Martingale coupled with Jacks 9/6

[BobDancer]

i do  believe the martin gale could work on any game, after losing 4, 8, 12 etc eventually i will hit and gain a profit, problem is i don't have those types of funds.i even tried switching from 0.25 to 0.50 after a loss and the damn thing has a mind of its ownas if it remembers who i am

If your goal is winning, you are very mistaken in your conclusion.If you play games (including  slot clubs) that return less than 100%, you will end up losing. No betting strategy can get around that.Your system will take awhile for you to go broke --- but you will eventually do that. Going three royal cycles without a royal happens one time in a hundred --- round numbers. Going six royal cycles without a royal happens one time in 10,000. The fact that you haven't run into such a losing streak yet in your sims does not mean they cannot happen.They can and do.Also, WinPoker plays every hand correctly.Humans don't You will make quite a few mistakes --- especially as you shift from game to game.

[stevel96a1]

thanks alot captain bring down!but yea 5 1/2 bankrolls is where i draw the line or as Gronbog would call it 5 standard deviations !

[stevel96a1]

i don't see it on Win Poker but  i can do a slow style of it on Wolf video pokerWin Poker gives it more control when to start/stop and run through the handsWolf i have to play through 50 hands to unlimited but yes i can if ya want on Wolfi think  i did SDB on wolf not a system but credit for credit was always able to end a winneri tried in atlantic city 400$ lasted me 3-4 hr if that 0 return its funny too Wolf showed me a 1/5 chance of me losing 1600 credits without winning atleast 800 credits oh well

[FloridaPhil]

Bob Dancer is right.   You can not beat a negative video poker game with strategy, trickery, math or wishful thinking.   I have my doubts if average humans can beat a positive game either, but I'm in the minority on that opinion.  The issue is two fold.  One is errors.  Computers don't make errors.  Despite their best efforts, all humans do.  I'll bet over 90% of the players on this forum when asked if they make errors would say they play 100% accurately.  I would bet money none could play 100% error free for 40 hours.  40 hours is nothing, try doing it for years at a time.The second issue is discipline.  How many players will stay with the same game when it's not working?   The ability to have enough faith in what you are doing to stay the course when things are going badly is not a common attribute, especially among gamblers. It's fun to pit yourself against the machines.  I have spent years testing strategies attempting to overcome the house edge.   I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but it can't be done.  You will win on occasion.  You may even win for a couple of years like I did.  Eventually the house will take their cut and you will learn to deal with it.Unless you have the skills, opportunities, discipline, bankroll, comps and incentives of a Bob Dancer, there will always be a cost to play video poker.   The only question is "How much do you want to pay?"

[Gronbog]

I have a question.  Lets assume a player plays 9/6 Jacks or Better with cash back and comps putting the game at 101%. Let's also assume that player plays error free and has a bankroll big enough to last through any downturn.   How many hands must he play before the possibility of a loss is zero? This is a fair question, but I have to tread lightly because this is where what the math says can easily be misinterpreted and often is.The mathematical answer is that the possibility of a loss will never be zero. Yep, I really said that! It can't be zero because, for example, there is (extremely) small possibility that the player in your scenario will never hit a paying hand again in his life while playing JoB. It's an extreme scenario used only to show that the possibility cannot be zero, however, no sane person believes that this will actually happen. A more realistic comparison would be that the possibility of jumping off a 30 story building onto cement and surviving is also not zero. It's easier to believe that this could happen, but that does not mean it would not be irresponsible and dangerous to tell people to go ahead and give it a try because anything can happen.The non-zeroness of the possibility of the player in your scenario could end up losing in the long run, or that anyone could beat the math while playing a negative situation and end up winning in the long run falls into that same category. There is a ridiculously small possibility that it could happen. But, in reality, it won't happen. And, in the negative case, to make any statement implying that there is a realistic chance of it happening would be irresponsible and dangerous.Now to specifically answer your question about how long it would take in your scenario to approach this near zeroness:You have given your player's edge as 1% (0.01). The variance of 9/6 JoB is 19.51. N0 (N-zero) for this game is therefore 19.51 / (0.01 ^2) = 195,100 hands. After this relatively small number of hands, 84.1% of all players playing this way will already be winning and only 15.9% will still be losing.4 x N0 = 780,400 hands. At this point, 97.7 of all players playing this way will be winning leaving only 2.3% still losing.9 x N0 = 1,755,900 hands. At this point 99.8% will be winning and 0.2% (1 in 500) would still be losing.16 x N0 = 3,121,600 hands. At this point 99.993% will be winning and 0.007% (1 in 14,285) would still be losing. [edit] I botched this last calculation. It's actually 99.997% will be winning and 0.003% or in in 33,333 would still be losing.It could happen that he would still be losing even at 4xN0, but I wouldn't bet on it. At 9xN0, I would be calling it a lock and at 16xN0 you would delusional to consider the possibility.

[Gronbog]

Steve, the lure of progressions like the Martingale is that the typical pattern of results is many small wins in a row between losses. This makes it seem like a great idea and makes it seem like an even better idea when you try it for real and make some money at first. You may even abandon some sequences while still ahead overall in an attempt to avoid going into the red. The problem is that you will eventually experience a sequence of losses which will eat up more than all of your previous wins leaving you neither the balls nor the ability (house limits) to make the bets required to continue.  When this happens you are usually thousands of dollars behind with no hope of recovery.

[stevel96a1]

it seems so you are right Phil, i am throwing everything at it i havemartin gale seems to be the best guesser but he better guess right otherwise i can go through a series of hands that will destroy 5 or more bankrolls in laymans terms it can not be done, feels like im playing a keno game with a 30% edge loli am testing every system known to man on win poker and coming up empty handed best two ways were martingale won 10k$ or flat bet win 4700 credits on quartersbut we both know run that sim 250k-500k-750k hands whos the winner?getting around 5 1/2 bankrolls maybe the key to a betting structure on 9/6 jacks

[stevel96a1]

i have lowered my sights to DDBACES AND FACES and shooting for +250 credits or go brokethat 4k royal is too far away

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=Gronbog]This is a fair question, but I have to tread lightly because this is
where what the math says can easily be misinterpreted and often is.[/quote]In all  the years I have been on this forum, that was the most complete and understandable answer I have been given.  Thank you for clearing this issue up for me.It seems I have two choices.   I can try to find a long term positive game or I can play small and live with what I have.  I actually like quarter play.  There is no pressure and I can sit back and enjoy the game as entertainment.   If I had access to a positive VP game, it would most like likely be at dollars or larger.   This would cause me personal angst that I don't need right now.My current strategy is holding my losses to a minimum and providing all the comps I care about.  I am having fun and that's what matters.   I guess I'm just not cut out to be a big time gambler.  

[stevel96a1]

-250-250-250+250-250+700-250+250+250-250-250-250-250+375-250 (0.25-250 (0.25-250 (0.25-250 (0.25-250 (0.50-250 (0.50-250 (0.50-250 (0.50+250-250-250-250+250+250-250+250-250-250+870-250+250-6k +3945 royal 4k+a royal popped in their some how i do not include the royal because they are too far away, so now have to combat 8 negative banks of 250 credits any ideas to get around it?