Thanks for the video content! Forgive me for chiming in, I would love your thoughts. Have you researched - Konenjamin Penrooklyn Solution (google it)? It is a good one off guide for finding your lucky day to cleverly win the lottery minus the hard work. Ive heard some unbelievable things about it and my cousin after a lifetime of fighting got great success with it.
Excellent Video clip! Excuse me for chiming in, I am interested in your initial thoughts. Have you tried - Konenjamin Penrooklyn Solution (should be on google have a look)? It is a great one off product for finding your lucky day to cleverly win the lottery minus the headache. Ive heard some unbelievable things about it and my good mate called Gray got astronomical results with it.
Lovely Video! Forgive me for the intrusion, I would appreciate your opinion. Have you ever tried - Konenjamin Penrooklyn Solution (just google it)? It is a great one of a kind product for finding your lucky day to cleverly win the lottery without the normal expense. Ive heard some interesting things about it and my old buddy Taylor after many years got amazing success with it.
@@jhoncanole2979 Winner of a video, I have been researching "how do you bet on the right horse?" for a while now, and I think this has helped. You ever tried - Meyackentae Foundational Magic - (just google it )? It is a great one off product for discovering how to use this method to finally win at betting without the normal expense. Ive heard some amazing things about it and my mate got excellent success with it.
The way I describe it is that it's like playing a game where you have 100 boxes and 1 of them has a snake in it... If you only play like 5 boxes, your probably safe.... If you play 95 boxes you'll probably get bit.
@Orlando Alexandru You’re misunderstanding the ‘1 in 7 hours’ point. That timer doesn’t reset on each visit, and it could happen at any time. It’s just as likely to happen on your first 10 hands in a session as it is on the last. Martingale doesn’t work, end of.
Where was this video when I turned 21??? Yep, thought I had a great system and it took all of about 15 minutes to lose $325...on my birthday. Great videos on blackjack and betting Colin.
Yeah, I think most of us thought some sort of progression made intuitive sense. Happy to provide the math that backs up the reality of these faulty "systems."
I was lucky, I learned programming before I started gambling. As soon as I heard about this system I played with it on my cellphone. Seemed to work but at one point I had to bet like $3000, more than I would be able to risk. Then I wrote a python script to see how long it takes for you to hit an unacceptable loss. put 10,000 iterations through the script and right around iteration 3000 I had to bet something like $167,000. Really glad I did this with virtual currency on games and computer scripts and didn't have to learn a more expensive way.
As a blackjack dealer in Vegas for 25 years I have seen guys lose 30 hands in a row, maybe even more than that. I personally lost 20 hands in a row one time. Why did I stay at the table and lose 20 hands in a row? It was pretty much out of anger.
I feel kinda bad giving that comment a thumbs up. I thought martingale sounded fishy when I first heard about it, so I wrote a quick python script to test it out. After a few million iterations I found out it really does work.... Assuming you have a bankroll of over 200 million dollars and know a casino that can take that bet (That was the highest loss the script ran into).
You don’t have to win forever. If you play till you’ve lost 12 straight rotations you theoretically could win more in that time period than you lost at the end. Counting cards is obviously better and should be your primary system but I have played a form of martingale and never lost in about 50 trips to the blackjack table. I’ll quit after a $200-500 win and often don’t have to stretch my $20,000-30,000 bankroll very often. I don’t like it because if you do have to pull out the big guns now your stuck walking around with $30,000 until you can dump it back into your checking account. That’s the part that sucked for me. I either win $200 after 20 rotational wins or I spike a blackjack on a $320,$640 or $1,280 bet(my biggest win ever using this system) and leave at that point. That night was around a $700 win and I had the urge to stay but chose to see a show instead. I was willing to lose $20,000 to win that(or less) knowing I likely wouldn’t lose. Again I NEVER lost but I had 4 or 5 white knuckle nights where I had to nut up and risk it. I learned by counting cards in addition to this I could make one or two bets in a session that were advantages before I left the table. Although I won more than I lost it was exciting to use it once in awhile instead of grinding it out. I wouldn’t do it in any other game but blackjack and I wouldn’t play past two to four hours so that I enjoyed my evening with my wife but never got the urge to go all the way. The betting pattern was 10-10-20-40-80-160-320-640-1280-2560-5120 and $10k so the one time I laid down $10,000 I was feeling like an idiot. I have gone an hour without winning anything and learned that playing with others was not a good idea but on average I’d win about $50 per hour I played. When I counted cards it was rarely +10-15 thru three decks and I often ran into mid deck reshuffles which frustrated me and discouraged me from playing in that casino. Playing $10 games can be dull but this is one of the things I do to amuse myself when my wife is getting her nails done or shopping for an outfit. It’s either blackjack or Caribbean poker so I mostly stay in the Venetian or the palazzo. I’m really impressed with the guys who can grind it out and one day I’ll try and do it legitimately if for no other reason than I can say I was thrown out of a casino LOL. I have player $10,$20 and $25 minimums and have never felt it was critical for me to stay after winning my agreed upon, modest goal. Good luck gentleman.
You can do this with roulette but under very specific circumstances do columns and rows bet 2 out of three and preempt it with either 2 or three in same column risk of ruin for 2 is 5 percent and less than 1 percent for 3 requires 2500 table limit
i tried this with a roulette 'dozen' bet on my computer starting with $5 and doubling every loss meaning you not only win the original $5 but also win an equal amount to the entire bet because the dozen bets pay 2 to 1...i ran the simulation for 12 hours and the highest bet was over $10 million dollars due to extensive losing streaks and no casino will let you bet that high on a $5 minimum table
What about 5 on red an 5 on 1-18 leaving i think only 10 numbers including zero outta 36 that can hurt ya? If loose u dont double you just add same unit saw guy make 300 in 15min think he had to add up to 4 units the most using $10 chips so he had $40 on both bets, when he won he only removed 1 chip from each
But you forget to realize...you are still doing a 50/50 bet with roulette. Martingale blackjack is about doubling or tripleling every time you lose but...being around experienced blackjack players increases your odds.
Loved that point you made about risking $20,000 to make $5. ETA: If the casinos knew what you were doing would they back you off? This also applies to the "flow of the cards" crew too.
Okay. So I go to a casino in downtown Vegas in the afternoon and see a 1 deck table @ $5 minimum and $500 maximum. What do you think my chances are with progressive betting just doubling every time I lose? Keep in mind...always bet minimum after a winning hand (I triple my bet, by the way). You will need some balls with this system. like someone said...DON'T GET GREEDY. You will lose 10% of the time with this system. "Know when to hold em" "Know when to fold em"
@@daleloucks2000If you aren't counting cards, you have a chance of winning some money early, and if you stop and never go to a casino again, then you'll be ahead. Otherwise you'll always lose in the long run unless you're counting cards. The number of decks is meaningless if you aren't counting cards by the way, you get no advantage from deck size as a regular gambler.
Uhm...okay...thanks for your reply. Not sure who read my initial post. My system requires betting minimum of double/triple every time you lose. It's not a nightingale system
Yeah, the Martindale is a great system...for the casinos. You win 7 in a row and you receive $70. You lose 7 in a row and you're out $1000. What could possibly go wrong with that arrangement? The only good thing about it is if you tell the casino manager that you're playing a Martingale system he'll send a limousine to come pick you up.
All systems will get you in the long run but this one gets you even quicker. If you play at the best BJ table arrangement out there (actually probably a form of Spanish 21) and play optimally and use the Martingale as mentioned here, you will most likely not reach the table limit and continue to slice small margins slowly until that rarity of reaching the table maximum (or lack of bankroll) happens which it will destroy you. However that is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that there are many situations where a split, double down, or even surrender should be the optimal choice however you are caught in a hard place if you are on your 5th double up due to 4 losing hands in a row. Thus, you either have to put funds that are not inline with the Martingale scheme to maintain basic strategy or if you want to stay inline with the Martingale scheme of funds, you would have to break optimal strategy (i.e. not splitting 77 versus a 7). Thus the "exotic" betting chances in BJ hurt this strategy even further. (However must be nice to get that BJ on the 7 double up lol)!
@@datguy2271 "Ask the Capitalists" says the guy in the wealthy capitalist country, using capitalist software, to browse a capitalist website, from a compute device built by capitalists, while learning how to make money....
Hi Bowen, im very interested in trying this, could you explain more about this please ? And did you mean NFL ? If you want give me your email and I can email you thanks.
@@raydalton1110 so basically I'm saying In a round of sport,, example if you were to pick every favourite obviously under odds of $2 one of Them will have a high chance of losing or you would always win a multi bet chpoisng all favourites do I'm saying keeping doubling on the non favourite over odds of $2.0 until they win unless it's obvious that a favourite will win 👌 e.g. Bet $10 x$2, (loss) 2nd game bet $20 X2 to win $40 or more (win) $10 or more profit total spend $30
One concept you didn't explore related to martingaling is doubling down and splitting. if you have a massive bet out there, you may not have the bank roll to double down or split and/or you may not have the guts to do it. At the same time, that probably affects your EV if you win a few.
That's called overbetting your bankroll. If you place a bet on a blackjack hand, you should be sure to keep at least 7x that bet in reserve, in case you need to split and double multiple times. If your bankroll and/or risk appetite can't tolerate such a large max bet, you need to downsize your betting.
progressive betting systems ca work but ONLY with a positive expectation. I saw a video where " Vegas Runner" was part of a team that used a progressive system in combo with counting. It was used as cover though. They were not depending on their progression to make a profit. They were depending on it to cover their tracks for when they started placing big bets. I will not enter a debate about it bc I know there are people out there that swear progressive systems don't work period. Not true. When you have a positive expectation they can be made to work. Doubling each time would max you out too quickly, a one unit progression would be more effective. However, this is only used as a cover. That can not be stressed enough. You must limit your progression or, better yet, Wong the table so you are not playing with a negative EV.
The reality is the progressive system was PURELY cover, and was in fact either costing them EV, or increasing risk of ruin. The positive counts made the money.
