Bet Victor Rogued?

[bigbear]

Yeah technically the martingale is no worse than any other dodgy system.

But in terms of the damage done I reckon it must be by far the worst. Any given night at the weekend in a B'n'M casino you can see the martingalers. Guys who think they've invented/discovered something that can't lose.
They casually double up and double up without a care in the world (because it worked for them the last time they were in, so now they're staking more for that 'guaranteed profit' and .. oh oh... that run of seven reds that couldn't possibly come in has just come in. Yikes

Cue the inevitable bustout of more than they could afford to lose. The real poison of the martingale is that it will work for a while (albeit with very small winnings relative to bankroll), inspiring higher and higher staking... until the inevitable explosion of pain as Lady luck drops her trousers

To endorse that system on a forum like this, even as a joke, is potentially going to cause problems for newish gamblers reading in good faith

Couldn't agree with you more.I too have seen players using Martingale on the blackjack tables at land based casinos and losing £100's in literally a matter of minutes.You can almost see them saying to themselves 'but i was told this system was foolproof'.As systems go,it is the worst of the worst.

 

[lnspin]

If you have an unlimited bankroll and no limits at the tables you play at you cannot lose by using the martingale system

 

[sparkz]

Now that is the type of experience I had. The dealer would often have a 6 flipped over with a 10 or a face card then a 5 to complete it when I currently had two face cards for 20. It's more frustrating then fun.

Its complete crap mate.

Like I put in my post, I don't know weather it is genuinely down to my bad luck but it never used to be like that.

Then every time I played, that sort of thing would happen.

After playing it for a while it actually makes you think that either way you play... you will lose.

Like if you had a chance for insurance... If its on 1 of those losing streaks it seems to make it so either choice would lose. If you don't insure... dealer will have BJ, if you do insure then he wont and he will still have good enough cards to beat you.

Thats happened loads of times to me. Something like over the session the dealer shows 7 aces, I dont insure and its BJ for him... But then the 8th time he shows an ace and I insure, he doesnt have it.

I perhaps started thinking it couldnt be a co-incidence.


If we look at the odds for graphical, online BJ:

Dealer shows an ace. Theres roughly the same amount of cards with a 10 value as there is of cards that are numbered so technically each time theres a 50% chance of it not being BJ.

If it's a session like above (7 aces shown in a session... didnt insure and is BJ, then 1 which is insured but isnt BJ). Thats 8 insurance choices lost when you had a 50% chance each time of being right.

If my maths is correct, that makes it a 6.25% chance of losing 8 50% chance bets (The same chance there is of being correct with insurance 8 times... but iv never had that happen)

If it happens once every now and again or not that often, then fair enough but I know things like that have happened to me quite frequently when I played.

 

[KasinoKing]

Dealer shows an ace. Theres roughly the same amount of cards with a 10 value as there is of cards that are numbered so technically each time theres a 50% chance of it not being BJ.

Remind me NOT to play BJ with your deck of cards!
There are 13 different value cards in a standard deck, of which 4 count as 10 in BJ, so the odds of the dealer NOT getting a BJ with an Ace showing is 9/13 = 69%
In other words, the dealer should only get BJ in just slightly less than 1 in 3 hands when he has an Ace showing.

KK

 

[chuchu59]

Couldn't agree with you more.I too have seen players using Martingale on the blackjack tables at land based casinos and losing £100's in literally a matter of minutes.You can almost see them saying to themselves 'but i was told this system was fool-poof'.As systems go,it is the worst of the worst.

There! I corrected it for you. Playing the system are for fools and poof the money is gone. Its a system where you literally risk a fortune to get your bet back.

 

[bigjohn]

I think it is also worth mentioning that if you do win using the Martingale system in an on-line casino you stand a good chance of not being paid. The majority of online casinos have a rule against using any type of 'system'. They may let it slide on small bets but good luck trying to get a few thousand from it.

 

[hakapuku]

I was being serious, its called the martingale system.

This way he can get to suicide.

 

[manuels58]

If you have an unlimited bankroll and no limits at the tables you play at you cannot lose by using the martingale system

Complete non-sense (sorry to say)!

I didn't want, but here we go...

First off, if a "betting method" is meant to "not losing", it simply is not a system.
A betting system - if it existed - should be a method to win.

Secondly, since your parameters are not real (there is no "unlimited bankroll", nor there is any casino - virtual or land-based - without betting limits), I honestly can't figure it out how your comment contributes to enlighten the OP.

This makes me remind "les vérités de La Palisse", such as the saying "if my father hadn't died he would still be alive".

Sorry if I seemed rude...