr. Anti Debit Card

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    11,124
    Location:
    TN
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    19

    "I wouldn't use it" is a bit, well, confusing in respect to this post, yes? No?
     
  5. LV_Bound

    LV_Bound VIP Whale

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2010
    Messages:
    4,905
    Location:
    Florida
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    18
    Doing what you mention is similar to playing the Dark Side in Craps and too much of a grind for too little cash. More like work then fun. :eek:

    I only get to Vegas twice a year so little wins really aren't too exciting as a big win. To each is own but I shoot for the stars when in Vegas.:beer:
     
  6. Nevyn

    Nevyn VIP Whale

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,197
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    9
    Thats not really true. Martingale jacks up your average bet, so unless you are comparing to a bigger base bet or another progressive system, the lifetime loss is bigger
     
  7. Kickin

    Kickin Flea

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Messages:
    3,414
    I didn't think it was but based on the responses so far that are all focusing on martingale you're probably right.

    My post was about the often repeated "criticism" of martingale that it leads to a lot of small wins and an occasional big loss. I don't think that in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing.

    In other words.....if you have a lifetime expected loss of X over a bunch of trips how would you ideally like those trips to be split up if you could decide? e.g. more losers and occasional big and small winners (which is probably most common), mostly winning trips and a rare big losing one, etc. I'd probably choose the latter.

    The average bet doesn't matter, the total amount wagered does and I wrote earlier if you were wagering the same "gazillion" bucks in one system or another your lifetime EV is the same.
     
  8. shifter

    shifter Degenerate Gambler

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    10,096
    Location:
    At the tables
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    30
    most gamblers buy into this. they will chase and chase and chase when they're losing to win a small amount and slow way down when they're winning. this makes their losses huge and their wins small and the house wins yet again. the bottom line is because of the HA you're going to lose more hands/spins/whatever than you win in your lifetime. the only way to overcome the HA is to win with bigger bets. if you win 5 bets at $100 and lose 10 bets at $10 you are up lifetime even though you've only won 33% of your hands played. nobody knows which hands you're going to win, but at least you can give yourself a chance. by only betting big when you're down and then lowering your bet as soon as you win, you have absolutely zero chance of overcoming the HA. your wins will be miniscule and eventually you'll bust out and have a massive loss that takes away years of winnings.

    and one thing I do believe is everything runs in cycles. lets say your martingale bankroll allows 10 hands lost in a row. when you've lost 9 hands in a row, you're just plain running bad and should get out of there, not do double or nothing on your last 9 losses. sure there's no science to back this up, but that's what I've seen in my experience. i'd rather do my double or nothing when I've won the last 9 hands in a row. again, no science about this, but I think in the long run you'll come out better.
     
  9. Kickin

    Kickin Flea

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Messages:
    3,414
    This is basically what I hope for using a positive progression. But in terms of overcoming the HA it's all based on luck. Like you say no one knows which hands are going to win. The negative progression guy can argue the same thing about luck. That all they need to do is get lucky and avoid the low probability black swan event. The negative progression guy can say he only needs to get lucky by avoiding a long losing streak but he'll make money on positive streaks, choppy streaks, and short losing streaks while me using a positive progression will only make money on positive streaks and lose on choppy or a negative ones. The trade off is between the size of wins/losses and their frequency. In the end it balances out unless one guy gets luckier than the other.
     
  10. Nevyn

    Nevyn VIP Whale

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,197
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    9
    If your average bet is higher, theres a good chance your total amount wagered will be higher.
     
  11. BeeeJay

    BeeeJay President of The Red Lobster Hostess Satisfaction

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2008
    Messages:
    7,725
    Location:
    Chicago & Jersey City
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    85
    If I owned a casino I would love to hear people think that pressing after a win is better than chasing after a loss. Actually I would prefer people do both.

    Statistically its obviously the exact same thing.

    Qualitatively, it depends on the personality of the bettor. Some people like to chase losses, but end up shitting like a horse and eating like a bird because they play small when they are ahead. Others really like to press for the big win when they are on a roll and flat bet when they are cold as ice.

    It's six of one, a half-dozen of the other. We all know that.

    But there is definitely opportunity to maximize enjoyment by matching your style to your personality. Personally, I like to lock in the win when I hit $5K. When I get my next trips bankroll won, for some reason that does it for me. Others would go crazy not pressing with that luck.

    When I'm losing in the past I've OFTEN chased and had it work out well. A few times its been a mild disaster.

    In the end it doesn't matter if you win $5K and then blow $10K back in trying to go big or go home or if you lose $10K and then get back $5K chasing.

    No one knows what the next bet will bring. Chasing and pressing are pure constructs of our own imaginations based on the erroneous assumption that unrelated events effect each other.

    They don't.:peace:
     
  12. Kickin

    Kickin Flea

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Messages:
    3,414
    ^^Exactly!