I destroyed some guy who would came in to my casino twice every week using this method. It was when I first became a dealer 3 years ago. He was carrying on telling me that it's impossible to loose that many hands in a row and he didnt take it well. Pretty sure he lost about 2 to 3 grand after his bets were capped at $15 to $500 table choosing to play more than one hand when it reached the limit. Blackjack apprenticeship is correct. Mathematical streaks like long losses do happen. Even more so as the casino has blackjack in its favor. Anything is possible with 6 decks.
Anthony B This guy didn't play the game the optimum way ? On a $15 minimum it allows a L 6 double up & a $985 base BR. But because of playing multiple positions on losses $7,000 BR would be ideal (sure not a lot of people have a spare $7 K). See my other post to B A about how to play it. I'd like to see the dealer win on 1 position then 2 then 3 then 4 then 5 then 6 then 7, then (at L 7) at L2 Then at L3 Then at L4 Then at L5 Then at L6 Then at L7 ? That means the casino/dealer would have to win up to 49 deals Back to Back to bust the guy ? Very difficult to see that happening ?
@@Gmail.compey It's really not that rare. A Martingale basically trades a high probability of a small win for a low probability of a huge loss. Double your bet after every loss, throw in a couple of splits or double downs, and sooner or later, your going to be risking $5,000+ to net $10 if you win. Next bet is $10,000. That streak can happen on your 50th session, or your first.
On top of what you said, it's worth mentioning that even if the Casino didn't have an edge, your overall win would be exactly the amount of the first bet. So you're either gonna be capped by table limit or your bankroll if your initial bet is too high, or you're making tiny dollars (risking exponentially more dollars).... so, not worth your time. When you compute the Casino edge in all of this, it's crystal clear how this strategy is suicide.
That's what gets me. Every time you win, you only really win your initial bet, along with recouping your losses. With more losing hands in a single streak, your risk increases, but your winnings don't.
You doing it wrong. You don't double your bet till the third bet... So on a $5 table, it goes. 5 5 10 20 40 As, if you lose the first one you only want to recoperate that loss, not recoperate what you would have won. Couple this with a card counting system and you'll do really well, as the dealer will just assume you're using basic strategy and martingale.
I was thinking the same thing. If you lose a bet when you had a +2 true count initially, and the current true count is either the same or +1, then I don't see it being a problem. The only issue you may run into is if you lose a hand with an initial +2 true count, but now you're -1,-2, etc. In that case your double bet would be inaccurate.
@Bone Slayer "see that you're counting cards". I mean, unless you're counting on your fingers in some obvious way then casinos aren't going to know you're counting. What they notice are drastically large bets and, most importantly, whether the house is losing money. Then you get backed off.
@Bone Slayer Yep, its the bet spreads that give counters away, it doesn't matter how great your 'act' is, as soon as you put 8-10 times your flat bet down they will start giving you heat. You can't call in the 'Big Player' now anymore either because they have rules barring players entering a hand in the middle of a shoe. Counters who still make money do it outside of the US or using hole carding or other techniques. Edit: I should have mentioned that because of the proliferation of casinos in North America, if you are prepared to live on the road you CAN actually make money counting. The modern players accept they will be barred but play as long as they can at one place and when they inevitably get 86'ed move on to another one - NOT in Vegas though because the majority of casinos are all owned by 2 or 3 corporations.
@Dice Doctor I agree with you people do win 100 all the time. I have access to 2 casinos where I'm from. One is a block down from the other. I stop by one after work with $100 in my pocket and sit at a $5 dollar table because I'm cheap and they offer 3:2 which is rare imo for a 5-500. If I make some money, I pocket my $100 and play with what I have until I hit a comfortable amount like 150-200. At this point I move to the next casino. I start with $100 and continue the process. If I lose I come back next month. What this does for me, is avoid getting my feelings hurt, avoid getting backed off a table, and avoid getting noticed. The thing is to get in and get out. Greed is the end of many. So you can't be afraid to give back to the casino a tiny bit and tip your dealer. Maybe I'm just lucky, but what I do for myself personally is set some rules. never hit to 5 cards if you have 12 or higher. Don't be afraid to let the dealer eat cards if they show a 7 or below on the face. I have been in some interesting hands to where this made a difference for me. Although it might not be perfect basic strategy.
Steve Veasey Unfortunately it’s not just Vegas. Majority of casinos in any one locality around North America are owned by the same Corporation or Native American tribal joint venture ext. ext. ext. The worst one to be permanently 86’d from has to be MGM. They have a very far reach regardless of management in each individual casino.
Been wanting to test this system for a long time, so glad I saw this explained. I wonder if it is combined with card counting it is more successful, or maybe betting low when the deck is in favor of the player is not beneficial and defeats the purpose of counting.
Progression betting, if you do it only in favorable counts, can work as cover. Sooner or later, they are likely to figure out what you're doing, but it might buy you some time.
@@russlehman2070Unfortunately a cover that would skyrocket your risk of ruin or destroy your EV, depending on luck, and card counters don't like to depend on luck.
Yea.. And 10 time losing streak, even tho it's very very unlikely, I have seen it. And already as said 3-4 time losing streak starts to hurt and I have had 7 time winning streak so I bet 7 time losing streak is big OUCH. A guy with like 100000 wouldn't bet with 5 on start so this is why the system is dumb.
I just can’t here from losing £80 trying out the martingale strategy at a £1-2500 (all I had is 80 and I WAS sweating at 40 lol) 😭 I knew it was a fools strategy but it does run good sometimes. But I absolutely want to learn card counting. Is it better to play with more or less players at the table?
The guy says maximum of 300$ ? Yea but theres many online casinos that will accepts 1-75 000$ bets. But from experience i play with low bets and high bets and leave with 1k profit. * when ull be several days in profit trust me those 40$ wont matter to you anymore lol but stay controlled bec you could be tempted to bet lets 20-30k$ a bet and u could loose very fast all ur profit ;) gl !
Hi! You lose 4 hands in a row 2% of the time according to the online calculator. Now with betting 1-3-7-15 and going back to 1 after Fourth loss, you would have 98 wins and 2 losses. On average you will win the second time most often so we can count average profit as 2 per hand. So that's 196 average profit. With 2 losses of 4 in a row you will lose 54 with net profit of 142 per 100 rounds. If my math is wrong someone please correct me. Also this is assuming you have a bankroll enough to support at least 5 losses of 4 in a row or 20 hands in a row
I have a craps game on my phone and progressive bet the COME bet. It sometimes works but usually if someone just rolls and rolls, I quickly get to the table limit. My phone craps game is $100-$10,000. So 100-200-400-800-1600-3200-6400 and that it. Seven bets and hoping that one of my bets will come back to me. One good thing is if an 11 rolls, I restart the progression. But it sucks to put out 6400 to win 100. I was also a 21 dealer and some clown and his wife came in one night trying this and it didn’t work out for them on a $10-5000 game. This casino also had a $5-10,000 baccarat game that I would like to progressive bet on if I had the money, but again, you can always get on the wrong side of streaks.
I thought the whole point was to use all systems together. Basic strategy, a betting system and card counting. Would't that increase your overall chance of making money? Or does card counting has an embedded betting system?
at Blackjack Apprenticeship we teach a "trifecta" system of perfect basic strategy, perfect card counting using Hi-Lo, and perfect betting and playing deviations.
Exactly. And this is the thing especially in Europe and at night clubs. Even best players have now serious problems to win anything if not being lucky.
Once you are capped at one table nothing is stopping you from going to a higher limit table. I know more than a few people that do that betting red or black. Once they double their money they get up and leave. If Vegas cared they wouldn't let you do it. They know their odds never changed. That's the best argument against progressive betting. You can always start out a dollar machine, get capped at 64 dollars and then go to a 5 dollar table now you're capped at 11 hands. Lose 11 and go to a five hundred dollar table. Etc. All that work to win a buck. LOL.
Even given this concept, he still pointed out that with unlimited bankroll and unlimited bet size you will still lose in the end. Technically not quite true because if you have more money than the casino you could get lucky and bankrupt them first, just gotta start by having more money than a casino.
I always do reverse martingale cause i have noticed wins come in streaks and losses too. I double up on every win. I figure since the casinos favorite player is a martingale player then a reverse Martingale player is their least favorite. I limit it to just one doubling, but if the count is very positive, I will push for a 3rd.
Actually, a casino's least favorite player (other than a card counter) is a player who always bets minimum because you are giving less money to the house. Reverse Martingale is still losing, just not necessarily in the same way.
Anything that means bigger bets is more money for the casino unless you're counting, which includes calculated bet spreads around the count of the dependent state of the deck, not bets themed around the independent outcomes of each hand
Last Friday i went to my first irl blackjack table , i have only been practicing on my phone perfect basic strategy. Went in with 3000 Mexican pesos and an average lf 150 the hand, if i lost i would keep my bet the same, if won 2 in a row i would up my bet to 200, after two hours i ended up at 3600 with 600 of profit using only perfect basic strategy. But man the amount of people i saw doubling their bet after losing and doing side best to "recover" was insane, plus a few of them were playing by the book, i saw a guy split a pair of 10 against a dealer 7 cus he thought it would be easy money, he ended up with below 17 and the dealer showed a 10. Yeah doubling your bet might work on the short term but on the long run and more often than not it will screw you over
Same average bet & same house edge => you're losing money at the same rate in the long run as a Martingale player. No simulations needed, it's just basic math and logic. Can't reliably win placing negative EV bets.
It is, but I personally like playing with others because it takes some of the pressure off psychologically for me. Before you walk into a casino have a plan. Take a look at your cash and ask yourself how much of this am I absolutely ok with losing? $50,$100? Maybe a thousand? Whatever the amount is, make sure it's an amount that if you lose it won't affect you financially in anyway. Then I want you to take that amount and divide it by 2. You will be working with the first half. The other half will be a back up incase you are deep into the decks but chips are zeroed out. Set aside winnings so that you can mentally have that money already in your pocket and so if you lose a hand or 2 you can back off with your newly earned money. Once you have developed your game plan. Whatever it is, or if it's similar to mine, then you can chill out. Grab a drink, smoke some weed, chill in your car and listen to some music while you smoke some weed in the corner of a parking lot. Then when you're %100 ready go in there intelligent, relaxed, cool, calm, and collective and make some dough because why tf not.
