Easy Peasy!
- Thread starter yyz
- Start date
ummm.....for the record I love me some hammer1.
How the hell can you not love hammer1?
Oh and hammer1 has a cult following, hell freelancc runs the hammer1 fan club, contact him if you want a hammer1 t-shirt.
Speaking of "moving on", hammer1 will be back soon.....Hammer Time!
i'm not sure...:cry::cry: I think hammer1 is officially gone now. freelancc = devastated:cry:
www.madjacksports.com
Believe it or not, before getting my license to deal in the Alberta casinos (1989), I played this pyramiding or Martingale system quite frequently with great success. Playing at 1-25 dollar table, I was doing a 4-stage (if you will) method going 3, 6, 12, 24. For every 4 straight lost--which was often quite infrequent--I would need to win ANY 15 hands. When I was most active with it, I remember cashing a rather easy 50-200 bucks a day, most of the time (I'd say 60-75% of the time), while the losing days were mostly negligible (close enough to even, but wasted time), with the odd 'shit-kicking' (100-200).
I concocted this crazy idea myself and it wasn't until much later (re: internet days) that I read the arguments against the system. I can't recall if I ever saw a mathematical proof that claimed to contradict the system, but I'd be interested in seeing one, if available.
Maybe not the right question but I asked google:
mathematical proof of martingale system for blackjack
AI Overview
The Martingale betting system, when applied to blackjack, does not offer a mathematical proof of long-term profitability. While it might seem appealing to recoup losses by doubling bets after each loss, the system is ultimately flawed due to the house edge and the potential for large losing streaks that can exhaust a player's bankroll.
Why the Martingale System Fails in Blackjack:
AI responses may include mistak
===
I need a puff before trying to fool around with any mathematics, but a losing streak of 4, at their "50% chance of losing each hand" presumably happens at 6.25% (0.5^4), while the wins, with this formula, come at 50%. This isn't factoring a house edge and, obviously, any benefit from counting cards needs to be disregarded with this system. Unless I'm missing something, the other 43.75% of the time would be a "push" for the calculation.
Notably, if I was to have played said system with a 5th doubling--to $48--then I would need to have won 31 hands for every time I'd dropped 5 straight, which would be down to 3.125%.
Last overkill, as any calculation probably needs to drop that 50% win rate to 49% or so, insisting on the house edge.
ex: playing basic, what is house edge for blackjack?
AI Overview
In basic strategy blackjack, the house edge typically ranges from 0.5% to 2%. This means that over the long run, for every $100 bet, the casino expects to make a profit of 50 cents to $2. The exact house edge can vary slightly depending on specific rules and the number of decks used.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
I concocted this crazy idea myself and it wasn't until much later (re: internet days) that I read the arguments against the system. I can't recall if I ever saw a mathematical proof that claimed to contradict the system, but I'd be interested in seeing one, if available.
Maybe not the right question but I asked google:
mathematical proof of martingale system for blackjack
AI Overview
The Martingale betting system, when applied to blackjack, does not offer a mathematical proof of long-term profitability. While it might seem appealing to recoup losses by doubling bets after each loss, the system is ultimately flawed due to the house edge and the potential for large losing streaks that can exhaust a player's bankroll.
Why the Martingale System Fails in Blackjack:
- House Edge:
Blackjack, like all casino games, has a built-in house edge. This means that over the long run, the casino is statistically guaranteed to win, even if a player uses a betting system like the Martingale.
- Limited Bankroll:
The Martingale system relies on doubling bets after each loss. This can quickly lead to very large bets, and if a player experiences a long losing streak, they may run out of money before they can recover their losses.
- Table Limits:
Casinos often impose table limits, which restrict the maximum bet that can be placed. These limits can prevent a player from doubling their bet enough times to recover from a losing streak, even with a large bankroll.
- Probability of Losing Streaks:
While the probability of a long losing streak might seem small on any given hand, the cumulative probability of experiencing one over a series of hands becomes significant, especially when using the Martingale system.
- Expected Value (EV):
Each individual bet in blackjack has a negative expected value due to the house edge. The Martingale system does not change the negative expected value of each bet, it simply alters the distribution of potential outcomes.
- 1. Expected Value of a Single Bet:
Let's say the house edge in blackjack is 0.5%. This means that for every $100 wagered, the casino expects to keep $0.50.
- 2. Martingale and Expected Value:
The Martingale system doesn't change the negative expected value of each individual bet. It only changes how much money is wagered on each hand, and how much is won or lost on a given hand.
- 3. Probability of Losing Streaks:
The probability of losing n consecutive hands in blackjack with a 50% chance of losing each hand is (0.5)^n. As n (the number of losses) increases, this probability decreases, but the potential loss from that streak increases exponentially.
- 4. Risk of Ruin:
The risk of ruin is the probability that a player will lose all of their money before achieving a win. The Martingale system significantly increases the risk of ruin, even with a large bankroll, because of the potential for large losing streaks.
AI responses may include mistak
===
I need a puff before trying to fool around with any mathematics, but a losing streak of 4, at their "50% chance of losing each hand" presumably happens at 6.25% (0.5^4), while the wins, with this formula, come at 50%. This isn't factoring a house edge and, obviously, any benefit from counting cards needs to be disregarded with this system. Unless I'm missing something, the other 43.75% of the time would be a "push" for the calculation.
Notably, if I was to have played said system with a 5th doubling--to $48--then I would need to have won 31 hands for every time I'd dropped 5 straight, which would be down to 3.125%.
Last overkill, as any calculation probably needs to drop that 50% win rate to 49% or so, insisting on the house edge.
ex: playing basic, what is house edge for blackjack?
AI Overview
In basic strategy blackjack, the house edge typically ranges from 0.5% to 2%. This means that over the long run, for every $100 bet, the casino expects to make a profit of 50 cents to $2. The exact house edge can vary slightly depending on specific rules and the number of decks used.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
- Perfect Basic Strategy:
When a player uses a perfect basic strategy, the house edge can be as low as 0.5%, according to OLG PlaySmart.
- Impact of Rules:
Different blackjack rules, such as the number of decks used, whether players can double down on any two cards, or whether they can surrender, can affect the house edge, according to Wizard of Odds.
- Card Counting:
Card counting, a more advanced strategy, can potentially give the player an edge over the house, but it requires a high degree of skill and knowledge, according to a Reddit thread.
- Comparison to Other Games:
Compared to other casino games like roulette, where the house edge can be significantly higher (e.g., 5.26% for American roulette), blackjack offers a relatively lower house edge, especially when basic strategy is used.
