A question(s) for Gronbog

[advantage playe]

table limits are not the problem ! if using the martingale u reach the table and need to bet larger simply go to a much higher limit table ! it could even be another casino. by the way if u add in an infinite bankroll to one side of the equation you must add in the infintismaly small chance of an infinite losing streak to the equation to make the equation rational !! still cant spell lol !

[Gronbog]

Even when starting with a $1 bet, table limits would certainly be a problem for the actual streaks of 23 blackjack losses that I have personally experienced, the 18 banker wins that I personally observed, and the losing streaks of 10 that happen as often as every 10 hours of play. Did you not see the bets that were required to continue in thise cases?

[advantage playe]

you simply leave that table and go to a much higher limit table to continue raising your bet chasing that one dollar ! you may be wagering a few hundred thousand dollars to win a buck, if u insist have at it !!

[Gronbog]

I think you're missing the point of my post. The point was that you don't have to lose very many in a row before you won't be able to find a table anywhere which will take your bet.

Those who defend the martingale make general statements like "you don't lose that many in a row very often" without bothering to work out exactly how often that is for the game they are playing. Reality is that it will happen and it only has to happen once to put you in the hole for good.

[advantage playe]

you can also have a consordium of people with u near the table ready to bet the correct portion to make the next double up !

[Gronbog]

If you try to do this at the same table at the same time, then they still won't take the bet.

If you try to do this on separate hands on the same table, or at different tables, then it is mathematically equivalent to making the separate bets yourself and you are no longer playing the martingale. You will, in fact have made it harder to succeed because you now need to win two bets for every one you lose in order to succeed. If you lose those two bets, you then need to win 4 bets for every one you lose in order to succeed, and so on.

It's madness.

[advantage playe]

I don't think the casino is in fear of large bets while they have the mathematical advantage !

[stevel96a1]

You cant honestly say a banker on baccarat table can and will not show up after 60 turns or 100 hits on roulette avoiding black color in a even chance game assuming no cheat at play would not be able to capture one unit? I know reality has table limits but suppose there were no limit and you had enough bank roll to cover 100 bets using the MG, under those conditions i say it would succeed, do you know if random has a limit? Again i would not wager my soul to find out a un-discovered math that does over come a minus game. This pretty much goes deeper in mathematics when calculus and other advanced math was invented or discovered.

The martingale is one interesting system because it is true that with only a single win, you will end up one unit ahead.

However, it still is theoretically flawed because, from a theoretical point of view, you need an infinite bankroll to prove that it will work every time and the concept of adding to an infinite bankroll is mathematically undefined. From a philosophical and existential point of view that in turn leads to the idea that if you had an infinite bankroll, you would have no motivation to use that strategy at all.

From a practical point of view, you would still have little motivation. Why would someone with a huge bankroll play a system which wins $1 or $10 when it succeeds? Then there are the issues of limits of your actual bankroll and casino tolerance. Yes, it is infinitesimally unlikely that you could make 100 baccarat or outside roulette bets without winning. But it doesn't need to get anywhere near that bad before you would be unable or unwilling to continue.

My own personal longest losing streak at blackjack is 23 hands in a row with some doubles and splits thrown in there to make things even worse. Starting with a bet of $1 and with no doubles or splits, I would have been down $8,388,607 and betting $8,388,608 on the 24th hand trying to get my $1 back. I recently saw a streak of 18 banker wins in a row at baccarat. At that point, starting with the same $1 bet, someone betting player would require a bet of $262,144.

How large a bet are you wiling to make in order to "win" a single unit? Most table games minimums are $10 these days. Lose 10 in a row, (happens a lot to someone who plays regularly) and you're looking at $10,240. Even if you were willing to make that bet, the casino probably would not let you. So you end up down $10,230, needing to win 1,024 progressions in a row in order to recover.

My own personal longest losing streak at blackjack is 23 hands in a row with some doubles and splits thrown in there to make things even worse. Starting with a bet of $1 and with no doubles or splits, I would have been down $8,388,607 and betting $8,388,608 on the 24th hand trying to get my $1 back. I recently saw a streak of 18 banker wins in a row at baccarat. At that point, starting with the same $1 bet, someone betting player would require a bet of $262,144.

and if you had access to say 5 times 23 hand losing streak and suppose the casino permit a no limit wager, would it be physically possible to continue to lose 115 wagers consecutively (in this 3d real world id say no maybe in a computer simulation it may go on forever)

[Gronbog]

This is just getting silly now. I feel like advantage player is either just baiting the discussion or is being sarcastic. I can't tell which.

For Steve's question, the 2^115 dollars you would need is more money than exists in the world. It's more than the estimated number of stars in the universe. The question is meaningless. The probability of that many losses in a row is so small that it is not worth considering, either in reality or in a simulation.

The whole point was that the majority of players will be in deep trouble with the martingale after as little as 10 losses in a row which does happen regularly.

My purpose here is not to convince either of you. The questions were posed to me directly. My answers have been given. Intelligent readers can decide what they want to believe.

[Eduardo]

So in summary, as long as I have close to 100 million dollars, I can win a dollar pretty often with the Martingale. But I might lose 100 million dollars, if I can find a casino that will accept it. This sounds like an excellent plan.