Martingale was how I got into blackjack! I won seven grand in one night on ignition, back when it was called bovada! ...I also lost it all the same night.
When the count is in the players favor then the player is more likely.to win. Card counters will increase their bets for example betting $10 per hand until the count is in their favor then betting $100 per hand because they are more likely to win. You.can do the same thing w martingale. Instead of increasing bet size you just start to double your bets on losses when the count is in your favor because your more likely to win. I don't do this I'm just explain what they were talking about.
Modified martingale system: In regular martingale, you only win back what you lost. In this version, your base bet is the table minimum, Let's call it N. Each hand you lose, you double the bet and add N. So it goes N, 3N, 7N, 15N and so on. Once you hit the table limit, you revert back to N. The idea is that each hand you play, so long as you don't hit the table limit (which can happen fairly easily) you gain N, even more if you get lucky and blackjack after several lost hands. You can get a protracted bad run, which is why you revert back to your base bet.
@@GaryLuKOTH Yes, but it's a bit better than regular martingale. I am an indifferent Blackjack player at best, and don't know how to card count, but I tested the Double Plus base strategy VS the simple bet doubling at Circus Circus about 15 years ago (They had $1 Blackjack tables at the time) and Double Plus 1 consistently lasted much longer than simple doubling.
No, that's incorrect! Because even with that minor disadvantage your betting in winning 1 hand at least of 8 hands, and you only lose if you lose 8 hands in a row!
just wanted to point out that house edge does not have anything to do with martingale system failing, because the math calculations are different, it shows that casino win more often than the player, while martingale system needs only one win to restart, so math would be calculated differently, the problem with it that it's based on probability, and in the end the probability is probability, not a guaranty. You only need once to loose all your money, and if you calculate how many times you have to play to earn the same amount as bankroll you need to pull it of(which you can loose in one go) the probability of loosing hits almost 100%, so basically it's still gambling not a winnable system.
Martingale is tricky because the player wins way more often than they lose, so it feels successful. The problem is that when you lose, you lose way more than you've won. Imagine a 20 sided Di and I give you $10 for every number 1-19 and I got $250 on a 20. You would win most of the time, but I would make more money.
Mike Garner just set a stop loss, after loosing 5 hands in a row just reset, there’s almost no point into betting past 5 hands unless your really up big and the money is pretty minuscule, also doubles and blackjacks let you make more money at the risk of one bet
Davis Robinson That would decrease how much you lose but it still will not win in the long run. The amount you lose during that small winning streak will usually be more than how much you won.
Gary Lu Productions with a starting bankroll of 300$ it works for me I’ve personally doubled and tripled it many times, my betting kinda looks like 5,5,10,20,40 I double the first 5$ to get back to even each time I do this, also if I remember correctly it’s only about a 20% chance of loosing 5 hands in a row, but we all know loosing 5 hands in a row is more than possible that’s why you stop at 5 and just restart the sequence of bets sure your going to loose but if you don’t get flustered you’ll eventually just keep winning
Davis Robinson You can play that if you want but as I said, that will not win in the long run. That small losing streak will happen often enough to cover all of your wins. If you only played this strategy for about 15 hours, you do not enough proof that it is a good strategy.
@@davisrobinson2835 It's impossible to win in the long run. The math is clear, the video explained it, multiple people here have explained it. But it's not our money. If you want to do it, be our guest, but just know you're losing money in the long term and don't gamble with money you can't afford to lose. Best wishes.
With an infinite bankroll this progression does actually work. It is sufficient to prove that any given loss streak must have an end, which is true provided you're able to make an infinite number of bets. If p is the probability of winning a hand then p*(1-p)^k gives the probability that it takes k+1 hands until your next win. Summing these values for k=0 to infinity yields the value p[(1-p)^0+(1-p)^1+...]=p(1/(1-(1-p)))=p(1/p)=1. Hence, the probability of eventually getting a winning hand is 1 provided you can place infinitely many wagers. Alternatively consider q as the probability of losing a hand, then q^k is the probability of losing k hands in a row. Taking the limit as k goes to infinity gives 0, the probability of losing infinitely many hands in a row. Therefore every loss streak must have an end.
@@blackjackapprenticeshipgus6559 That is a completely valid point. If you could bet whatever you wanted, had an infinite amount of money, and had infinite time to spend chasing a loss, then you could make money this way!
@@tannerboos2268 With an infinite bankroll you might well just straight up put $100 aside and claim that as your winnings. And you would still have an infinite bankroll. Actually, you could put aside another countably infinite bankroll and now you would have two infinite bankrolls. A lot of "systems" mathematically work with an "infinite bankroll".
I wouldn't completely knock this system. It requires discipline and some initial luck. It's a good way to quickly build up your small bank roll, but not a viable system long term.
Martingale system it’s working 100% when you want to make 1000€(random amount, up to your bankroll)/day and not playing continuously till you reach that amount. Small bets and pause every few hands it’s the key. Use brain, not ears.
Thanks for the Videos ! Can you guys talk about Balanced verse Unbalanced counts I use the KO count so I don’t have to use a TC conversion Can you do a video about the many different systems and your reasoning behind choosing the Count you use Thanks !
@@craigjorgensen4637 BS. There is nothing remotely difficult about counting a six deck shoe. The trouble with a six deck game is that you won't see a favorable count nearly as often as you will in a double deck game, so you need a bigger spread between your minimum bet and your maximum.
If you had an infinite bankroll you definitely would win, the only way you wouldn’t is by an infinite loosing streak which isn’t statistically imaginable
Who in their right mind would ever consider martingale? Anyone who thinks Martingale is profitable probably also thinks it would be better to play a 6:5 double deck game over a 3:2 six deck game. Go back to the slot machines if you think that.
Its a simplistic method that allows players to get the illusion that they can get their loses back. And it does that if you play for just say an hour, if you can avoid the losing streak, you will progressively make tiny tiny profit and you can just leave the table with that profit. However, if you start at the minimum at the table, your profit is really small doing that, and in the long run you still lose big by the losing streak. But for the casual person, its the perfect illusion of a system that allows them to make a profit.
If you are going to use a progressive system, use the martingale. If you lose, chances are a small card beat you so the deck is more likely to be rich if you lose a number of bets in a row. So it’s better than the reverse martingale. But neither system will work. And if you use it against the fake blackjack games that the casinos offer today, you will lose all your money quickly. Maybe that would be better for you. You can leave broke quickly and hopefully spend your time doing something more productive, rather than losing slowly and waste your time away. I will play blackjack and count cards only if I find a decent game. But I’ll do it just for fun. I’m not going to spend my life traveling from casino to casino and try to make a living from it. I did it in the 70s and 80s playing primarily against a single deck where the dealer stood on all 17s. I got an advantage on the first hand if I played 2 or more spots at that game. Some games I could catch the burn card and the bottom card before the cut, so I would cut away from it if it was a small card and to it if it were a big card. Sometimes I had over 2% on the first hand and I would bet big. That helped conceal my play greatly when I was betting big right after the shuffle up. It was fun to play under those conditions, but I’m a musician and no amount or success at blackjack beats having played the Dvorak cello concerto with orchestra well.
I don't understand how this would not be a winning system if you had infinite bankroll + infinite max bet. With Martingale every play is a sequence of n losses followed by a win. No matter the value of n, after that win you're richer than you were before that sequence. The issue with that strat is that it's super slow and that it does require infinite bankroll and infinite max bet, but is winning if you check all those conditions (which you obviously don't), even if the game itself has losing odds, odds actually don't impact the "validity" of that strat at all. It wouldn't be worth the hours invested in it, though, on top of it being impossible because the conditions for it are not possible.
But if the argument is that you would eventually lose 12 games in a row doesn’t that apply to every strategy ever as well? What if you stop after doubling 3-4 times and than start again it would just take a long time.
Yes, every casino has roughly a 1-2% advantage, but it's close enough to 50/50 to basically equate it to flipping a coin. You basically have a 50% chance at winning every hand, but yes, the house has a 1-2% advantage. Despite the math, progressive betting means you are giving yourself 4, 5, 6 or whatever chances to win a coin toss. If you win the coin toss, then you start over with a new minimum bet. I'm not entirely sure the every 7 hours you'll get killed by the table limit is accurate, but lets assume he did all the math and it is. You're still going to be winning roughly 10-15 table minimum bets per hour. So if the table limits are $10 to $300 which gives you 5 chances at winning before you get killed, the chances of you winning a 50/50 bet within those 5 chances is rather good. In fact, like I said, it's roughly 10-15 wins per hour which would equate to $100-150 per hour profit. So even if you get killed in less than 3-4 hours, you're actually still breaking even at that point because you've won the same amount you lost.
5 months late here but the problem with the martingale system is that you win a very small amount and risk a very large sum of money. Loosing with the martingale system with a 5$ min bet and a max limit of lets say 2000 is roughly 0,195% but betting up to your max limit would mean that you would have to have 2555$. So if you wanted to double your money you would have to win 511 times and all of a sudden that 0,2% chance of loosing doesn't seem that unlikely and after 511 bets your chances of encountering a 9 round loss streak is 62,5% so you have better odds doubling your money by just putting everything on one bet.
If running count is 10 in the online live casino with 6 decks do you have advantage? Because I read you can't count cards at online live blackjack. But true count should be about 1.5 in this situation
u dont really know when they shuffle tho depends on the casino ive heard that online casinos shuffle way more than physical ones plus I wouldn't trust online game unless its live one , its a computer program how do u know algorithm isnt set up to give players bad hands when they are winning or something like that? computer programs are what those who wrote it want it to be in physical casino odds are always the same cause of math
See the goal here is to make a certain amount then you walk away. If you in a city or town that’s close to a casino then you would set a goal. Let’s say $100 every time you go in so once you make that you leave and come back and do it all over again using this system.
