Martingale Blackjack Forum

atissacfelila.netlify.com › Martingale Blackjack Forum ▼ ▼ ▼

First off, the Martingale system does not work. I intend to prove to you, however, that by tweaking the strategy a bit, the 'optimum martingale' as I call it can be used to mask card-counting detectors employed by the casinos.
The Martingale Betting System- A failure by itself. It requires the player to double his/her bet every time she looses, covering previous loses incurred on the losing streak and returning to the player an amount equal to their lowest common bet. It is not efficient because when you inevitable hit a major loosing streak, you risk running your bankroll dry or reaching the maximum bet and not being able to double anymore, all for one measly lowest bet in return.
I documented over 1,000 hands using this technique, taking into consideration every variable, playing with basic strategy, shuffling after each hand, and purposely leaving out the variable of card counting to ensure there was only one variable. I ran the losing streaks out until I had either won, or ran my bankroll dry. Then, I went back and calculated what would have happened had I decided to cut my loses, reset my bet to the original, and continued playing after loosing 8 hands in a row, 7 hands in a row, 6 hands in a row, and so on until I was theoretically flat betting every hand. Most losing streaks did not exceed beyond 8 hands, but if they did, I calculated for that too.
I found that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, reseting your bet to the original low was most effective when you reset after a three-hand losing streak. Whereas reseting after any other number of lost hands either lost money in the scenario, or gained very little for the amount of time it took, reseting at three consistently wielded a positive average of roughly $41 per 70 hands played, using a $1 lowest common bet. At the same time, my bankroll never went more than $23 below it's original value, and steadily increased after that. After testing over 1,000 hands, this is quite definitely the optimum time to reset your bet using the martingale system.
This is a major bonus to Card-Counters, because it fools computer technology commonly employed to catch counters, and it also masks your efforts to the dealer (the most direct link between you and the pit-boss). Most card counters will flat-bet a small amount when the count is low, and then slam their bets up high when the count is in their favor. This is easily noticed by dealers and by computers, which use RFID sensors to keep track of the bets on the table, and another technology to keep count in the game using almost every count system imaginable. If your bet or cardplay matches what the computer has analyzed as close enough to consider counting, you got a one-way ticket to the next casino. If you employ the optimum martingale system instead of flat-betting when the count is low, it will mask your efforts to the dealer especially, and to an extent with the computers. It allows the counter to not risk much money, while also making the swings in his bets not as noticeable. I find it most effective to use the Optimum Martingale, even as the count climbs, but instead of reseting my bet at three, I will continue to climb my bets up, win or loose, until the count begins to decline. By sticking to the style of doubling your bets when the count is high, even if you win or lose, you stray from the average card counter which the computers are looking for while also retaining the ability to place large bets when the count is high and decrease them as it recedes.
I did this all by hand, using ledger paper, taking into consideration these variables: L.C.D. bet, starting bankroll, ending bankroll, starting time, ending time, Bank Roll amount, Hand number, Players Cards, Dealers Up Card, Suggested strategy action, actual action, win/loss/push/bust/dealer busts. If you have a computer to simulate this, with special attention to when to reset your bets on a losing streak, and would like to add on, please do! Otherwise, try it out! Even if you can't count cards it is a fun system and is slightly more effective than it's predecessor. However, I wouldn't play it for money if you intend on using it by itself. After all, betting strategies are not useless, but they're not reccomended by themselves.

When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.

One thousand hands in nowhere near a robust enough sample to draw the sweeping conclusions you are making. Hint: calculate your standard error.

>This is easily noticed by dealers and by computers, which use RFID sensors to keep track of the bets on the table ...
I would think that extreme bet variation would indeed bring instant attention even before anyone in the casino started to verify the count when it was taking place.
I think those RFID tags inside the chips with sensors at the table's betting circles do actually exist but I doubt it exists in anywhere near as many casinos as people seem to assume. Its a bit pricey to have such systems and I rather doubt it catches all that much in the way of bet capping or card counting.
If you go from one green chip to three black chips, you are going to be noticed. If surveillance plays back the tape and counts down the deck to the time at which you suddenly started betting big they will be able to confirm their worst, but still foolish, fears: there is a card counter in their midst.
I don't see how any other aspects to the play are going to disabuse them of this notion. If you revert to a lower level of play after three losses, you are still a card counter who has come to their attention.

I agree about the chips, they are rare outside of Vegas. Also, not a lot of casinos keep track of card play electronically. It basically boils down to fooling the dealer. Think of it like you're an entire blackjack team and you're 'Wonging' your own table, the benefit being there is no obvious flat-betters keeping count or some 'big better' stepping in only when the count is high. Externally you appear to be relying on a betting system, in reality you are not.
As far as the 'reset' aspect, the three-loss rule doesn't use any information from the count; it's played using solely basic strategy while keeping track of the count, so you're still not playing your hands like a counter, just someone with a strategy chart. Only when the count is extremely high or low do you begin to change your gameplay according to the count, and double your bets even if you win. I didn't explain that very well :p

I used maximum likelihood to figure this out. Without knowing the true value of the standard deviation, which is impossible to predict, standard error is impossible to calculate and will only be an estimate, nothing I would take into consideration at the table. Standard Error in a game like blackjack, to me, is a fallacy.
I am a Statistical Analyst which is what got me into BlackJack in the first place, and I am very confident in my accuracy. I have taken this strategy to Biloxi on six occasions now and have banked $3,420 in those six trips.

This is a tricky question, and also why it is a good idea to stop at three. That way, you can never loose too much even if you do double down your third bet and lose again. As a rule of thumb, I don't deviate from basic strategy until the count is high or low enough to make a profound impact. However, if I am faced with a double down or split situation, and I have a lot of my bankroll on the table, I'll use information from the count to impact my decision. Don't do anything stupid, like not splitting eights against a six, or not doubling an eleven against a six, but for instance I would not double a 9 against an 8 if I was on my third loss, only on the first or second hand. There's simply not a high enough potential loss/potential gain ratio once you factor in the act of reseting your bets.
Remember: If you bet $10, lose, bet $20, then double and lose, you've lost $50 and your next bet has to be $60 to keep in pace. Some might prefer, once they get to that point, to just bet $50 and hope to merely cover loses before reseting.

I used maximum likelihood to figure out when to reset the losing streak, which is why I shuffled the deck after each hand to ensure an unbiased pool. The sample mean is of course the number of and values of the cards themselves, and is not an estimate. The estimate in this case was the sample variance like you said. I used this equation to determine maximum likelihood, only after I had proved it in principle to myself first. I chose not to use average log-likelihood and opted for the equation below, which is more geared towards statistic probabilities (statistics I had already gathered in my principle-proving session)
...............................................n..........
L(0 x1,...,xn)=f(x1,x2,...,xn 0)= II f(xi 0). (I apologize for my lack of accurate characters but you get the equation)
..............................................i+1.........
If it appears there is no statistical inference, it's because the average blackjack player doesn't need to know all this and I don't really want to type it out. I don't feel the need to prove my understanding of statistics to anyone by confusing them into submission. This is a forum, not a classroom, and egos don't belong in mathematics. We're dorks.