    As the saying goes its all just a random walk with a downward drift.....the only thing a positive or negative or no progression does is change the shape of that random walk.

    Like I said I personally do the opposite of martingale because I use a positive progression. However my only qualm with martingale is that its a super aggressive negative progression and more importantly people often approach it as a system to beat the house. Other than that there is nothing about a negative progression that is inherently inferior to a positive one, it just depends on what you're after.

    I use a positive progression because I find it more fun but at the same time a bigger win isn't a whole lot different than a smaller win. Its not like I'm betting enough where I can win enough to make any difference in my life. And while bigger is better, I'm happy just walking away a winner, whether its 1k or 20k doesn't matter much. So increasing the likelihood for a bunch of small winning trips has some merit.
     
  13. firstkill

    firstkill High-Roller

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2013
    Messages:
    805
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    30
    Martingale system,

    ive done it in the past when I first started gambling. Stakes were low, rewards were low.

    After I started working, I have no desire to win a little "unit" Otherwise I could just stay at home and work.

    fk
     
  14. Ben Jammin

    Ben Jammin VIP Whale

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,145
    Location:
    Cali
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    120
    No Defense

    The martingale works one time if you're lucky.

    Sometimes it works two times if you're really lucky.

    Then you lose.
     
  15. Chuck2009x

    Chuck2009x VIP Whale

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    4,074
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    16
    Because the big loss is not rare. Nobody has an unlimited bankroll and everybody has to draw the line somewhere and it's usually after a lot fewer hands than they expected going in. And hitting that max pain line is not rare at all.
     
  16. topcard

    topcard Older than the Stardust!

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2012
    Messages:
    2,665
    Location:
    Fort Worth
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    82
    Let's look at the typical $5 blackjack table downtown.
    Min bet $5, max bet $500-to-$1000.

    Let's assume for this argument that it's a $1000 max bet.

    Reaching the maximum using the small martingale takes 8 losses in a row, then only betting $1000 on the 9th hand (instead of the $1280 it should be).

    So - even if you win on that 9th hand, you're down $275.

    I can tell you that being down $275 as a $5 bettor is a really bad run at any table, any time.

    I can also share that I have personally experienced losing 8+ hands in a row so often that I've lost track of the quantity.

    When one thinks about the difference in outcome by ranging your bets from $5 to $15 over the course of 8 consecutive losses and one 9th-hand win, (assume an avg. bet of $10), one is only down $70.

    No, the only method that works is to raise your bet when deck is in your favor (even slightly) and lower your bet when it is not.
    You won't win a lot that way, but you will definitely come out better than martingale over the course of say, 50-to-100 shuffles playing a two-deck game.

    The house will always, in the not-so-long run, win its 54 hands to your 46 hands (roughly). That's because you will bust 28% of the time (as will the dealer), but on 100% of the hands where you both bust, you lose.

    No betting system can get around this. Increasing your bet when it is more likely to be one of your 46 wins per hundred hands can do it.
    :beer:
     
    Seems like forever from now, but the flights are booked, so it counts!
  17. Big Tip

    Big Tip VIP Whale

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,713
    Location:
    Austin
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    67
    Entertainment value. That is what gambling is ultimately judged on. "Am I having fun losing the way I am playing?" That is the question.

    I have played hours and hours of blackjack with the Martingale system. My reasons are very similar to what Mr. Chicken is saying. I just got tired of slowly losing flat betting. So, using the Martingale, I win, I win, I win, I win, I lose. But not necessarily everything.

    I will endure up to six loses in a row. That is 63 units. It usually takes about two hours to win 63 units. Many times I have lost six in a row, but it doesn't ruin me, because I have won a bunch before that happens. So it's not really true that you will lose a million dollars using the system IF you limit it to a certain amount of losses in a row.

    I know the odds are the same as flat betting. It's not a sure fire system to beat the house. Hardly. It's just fun for me. Good entertainment value.

    We gamblers are trying to exploit the window of variance in the negative expectations of casino games. I feel the Martingale makes that window bigger.
     
  18. undathesea

    undathesea Grandissimo

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,664
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    20
    Table limits are meaningless. You can always find another table with higher limits to continue the progression if you want. Walk into the high limit room and start at the current level until you get a hit... walk back to the $5 table. All spins being independent, it doesn't matter what table you're playing at, just the next bet in the progression.
     
  19. Nevyn

    Nevyn VIP Whale

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,197
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    9
    Yeah, if you want to you can probably find a table in vegas that will let you bet a MILLION







    to win that 5 bucks. Hmmm
     
  20. Kickin

    Kickin Flea

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Messages:
    3,414
    You're right but I'm not talking about advantage play. Nor am I talking about any system being a way to win. Also I posted this based on the recent threads on roulette and baccarat, two games where each hand is independent. Blackjack is not an ideal example because results are at least somewhat path-dependent.
     
Tags:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.