Definitely the trick to this system is setting a winning limit and then leaving when you get there. Keep your unit amount the same, don't increase it because you're up a thousand dollars. Set a reset threshold, say 4 losses in a row. After 4 losing hands you reset your bet to the original unit amount, don't double the bet on that 5th hand.
Colin I know you are against progressive betting but if you play basic strategy and are not a card counter what is your opinion of a player betting for example starting at $5 and remaining at $5 until he wins a hand then going to $10,$15,$20 on up until you lose then starting over to $5 repeating the process? Thanks for your answer.
That's very similar to Oscar's grind betting system. You are just trying to make one unit, your original bet. So if it's $5 you do the increase until you win $5 and then go back down to $5. So lose first bet, lose second bet, win 3rd, go up to $10 and raise by $5 until you're up $5.
Honestly people: forget blackjack and focus long run investments to stock markets. It's the only "gambling" where even ordinary people more likely win than lose.
As long as you buy actual stocks/ETFs and not leveraged CFDs (you might still have a positive EV with CFDs but you really have to watch the interest rates)
One thing I don't understand is, if I win around 50% of the time (a bit less) then why would I end up in a 10 losing streak? Aren't I suppose to win around 1 hand every 3 at least?
Okay, think about it like this. The probability that you win (with optimal play) is about 0.48. So, you lose about 52% of the games. So, the probability that you lose 10 games in a row is (0.52)^10=0.00144555..., which is approximately 1/692, meaning that in a run of 701 hands, you are expected to lose 10 times in a row 1 time. And you are guaranteed to play that many hands eventually if you are a regular Blackjack player. Just remember that as long as something is possible, it is bound to happen at some point.
What about progressive system in a FREE BET black jack where you double down or split for free on 9-10-11 , in half an hour is possible to win between 200-500 $ then you should leave and not continue for the day .
4 года назад
I’ve only been to a Casino once.I had £50.10 £5 bets and out £1 0-2 and £1 on 20-17:19,21,23.Hit 0 first spin and 20 on the fifth spin.But,after the 10th spin,I walked.Always have a limit on your playing.
We have to remember you need not only the table max you also need the amount up to that as well plus black jack gets you 2 to 1 so imagine being able to pick up black jack at the 5th plus hand martingaled so if you hit BJ at lets say 320 or 640... you get your money back plus the 2 to 1 and then drop back down and repeat... you stack the BJ money as well
In the online casinos I suppose is impossible to do the counting method, because the dealer shuffle the cards frequently. For example: I play the BJ with 8 decks and after we've played 50% of the cards, the decks will be shuffle... consequently the precision /affidability of the count isn't fully trusted because the precision isn't enough (is only 50%, not for example 75%)... If it is not true, why?
I think his most recent video talks about it. You are right. If you play an 8 deck game in which the cards are reshuffled after only 50% of them are dealt, then counting is much less effective.
What if I am progressive betting when the count is high? Statistically the probability is in my favor so is this system good to use once the count is high enough? Obviously you will lose some hands when the count is high, so if you double it eventually you will probably when within 7 hands correct? So long as the count stays high?
this sounds to me like it's just card counting. although when the count is high, we put our corresponding, pre-determined bet out there no matter how what the results were previously.
@@Blackjackapprenticeship Then how do you bet when the count is in your favor for multiple hands? I was always told you're supposed to increase your bet as the true count continues to go up. Isn't that a type of progressive betting even though it might not necessarily be after every hand?
I find that the best way to play is to progressive bet when you win, not when you lose. Losing 10 times in a row will lose minimally. But with progressive betting, winning 10 times in a row can make you banks. You only need that streak.
This is why I play Baccarat. Banker or player. Ties push. Closest 50/50 game in the Casino. Blackjack is not 50/50, to many intangibles. Baccarat is a game of patterns.
People who think that games have patterns are people who help the casino make money. Anyone who knows math would scoff at people who say that there are patterns.
This may just be adding to the stupidity, but what about a Progressive Progressive-Betting system? Place 5$ bet Double after first loss Triple after second loss Quadruple after third loss etc. Of course this would only work in one of these imaginary capless scenarios or a particularly high cap scenario. But theoretically, since it is more than double, you should do more than break even when you finally win. And I would assume the advantage would be multiple folds beyond that of the percentage of house advantage. For instance Start with 5 bet Lose move to 10 bet Lose move to 30 bet Lose move to 120 bet Lose move to 600 bet Lose move to 3600 bet it gets pretty wild after this loss as it moves to a 25,200 bet Assuming you win this bet you get 50,400. It only took 29,565 to get there though. That theoretically means you could break even with this strategy even if the odds were 60/40 in favor of the house. But with normal house odds this would absolutely be profitable over time if it was capless and you had infinite bank roll
What about this system: I go to a casino, buy chips for $1000 with a debit card, and instantly cash them out. I still have the same amount of money in my bank account, plus the extra $1000 in cash (so I've won $1000). It only works with an infinite bankroll, but it's pretty cool, isn't it?
DragonPupEclipse that is why casinos promote books like that in their gift stores. PT Barnum summed it up when he said “There is a sucker born every minute.”
I know the system I use is not a good one. I at this time am learning to count cards. FB 1unit, W. SB 2 units. W TB 3 United, 4th B 5 units. And the rest is just betting 5 units. I vary it with the deck. Have lost, broke even and normally I walk away with 5,000. My Personal stoping amount.
My method is $25 and if I win I let it ride and if that wins I pull back $50 with a$50 bet still out there and repeat this pattern until I lose. Then I go back to $25 and start over. It has worked for me well, but I only play until I am up $500 and then I go away.
My only issue with the video is that it is profitable if you have an unlimited bankroll and no limit table maximum. If you do it ad infinitum, you eventually win back your money from your lost hands 100% of the time, regardless of the house advantage. The problem is that those prerequisites are never true, and you will ultimately get in over your head. It's a risk/reward type of issue, as mentioned in the video; you're often betting hundreds or thousands of dollars to recover just $5 worth of losses. It just takes the one bet you can't make to lose it all.
It'd be interesting to see someone do the math on this - but it seems to me that a progressive betting system would actually affect your EV because blackjack hands are not completely random. Decks can be "hot" or "cold", depending on the current count. Plus this hot or cold-ness is somewhat sticky; in other words if the count is positive it is not a 50/50 chance that the next hand is positive or negative. So could a progressive betting system take advantage of this "stickiness" in the count to increase the player's EV? I bet if you do the math the edge you get, if there is one, would be pretty minimal but it'd be interesting to see it. Basically I'm wondering if a progressive betting system could be made such that the bet size is correlated with the current count of the deck without actually having to work out the count yourself.
a +EV bet is +EV no matter the bet size. When the count makes the bet +EV, then you want to bet as big as possible to maximize profits, not be shackled by a progressive betting system. That is the whole basis of card counting. Bet small until the count is in your favor, then go really big.
@@andrewmccullough559 Haven't done the math so don't know if it'd work, but I'm just kind of assuming that the count is somehow sticky in that if you have a positive count in one hand in the next hand it's not 50/50 that it's positive or negative. If that's true and you are more likely to win when the count is positive then wouldn't progressive betting mean you are betting more when the count is high on average? But you'd have to do the math, maybe you do bet more when the count is high but you also bet more when the count is low so it kind of averages out to no net benefit.
@@alexfloyd5730 It's an interesting question! To flesh this out a little more: 1) high cards favor the dealer and low cards favor the house. 2) If a player has just lost a bunch of hands in a row, it is more likely that more house-favoring cards were dealt than player-favoring cards (though it isn’t always the case). 3) If more house-favoring cards have been dealt, the remaining decks will contain more player-favoring cards.
Your point is that a progressive betting scheme theoretically capitalizes on this. Take the Martingale strategy: after a loss, the bet is doubled. If I bet 1 and lose, then I bet 2 so that if I win, I have not only recuperated my previous loss but netted 1. Each bet in the doubling sequence - 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. - is 1 more than the sum of all the previous terms, so that no matter how many times in a row I lose, I will have netted one as soon as I win. After a win, I set aside my net earnings, which is always 1, and return to my starting betting unit of 1. In the Martingale scheme, the bet gets bigger with the number of consecutive losses. In theory - and it would be interesting to see the simulations on this - progressive betting should produce a very small gain in EV owing to this effect of capitalizing on a positive count. However - and I would bet a lot of money on this - the effect, by itself, is not large enough to overcome a 0.5% house edge. In other words, while you might improve your (negative) EV by a small fraction of a percent, your EV will still be negative. There is a simple way to increase this miniscule effect. Rather than using the Martingale scheme, which only increases the bet after recent consecutive losses, adjust your bet based on cumulative losses (or win-loss ratio). If we’re a couple decks into the shoe and I’ve won 5 hands but lost 15, it is more likely that more low cards have been played than high. You can think of this as the corollary/converse of the known fact that low cards produce more winning hands for the dealer - winning hands for the dealer suggest that more low cards have been played. So, after 5 W’s and 15 L’s in the first 20 hands of the shoe, you can confidently make the statement that it is more likely that the count is positive. However, this might be true only 52% of the time, or 55%. Take the other case, where I’ve won 15 of the first 20 hands. But let’s say I’ve lost the last 3 hands. Under Martingale, I will be betting higher on the 21st hand, we’ll say (under the hypothesis you’ve put out) on account of the fact that the count is more likely to be positive. Of course, that’s not the justification for doing it under Martingale, but it would be the mechanism at work to make a progressive scheme like Martingale generative of a EV-boosting effect such as we see with card counting. I would be betting more, as if the count were positive, even though I’ve won far more hands than I’ve lost and the count is therefore more likely to be negative! This will happen not infrequently, actually. Bottom line: if there’s any merit to the interesting idea you’ve suggested, you’d be better off ditching progressive schemes, which were not optimized to capitalize on positive counts, instead betting strictly according to cumulative losses and wins. If you ran simulations, you would find that the improvement is very small and not enough to get you into positive EV territory - i.e. by betting more, you are just losing more. Even if the simulations showed that there is some deck-adjusted win-loss ratio at which you turn the corner into positive EV, you would need to know what that is. I would guess it’s something like 15 losses out of 20, and maybe on average your running count is plus a few, but you still have a few decks remaining so you’re lucky to have a true count of +1. Also, how many times will you lose 15 or more out of the first 20? Binomial calculator says this will happen 3% of the time! In fact you have a true count of +1 about 30% of the time, which you can know 100% of the time by counting cards.
The thing that troubles me most about this approach, is that is not contextual. It doesn't respond to the situation; it superimposes a system over it. That can never work.
I agree it's a bad system, but I disagree about the table limit. You could just go to another higher limit table and continue your "system". The system doesn't say you have to stay at the same table.
So I saw another video that is progressive betting but slightly different from the standard martingale strategy. It involved betting in progressive increments of $5, $15, $35, $75, $150, $300, $600, and $1,200. There is no doubling down or splitting allowed. He also has a hitting and staying system based on the player hand and the dealer show card. It primarily is basic rules. Goal is $200 win then take a break. Leave with $400-500 profit. Claims he's been doing it for years and loses on average once out of twenty visits. Netting approximately $9,000 in wins and losing $2,380 for a net profit of $6,620 per month. What's your opinion on that?
@@stijnvanleeuwen3647 not a mathematical approach to beating the game...possibly a fake video. as we always say at BJA, "please prove it with a simulation."
I think i i have a real problem. I‘ve been applying Martingale strategy on Blackjack at my local casino everyday. I only aim to win $50 bet. Then i go home. I’ve been fortunate over the last two months without going over 4 loses. I am now afraid to lose my winnings. Any advice guys？
It's unfair to say that no amount of bankroll will make this work, if you have a larger bankroll than the casino and no bet limits then technically you could bankrupt the casino first. gottem
Yes. I doubled my bankroll in a day. And run a simulation of 1000 hands with positive outcome. I already ran same roulette strategy on 10 000 spins and I got 5000 profit, which is like 80% hit rate flat betting.
In this video, you mentioned that in the $5 - $500 table limit. One can only double their bet up to 7 times. For the 8th one, we can go to a higher limit table right?
Even switching tables doesn’t make you win in the long run. Yes, it will make you take longer to hit the ceiling, but you will still hit it eventually, and you will lose even more money once you do. Here is a tip: as long as there is any limit at all to how much you can bet, then you cannot win in the long run.
@@BasketBloxBros It actually would still be in the casino's favor. It would just take longer to get to the long run. But don't overestimate how long it takes because even if you maximum bet is 100 times the minimum bet, you can still only double up to 7 times.
The system works, so long as the shoe isn't shit I went up $1,000 in an hour. And then the shoe changed and no matter what I got the dealer had one or two better
Early internet days the first on line casinos were techs guys not casinos. I played 2 dollar blackjack on a no limit table, I laughed all the way through a quart of scotch doubling my 2 dollar bet if I lost, lol some bets were 2k trying to win 2 bucks, but after that quart I cashed out with over 3 grand and a hangover. 😀
Do you guys know there are many other Progressive Betting Systems aside from the Martingale? Ever heard of the D'Alembert or the Thiers progressions? BTW what money management do you use when counting cards? Would appreciate a response. Thanks.
There are no links to the math or explanations of the math so I'm still confused. When in the history of blackjack has someone lost 50 hands in a row? If it's impossible or near impossible to happen then it seems like this strategy would work eventually. Also I don't understand the math in general because if I start with a 5$ bet then 10$ then 20$ all the way to 320$ (if a table goes from 5 to 500 you can't double again to 640) then I have 7 chances to win before I lose 635$ so if the odds of losing 7 hands in a row are less than 2% that means I would lose 1270$ in 700 hands. But if I win 45% of those remaining 686 hands then I make 1643$ profit. So I risk 1270$ to make 1643$ and all those numbers are being conservative unless I'm wrong somewhere. If someone knows where I went wrong in the math Please give a actual mathematic explanation instead of just saying "the math doesn't work" with nothing to back it up.
1. There is a theorem called Doob's optional stopping theorem that proves, given very loose conditions (like you have a finite amount of time to live, there's a table limit, or you have a finite bankroll) that says, in effect for gambling games, that no choice of betting system that depends only on past information will improve your expected value. That's right. No amount of trying to be smart and changing the betting progression or changing the bet sizes or introducing some other scheme will do anything to help you. That's the math behind it, and you can read the proof if you want. 2. Suppose you bet like this on fair coin flips. Suppose your bankroll is $32, and you start at $1. Your chance of getting 5 losses in a row is 1/32, but you literally lose $32 if you do get unlucky. So, 31/32 of the time, you make $1. 1/32 of the time, you lose $32. The expected value of your scheme? 0. For rigged games, like the casino games, you will lose more than you win.
To quote (yoshi I think said it on GWAE) “progressive betting works until it doesn’t” Lol
Thanks for the video content! Forgive me for chiming in, I would love your thoughts. Have you researched - Konenjamin Penrooklyn Solution (google it)? It is a good one off guide for finding your lucky day to cleverly win the lottery minus the hard work. Ive heard some unbelievable things about it and my cousin after a lifetime of fighting got great success with it.
Excellent Video clip! Excuse me for chiming in, I am interested in your initial thoughts. Have you tried - Konenjamin Penrooklyn Solution (should be on google have a look)? It is a great one off product for finding your lucky day to cleverly win the lottery minus the headache. Ive heard some unbelievable things about it and my good mate called Gray got astronomical results with it.
Lovely Video! Forgive me for the intrusion, I would appreciate your opinion. Have you ever tried - Konenjamin Penrooklyn Solution (just google it)? It is a great one of a kind product for finding your lucky day to cleverly win the lottery without the normal expense. Ive heard some interesting things about it and my old buddy Taylor after many years got amazing success with it.
@@jhoncanole2979 Winner of a video, I have been researching "how do you bet on the right horse?" for a while now, and I think this has helped. You ever tried - Meyackentae Foundational Magic - (just google it )?
It is a great one off product for discovering how to use this method to finally win at betting without the normal expense. Ive heard some amazing things about it and my mate got excellent success with it.
The way I describe it is that it's like playing a game where you have 100 boxes and 1 of them has a snake in it... If you only play like 5 boxes, your probably safe.... If you play 95 boxes you'll probably get bit.
@Orlando Alexandru It's reverse lottery. You're risking a lot to win a little. Idk why anyone would want to gamble like that (without an edge).
@Orlando Alexandru You’re misunderstanding the ‘1 in 7 hours’ point.
That timer doesn’t reset on each visit, and it could happen at any time. It’s just as likely to happen on your first 10 hands in a session as it is on the last.
Martingale doesn’t work, end of.
What the heck are you talking about
Where was this video when I turned 21??? Yep, thought I had a great system and it took all of about 15 minutes to lose $325...on my birthday. Great videos on blackjack and betting Colin.
Yeah, I think most of us thought some sort of progression made intuitive sense. Happy to provide the math that backs up the reality of these faulty "systems."
You would have won if you had more money
How do I know? I worked in Las Vegas table gaming for 25 years. You can do it, just don't get greedy.
Worked for me 2 nights in a row in the roulette, 3rd night got like 10 blacks in a row and I was betting against it, "this time it's red" lmao
I was lucky, I learned programming before I started gambling. As soon as I heard about this system I played with it on my cellphone. Seemed to work but at one point I had to bet like $3000, more than I would be able to risk. Then I wrote a python script to see how long it takes for you to hit an unacceptable loss. put 10,000 iterations through the script and right around iteration 3000 I had to bet something like $167,000. Really glad I did this with virtual currency on games and computer scripts and didn't have to learn a more expensive way.
As a blackjack dealer in Vegas for 25 years I have seen guys lose 30 hands in a row, maybe even more than that. I personally lost 20 hands in a row one time. Why did I stay at the table and lose 20 hands in a row? It was pretty much out of anger.
You had to see how many you would actually loose at some point! lol
Is there any way to win at black jack. I heard of a guy that wins.
Yes! How many times have you seen it happen? And when you lost 20 in a row were you playing the basic strategy?
Stop martingale after 5
@@courtlandwilliams2275 does this work?
My friend was trying to show me that system works and lost $4k in roulette haha
I feel kinda bad giving that comment a thumbs up. I thought martingale sounded fishy when I first heard about it, so I wrote a quick python script to test it out. After a few million iterations I found out it really does work.... Assuming you have a bankroll of over 200 million dollars and know a casino that can take that bet (That was the highest loss the script ran into).
Doesnt work because of betting limit
You don’t have to win forever. If you play till you’ve lost 12 straight rotations you theoretically could win more in that time period than you lost at the end. Counting cards is obviously better and should be your primary system but I have played a form of martingale and never lost in about 50 trips to the blackjack table. I’ll quit after a $200-500 win and often don’t have to stretch my $20,000-30,000 bankroll very often. I don’t like it because if you do have to pull out the big guns now your stuck walking around with $30,000 until you can dump it back into your checking account. That’s the part that sucked for me. I either win $200 after 20 rotational wins or I spike a blackjack on a $320,$640 or $1,280 bet(my biggest win ever using this system) and leave at that point. That night was around a $700 win and I had the urge to stay but chose to see a show instead. I was willing to lose $20,000 to win that(or less) knowing I likely wouldn’t lose. Again I NEVER lost but I had 4 or 5 white knuckle nights where I had to nut up and risk it.
I learned by counting cards in addition to this I could make one or two bets in a session that were advantages before I left the table. Although I won more than I lost it was exciting to use it once in awhile instead of grinding it out. I wouldn’t do it in any other game but blackjack and I wouldn’t play past two to four hours so that I enjoyed my evening with my wife but never got the urge to go all the way.
The betting pattern was 10-10-20-40-80-160-320-640-1280-2560-5120 and $10k so the one time I laid down $10,000 I was feeling like an idiot. I have gone an hour without winning anything and learned that playing with others was not a good idea but on average I’d win about $50 per hour I played. When I counted cards it was rarely +10-15 thru three decks and I often ran into mid deck reshuffles which frustrated me and discouraged me from playing in that casino. Playing $10 games can be dull but this is one of the things I do to amuse myself when my wife is getting her nails done or shopping for an outfit. It’s either blackjack or Caribbean poker so I mostly stay in the Venetian or the palazzo. I’m really impressed with the guys who can grind it out and one day I’ll try and do it legitimately if for no other reason than I can say I was thrown out of a casino LOL. I have player $10,$20 and $25 minimums and have never felt it was critical for me to stay after winning my agreed upon, modest goal.
Good luck gentleman.
@@leifleoden5464 It really doesn't work
You can do this with roulette but under very specific circumstances do columns and rows bet 2 out of three and preempt it with either 2 or three in same column risk of ruin for 2 is 5 percent and less than 1 percent for 3 requires 2500 table limit
i tried this with a roulette 'dozen' bet on my computer starting with $5 and doubling every loss meaning you not only win the original $5 but also win an equal amount to the entire bet because the dozen bets pay 2 to 1...i ran the simulation for 12 hours and the highest bet was over $10 million dollars due to extensive losing streaks and no casino will let you bet that high on a $5 minimum table
What about 5 on red an 5 on 1-18 leaving i think only 10 numbers including zero outta 36 that can hurt ya? If loose u dont double you just add same unit saw guy make 300 in 15min think he had to add up to 4 units the most using $10 chips so he had $40 on both bets, when he won he only removed 1 chip from each
But you forget to realize...you are still doing a 50/50 bet with roulette. Martingale blackjack is about doubling or tripleling every time you lose but...being around experienced blackjack players increases your odds.
What simulator did you use?
Loved that point you made about risking $20,000 to make $5.
ETA: If the casinos knew what you were doing would they back you off? This also applies to the "flow of the cards" crew too.
Yep. Why do casinos throw out card counters but not progressive bettors?
Okay. So I go to a casino in downtown Vegas in the afternoon and see a 1 deck table @ $5 minimum and $500 maximum. What do you think my chances are with progressive betting just doubling every time I lose? Keep in mind...always bet minimum after a winning hand (I triple my bet, by the way). You will need some balls with this system. like someone said...DON'T GET GREEDY. You will lose 10% of the time with this system. "Know when to hold em" "Know when to fold em"
@@daleloucks2000If you aren't counting cards, you have a chance of winning some money early, and if you stop and never go to a casino again, then you'll be ahead. Otherwise you'll always lose in the long run unless you're counting cards. The number of decks is meaningless if you aren't counting cards by the way, you get no advantage from deck size as a regular gambler.
Uhm...okay...thanks for your reply. Not sure who read my initial post. My system requires betting minimum of double/triple every time you lose. It's not a nightingale system
@@daleloucks2000 it is the same effect, which is just losing more money, that’s my point, doesn’t matter what the numbers of the bets are
Yeah, the Martindale is a great system...for the casinos. You win 7 in a row and you receive $70. You lose 7 in a row and you're out $1000. What could possibly go wrong with that arrangement?
The only good thing about it is if you tell the casino manager that you're playing a Martingale system he'll send a limousine to come pick you up.
Unless you are Trump, he lost a lot of money owning a casino ...
You have to adjust the system
card counting is a winning system until the casino realizes you are doing it. it's legal. but it's also legal for the casino to make you leave
Getting booted isn’t the problem, it’s getting blacklisted from any future blackjack play there and at other casinos
No shit, this is mentioned in basically every single one of the videos. Might be a problem if there was only one casino
good thing there are thousands of casinos
@@noThankyou-g5c society would probably be better off without them, though.
Imagine hitting on a double down on an infinity dollar bet though!
All systems will get you in the long run but this one gets you even quicker. If you play at the best BJ table arrangement out there (actually probably a form of Spanish 21) and play optimally and use the Martingale as mentioned here, you will most likely not reach the table limit and continue to slice small margins slowly until that rarity of reaching the table maximum (or lack of bankroll) happens which it will destroy you. However that is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that there are many situations where a split, double down, or even surrender should be the optimal choice however you are caught in a hard place if you are on your 5th double up due to 4 losing hands in a row. Thus, you either have to put funds that are not inline with the Martingale scheme to maintain basic strategy or if you want to stay inline with the Martingale scheme of funds, you would have to break optimal strategy (i.e. not splitting 77 versus a 7). Thus the "exotic" betting chances in BJ hurt this strategy even further. (However must be nice to get that BJ on the 7 double up lol)!
If you had an infinite bankroll, why would you need to get more money?
Because of the game itself.
Well that's precisely why they chuckle when they say "infinite".
Such a wonderful question. Why not ask the capitalists instead ? :)
@@datguy2271 "Ask the Capitalists" says the guy in the wealthy capitalist country, using capitalist software, to browse a capitalist website, from a compute device built by capitalists, while learning how to make money....
@@datguy2271 isn't capitalism great
This will work in sports betting on an nrl weekend where 8 games are played with 16 teams so you could double up on each 2 on the weekend
Hi Bowen, im very interested in trying this, could you explain more about this please ? And did you mean NFL ? If you want give me your email and I can email you thanks.
@@raydalton1110 so basically I'm saying In a round of sport,, example if you were to pick every favourite obviously under odds of $2 one of Them will have a high chance of losing or you would always win a multi bet chpoisng all favourites do I'm saying keeping doubling on the non favourite over odds of $2.0 until they win unless it's obvious that a favourite will win 👌 e.g. Bet $10 x$2, (loss) 2nd game bet $20 X2 to win $40 or more (win) $10 or more profit total spend $30
One concept you didn't explore related to martingaling is doubling down and splitting. if you have a massive bet out there, you may not have the bank roll to double down or split and/or you may not have the guts to do it. At the same time, that probably affects your EV if you win a few.
That's called overbetting your bankroll. If you place a bet on a blackjack hand, you should be sure to keep at least 7x that bet in reserve, in case you need to split and double multiple times. If your bankroll and/or risk appetite can't tolerate such a large max bet, you need to downsize your betting.
progressive betting systems ca work but ONLY with a positive expectation. I saw a video where " Vegas Runner" was part of a team that used a progressive system in combo with counting. It was used as cover though. They were not depending on their progression to make a profit. They were depending on it to cover their tracks for when they started placing big bets.
I will not enter a debate about it bc I know there are people out there that swear progressive systems don't work period. Not true. When you have a positive expectation they can be made to work. Doubling each time would max you out too quickly, a one unit progression would be more effective. However, this is only used as a cover. That can not be stressed enough. You must limit your progression or, better yet, Wong the table so you are not playing with a negative EV.
That’s a great point. But to clarify, it’s not the progression that worked, but the positive EV that worked. But again, love the input!
The reality is the progressive system was PURELY cover, and was in fact either costing them EV, or increasing risk of ruin. The positive counts made the money.
scary thing is losing a streak at 6 times, knowing the next round, you dont got enough left for a double
i believe there is a great win to win from blackjack, and that way are test it, i called it 1080 as on my video.
I destroyed some guy who would came in to my casino twice every week using this method.
It was when I first became a dealer 3 years ago.
He was carrying on telling me that it's impossible to loose that many hands in a row and he didnt take it well.
Pretty sure he lost about 2 to 3 grand after his bets were capped at $15 to $500 table choosing to play more than one hand when it reached the limit.
Blackjack apprenticeship is correct.
Mathematical streaks like long losses do happen. Even more so as the casino has blackjack in its favor.
Anything is possible with 6 decks.
How often do people loose more than 8 hands in a row?
How?, did he loose 15 hands in a row? Ive seen 6 or 7 max ty
Anthony B
This guy didn't play the game the optimum way ? On a $15 minimum it allows a L 6 double up & a $985 base BR. But because of playing multiple positions on losses $7,000 BR would be ideal (sure not a lot of people have a spare $7 K). See my other post to B A about how to play it. I'd like to see the dealer win on 1 position then 2 then 3 then 4 then 5 then 6 then 7, then (at L 7) at L2 Then at L3 Then at L4 Then at L5 Then at L6 Then at L7 ? That means the casino/dealer would have to win up to 49 deals Back to Back to bust the guy ? Very difficult to see that happening ?
@@Gmail.compey If you play a zillion hands it happens eventually. I've lost like 12 in a row using perfect basic strategy.
@@Gmail.compey It's really not that rare. A Martingale basically trades a high probability of a small win for a low probability of a huge loss. Double your bet after every loss, throw in a couple of splits or double downs, and sooner or later, your going to be risking $5,000+ to net $10 if you win. Next bet is $10,000. That streak can happen on your 50th session, or your first.
On top of what you said, it's worth mentioning that even if the Casino didn't have an edge, your overall win would be exactly the amount of the first bet. So you're either gonna be capped by table limit or your bankroll if your initial bet is too high, or you're making tiny dollars (risking exponentially more dollars).... so, not worth your time.
When you compute the Casino edge in all of this, it's crystal clear how this strategy is suicide.
That's what gets me. Every time you win, you only really win your initial bet, along with recouping your losses. With more losing hands in a single streak, your risk increases, but your winnings don't.
You doing it wrong.
You don't double your bet till the third bet... So on a $5 table, it goes.
5
5
10
20
40
As, if you lose the first one you only want to recoperate that loss, not recoperate what you would have won. Couple this with a card counting system and you'll do really well, as the dealer will just assume you're using basic strategy and martingale.
But you're not profiting anything even if you win after the first
Colin, what about progressive betting in a well-positive true count?
I was thinking the same thing. If you lose a bet when you had a +2 true count initially, and the current true count is either the same or +1, then I don't see it being a problem. The only issue you may run into is if you lose a hand with an initial +2 true count, but now you're -1,-2, etc. In that case your double bet would be inaccurate.
@Bone Slayer "see that you're counting cards". I mean, unless you're counting on your fingers in some obvious way then casinos aren't going to know you're counting. What they notice are drastically large bets and, most importantly, whether the house is losing money. Then you get backed off.
@Bone Slayer Yep, its the bet spreads that give counters away, it doesn't matter how great your 'act' is, as soon as you put 8-10 times your flat bet down they will start giving you heat. You can't call in the 'Big Player' now anymore either because they have rules barring players entering a hand in the middle of a shoe. Counters who still make money do it outside of the US or using hole carding or other techniques.
Edit: I should have mentioned that because of the proliferation of casinos in North America, if you are prepared to live on the road you CAN actually make money counting. The modern players accept they will be barred but play as long as they can at one place and when they inevitably get 86'ed move on to another one - NOT in Vegas though because the majority of casinos are all owned by 2 or 3 corporations.
@Dice Doctor I agree with you people do win 100 all the time. I have access to 2 casinos where I'm from. One is a block down from the other. I stop by one after work with $100 in my pocket and sit at a $5 dollar table because I'm cheap and they offer 3:2 which is rare imo for a 5-500. If I make some money, I pocket my $100 and play with what I have until I hit a comfortable amount like 150-200. At this point I move to the next casino. I start with $100 and continue the process. If I lose I come back next month. What this does for me, is avoid getting my feelings hurt, avoid getting backed off a table, and avoid getting noticed. The thing is to get in and get out. Greed is the end of many. So you can't be afraid to give back to the casino a tiny bit and tip your dealer. Maybe I'm just lucky, but what I do for myself personally is set some rules. never hit to 5 cards if you have 12 or higher. Don't be afraid to let the dealer eat cards if they show a 7 or below on the face. I have been in some interesting hands to where this made a difference for me. Although it might not be perfect basic strategy.
Steve Veasey Unfortunately it’s not just Vegas. Majority of casinos in any one locality around North America are owned by the same Corporation or Native American tribal joint venture ext. ext. ext. The worst one to be permanently 86’d from has to be MGM. They have a very far reach regardless of management in each individual casino.
Been wanting to test this system for a long time, so glad I saw this explained. I wonder if it is combined with card counting it is more successful, or maybe betting low when the deck is in favor of the player is not beneficial and defeats the purpose of counting.
Progression betting, if you do it only in favorable counts, can work as cover. Sooner or later, they are likely to figure out what you're doing, but it might buy you some time.
@@russlehman2070Unfortunately a cover that would skyrocket your risk of ruin or destroy your EV, depending on luck, and card counters don't like to depend on luck.
youre still risking a huge amount to win minimuim bet
Than bet a twice as huge amount
How can you play blackjack online for real money? Can you give me a website?
Yea.. And 10 time losing streak, even tho it's very very unlikely, I have seen it.
And already as said 3-4 time losing streak starts to hurt and I have had 7 time winning streak so I bet 7 time losing streak is big OUCH.
A guy with like 100000 wouldn't bet with 5 on start so this is why the system is dumb.
I just can’t here from losing £80 trying out the martingale strategy at a £1-2500 (all I had is 80 and I WAS sweating at 40 lol) 😭 I knew it was a fools strategy but it does run good sometimes. But I absolutely want to learn card counting.
Is it better to play with more or less players at the table?
The guy says maximum of 300$ ? Yea but theres many online casinos that will accepts 1-75 000$ bets. But from experience i play with low bets and high bets and leave with 1k profit.
* when ull be several days in profit trust me those 40$ wont matter to you anymore lol but stay controlled bec you could be tempted to bet lets 20-30k$ a bet and u could loose very fast all ur profit ;) gl !
Hi! You lose 4 hands in a row 2% of the time according to the online calculator. Now with betting 1-3-7-15 and going back to 1 after Fourth loss, you would have 98 wins and 2 losses. On average you will win the second time most often so we can count average profit as 2 per hand. So that's 196 average profit. With 2 losses of 4 in a row you will lose 54 with net profit of 142 per 100 rounds. If my math is wrong someone please correct me. Also this is assuming you have a bankroll enough to support at least 5 losses of 4 in a row or 20 hands in a row
I have a craps game on my phone and progressive bet the COME bet. It sometimes works but usually if someone just rolls and rolls, I quickly get to the table limit.
My phone craps game is $100-$10,000. So 100-200-400-800-1600-3200-6400 and that it. Seven bets and hoping that one of my bets will come back to me. One good thing is if an 11 rolls, I restart the progression. But it sucks to put out 6400 to win 100.
I was also a 21 dealer and some clown and his wife came in one night trying this and it didn’t work out for them on a $10-5000 game. This casino also had a $5-10,000 baccarat game that I would like to progressive bet on if I had the money, but again, you can always get on the wrong side of streaks.
I thought the whole point was to use all systems together. Basic strategy, a betting system and card counting. Would't that increase your overall chance of making money? Or does card counting has an embedded betting system?
at Blackjack Apprenticeship we teach a "trifecta" system of perfect basic strategy, perfect card counting using Hi-Lo, and perfect betting and playing deviations.
They shuffle the cards with the card counting machine . Messing up the count. So card counting doesn't work either?
Exactly. And this is the thing especially in Europe and at night clubs. Even best players have now serious problems to win anything if not being lucky.
Once you are capped at one table nothing is stopping you from going to a higher limit table. I know more than a few people that do that betting red or black. Once they double their money they get up and leave.
If Vegas cared they wouldn't let you do it. They know their odds never changed. That's the best argument against progressive betting.
You can always start out a dollar machine, get capped at 64 dollars and then go to a 5 dollar table now you're capped at 11 hands. Lose 11 and go to a five hundred dollar table. Etc. All that work to win a buck. LOL.
Even given this concept, he still pointed out that with unlimited bankroll and unlimited bet size you will still lose in the end. Technically not quite true because if you have more money than the casino you could get lucky and bankrupt them first, just gotta start by having more money than a casino.
I did them martingale on stake slots and when i got to the $50 spin i hit a 100x lol and won 5k
later i realized how lucky I got
Martingale is like picking up pennies in front of a bulldozer. Sure it's easy until...
Thanks for your honesty
much love to you colin! Thank you for answering to my queries so promptly, and I really admire you guys what you do! props!!
I always do reverse martingale cause i have noticed wins come in streaks and losses too. I double up on every win. I figure since the casinos favorite player is a martingale player then a reverse Martingale player is their least favorite. I limit it to just one doubling, but if the count is very positive, I will push for a 3rd.
Actually, a casino's least favorite player (other than a card counter) is a player who always bets minimum because you are giving less money to the house. Reverse Martingale is still losing, just not necessarily in the same way.
Anything that means bigger bets is more money for the casino unless you're counting, which includes calculated bet spreads around the count of the dependent state of the deck, not bets themed around the independent outcomes of each hand
Last Friday i went to my first irl blackjack table , i have only been practicing on my phone perfect basic strategy. Went in with 3000 Mexican pesos and an average lf 150 the hand, if i lost i would keep my bet the same, if won 2 in a row i would up my bet to 200, after two hours i ended up at 3600 with 600 of profit using only perfect basic strategy. But man the amount of people i saw doubling their bet after losing and doing side best to "recover" was insane, plus a few of them were playing by the book, i saw a guy split a pair of 10 against a dealer 7 cus he thought it would be easy money, he ended up with below 17 and the dealer showed a 10. Yeah doubling your bet might work on the short term but on the long run and more often than not it will screw you over
The Martingale is a negative progression. What about positive progressions? Raising your bet when you win.
Same simulation results. Progressive betting doesn't affect the odds, so the casino edge will catch up with you.
Same average bet & same house edge => you're losing money at the same rate in the long run as a Martingale player.
No simulations needed, it's just basic math and logic. Can't reliably win placing negative EV bets.
Is it possible to win counting cards when it's just you and the dealer. Or is that a time to wait until other people join the table
It is, but I personally like playing with others because it takes some of the pressure off psychologically for me. Before you walk into a casino have a plan. Take a look at your cash and ask yourself how much of this am I absolutely ok with losing? $50,$100? Maybe a thousand? Whatever the amount is, make sure it's an amount that if you lose it won't affect you financially in anyway. Then I want you to take that amount and divide it by 2. You will be working with the first half. The other half will be a back up incase you are deep into the decks but chips are zeroed out. Set aside winnings so that you can mentally have that money already in your pocket and so if you lose a hand or 2 you can back off with your newly earned money. Once you have developed your game plan. Whatever it is, or if it's similar to mine, then you can chill out. Grab a drink, smoke some weed, chill in your car and listen to some music while you smoke some weed in the corner of a parking lot. Then when you're %100 ready go in there intelligent, relaxed, cool, calm, and collective and make some dough because why tf not.
Martingale was how I got into blackjack! I won seven grand in one night on ignition, back when it was called bovada! ...I also lost it all the same night.
I mix counting system with progressive betting and it works marvelous
How exactly do you mix?
When the count is in the players favor then the player is more likely.to win. Card counters will increase their bets for example betting $10 per hand until the count is in their favor then betting $100 per hand because they are more likely to win. You.can do the same thing w martingale. Instead of increasing bet size you just start to double your bets on losses when the count is in your favor because your more likely to win. I don't do this I'm just explain what they were talking about.
Modified martingale system: In regular martingale, you only win back what you lost. In this version, your base bet is the table minimum, Let's call it N.
Each hand you lose, you double the bet and add N. So it goes N, 3N, 7N, 15N and so on. Once you hit the table limit, you revert back to N.
The idea is that each hand you play, so long as you don't hit the table limit (which can happen fairly easily) you gain N, even more if you get lucky and blackjack after several lost hands. You can get a protracted bad run, which is why you revert back to your base bet.
Just like Martingale, it is not a winning strategy. That winning streak still happens enough to get rid of all your losses.
@@GaryLuKOTH Yes, but it's a bit better than regular martingale. I am an indifferent Blackjack player at best, and don't know how to card count, but I tested the Double Plus base strategy VS the simple bet doubling at Circus Circus about 15 years ago (They had $1 Blackjack tables at the time) and Double Plus 1 consistently lasted much longer than simple doubling.
No progressive betting system wins, unless you mathematically beat the odds.
No, that's incorrect! Because even with that minor disadvantage your betting in winning 1 hand at least of 8 hands, and you only lose if you lose 8 hands in a row!
The math says you will lose eights hands in a row once every seven hours.
@@smhollanshead why don't you show the math?
Francisco Gutierrez so when you do win your going to win about $10, but when you do lose, your gonna lose 1000s
@@prodJINX where's the math supporting that idea?
just wanted to point out that house edge does not have anything to do with martingale system failing, because the math calculations are different, it shows that casino win more often than the player, while martingale system needs only one win to restart, so math would be calculated differently, the problem with it that it's based on probability, and in the end the probability is probability, not a guaranty. You only need once to loose all your money, and if you calculate how many times you have to play to earn the same amount as bankroll you need to pull it of(which you can loose in one go) the probability of loosing hits almost 100%, so basically it's still gambling not a winnable system.
What if you do progressive betting while counting cards and when you only play when the odds favor the player... that would work, wouldn't it?
Good luck counting cards. Very few people are able to successfully count cards in Blackjack.
Martingale is tricky because the player wins way more often than they lose, so it feels successful. The problem is that when you lose, you lose way more than you've won. Imagine a 20 sided Di and I give you $10 for every number 1-19 and I got $250 on a 20. You would win most of the time, but I would make more money.
Mike Garner just set a stop loss, after loosing 5 hands in a row just reset, there’s almost no point into betting past 5 hands unless your really up big and the money is pretty minuscule, also doubles and blackjacks let you make more money at the risk of one bet
Davis Robinson That would decrease how much you lose but it still will not win in the long run. The amount you lose during that small winning streak will usually be more than how much you won.
Gary Lu Productions with a starting bankroll of 300$ it works for me I’ve personally doubled and tripled it many times, my betting kinda looks like 5,5,10,20,40 I double the first 5$ to get back to even each time I do this, also if I remember correctly it’s only about a 20% chance of loosing 5 hands in a row, but we all know loosing 5 hands in a row is more than possible that’s why you stop at 5 and just restart the sequence of bets sure your going to loose but if you don’t get flustered you’ll eventually just keep winning
Davis Robinson You can play that if you want but as I said, that will not win in the long run. That small losing streak will happen often enough to cover all of your wins. If you only played this strategy for about 15 hours, you do not enough proof that it is a good strategy.
@@davisrobinson2835 It's impossible to win in the long run. The math is clear, the video explained it, multiple people here have explained it. But it's not our money. If you want to do it, be our guest, but just know you're losing money in the long term and don't gamble with money you can't afford to lose. Best wishes.
With an infinite bankroll this progression does actually work. It is sufficient to prove that any given loss streak must have an end, which is true provided you're able to make an infinite number of bets. If p is the probability of winning a hand then p*(1-p)^k gives the probability that it takes k+1 hands until your next win. Summing these values for k=0 to infinity yields the value p[(1-p)^0+(1-p)^1+...]=p(1/(1-(1-p)))=p(1/p)=1. Hence, the probability of eventually getting a winning hand is 1 provided you can place infinitely many wagers. Alternatively consider q as the probability of losing a hand, then q^k is the probability of losing k hands in a row. Taking the limit as k goes to infinity gives 0, the probability of losing infinitely many hands in a row. Therefore every loss streak must have an end.
even with this infinite bankroll you speak of, you'll still run up on the problem of table limits.
@@blackjackapprenticeshipgus6559 That is a completely valid point. If you could bet whatever you wanted, had an infinite amount of money, and had infinite time to spend chasing a loss, then you could make money this way!
Tanner Boos haha ok. Until I get my infinite bankroll and find the casino that has an unlimited max bet, I’ll just stick to card counting 😆
@@tannerboos2268 With an infinite bankroll you might well just straight up put $100 aside and claim that as your winnings. And you would still have an infinite bankroll. Actually, you could put aside another countably infinite bankroll and now you would have two infinite bankrolls. A lot of "systems" mathematically work with an "infinite bankroll".
I wouldn't completely knock this system. It requires discipline and some initial luck. It's a good way to quickly build up your small bank roll, but not a viable system long term.
If martingale fails why reverse martingale should fail ?
Martingale system it’s working 100% when you want to make 1000€(random amount, up to your bankroll)/day and not playing continuously till you reach that amount. Small bets and pause every few hands it’s the key. Use brain, not ears.
Thanks for the Videos !
Can you guys talk about Balanced verse Unbalanced counts
I use the KO count so I don’t have to use a TC conversion
Can you do a video about the many different systems and your reasoning behind choosing the Count you use
Thanks !
We have a video on that! ruclips.net/video/1PmpnrNkGDs/видео.html
Nobody can count a six deck shoe!
@@craigjorgensen4637 BS. There is nothing remotely difficult about counting a six deck shoe. The trouble with a six deck game is that you won't see a favorable count nearly as often as you will in a double deck game, so you need a bigger spread between your minimum bet and your maximum.
If you had an infinite bankroll you definitely would win, the only way you wouldn’t is by an infinite loosing streak which isn’t statistically imaginable
Who in their right mind would ever consider martingale? Anyone who thinks Martingale is profitable probably also thinks it would be better to play a 6:5 double deck game over a 3:2 six deck game. Go back to the slot machines if you think that.
Whenever I go to the casino I win at blackjack 75% of the time against other players.
Here's the method that I use: HootJack.xyz
Its a simplistic method that allows players to get the illusion that they can get their loses back.
And it does that if you play for just say an hour, if you can avoid the losing streak, you will progressively make tiny tiny profit and you can just leave the table with that profit.
However, if you start at the minimum at the table, your profit is really small doing that, and in the long run you still lose big by the losing streak.
But for the casual person, its the perfect illusion of a system that allows them to make a profit.
@@karinsmith6513 thanks for the virus. Watching RUclips on my microwave now
@Patrick Sulley card counting is banned, martingale is not
If you are going to use a progressive system, use the martingale. If you lose, chances are a small card beat you so the deck is more likely to be rich if you lose a number of bets in a row. So it’s better than the reverse martingale. But neither system will work. And if you use it against the fake blackjack games that the casinos offer today, you will lose all your money quickly. Maybe that would be better for you. You can leave broke quickly and hopefully spend your time doing something more productive, rather than losing slowly and waste your time away. I will play blackjack and count cards only if I find a decent game. But I’ll do it just for fun. I’m not going to spend my life traveling from casino to casino and try to make a living from it. I did it in the 70s and 80s playing primarily against a single deck where the dealer stood on all 17s. I got an advantage on the first hand if I played 2 or more spots at that game. Some games I could catch the burn card and the bottom card before the cut, so I would cut away from it if it was a small card and to it if it were a big card. Sometimes I had over 2% on the first hand and I would bet big. That helped conceal my play greatly when I was betting big right after the shuffle up. It was fun to play under those conditions, but I’m a musician and no amount or success at blackjack beats having played the Dvorak cello concerto with orchestra well.
I tried it on a online blackjack game 1-15$ bet, I started with 20$ for hours I won ran it up to 270$, but then loss after loss I lost everything
I don't understand how this would not be a winning system if you had infinite bankroll + infinite max bet.
With Martingale every play is a sequence of n losses followed by a win. No matter the value of n, after that win you're richer than you were before that sequence.
The issue with that strat is that it's super slow and that it does require infinite bankroll and infinite max bet, but is winning if you check all those conditions (which you obviously don't), even if the game itself has losing odds, odds actually don't impact the "validity" of that strat at all. It wouldn't be worth the hours invested in it, though, on top of it being impossible because the conditions for it are not possible.
Actually, a martingale strategy would work with an infinite bank roll. The house edge does not matter at all in that hypothetical scenario.
Yep, Even if you have a 20% chance to win double your bet, with infinite money and no bet limit, the strategy would still work, just take longer.
But if the argument is that you would eventually lose 12 games in a row doesn’t that apply to every strategy ever as well?
What if you stop after doubling 3-4 times and than start again it would just take a long time.
There is no viable strategy to beat blackjack except to use math.
Yes, every casino has roughly a 1-2% advantage, but it's close enough to 50/50 to basically equate it to flipping a coin. You basically have a 50% chance at winning every hand, but yes, the house has a 1-2% advantage. Despite the math, progressive betting means you are giving yourself 4, 5, 6 or whatever chances to win a coin toss. If you win the coin toss, then you start over with a new minimum bet. I'm not entirely sure the every 7 hours you'll get killed by the table limit is accurate, but lets assume he did all the math and it is. You're still going to be winning roughly 10-15 table minimum bets per hour. So if the table limits are $10 to $300 which gives you 5 chances at winning before you get killed, the chances of you winning a 50/50 bet within those 5 chances is rather good. In fact, like I said, it's roughly 10-15 wins per hour which would equate to $100-150 per hour profit. So even if you get killed in less than 3-4 hours, you're actually still breaking even at that point because you've won the same amount you lost.
5 months late here but the problem with the martingale system is that you win a very small amount and risk a very large sum of money. Loosing with the martingale system with a 5$ min bet and a max limit of lets say 2000 is roughly 0,195% but betting up to your max limit would mean that you would have to have 2555$. So if you wanted to double your money you would have to win 511 times and all of a sudden that 0,2% chance of loosing doesn't seem that unlikely and after 511 bets your chances of encountering a 9 round loss streak is 62,5% so you have better odds doubling your money by just putting everything on one bet.
the progressive betting i learned , was u increase bet everytime u win, lose go back to minimum bet
this is not a winning system for beating blackjack over the long term.
If running count is 10 in the online live casino with 6 decks do you have advantage? Because I read you can't count cards at online live blackjack. But true count should be about 1.5 in this situation
u dont really know when they shuffle tho depends on the casino ive heard that online casinos shuffle way more than physical ones plus I wouldn't trust online game unless its live one , its a computer program how do u know algorithm isnt set up to give players bad hands when they are winning or something like that? computer programs are what those who wrote it want it to be in physical casino odds are always the same cause of math
See the goal here is to make a certain amount then you walk away. If you in a city or town that’s close to a casino then you would set a goal. Let’s say $100 every time you go in so once you make that you leave and come back and do it all over again using this system.
Definitely the trick to this system is setting a winning limit and then leaving when you get there. Keep your unit amount the same, don't increase it because you're up a thousand dollars. Set a reset threshold, say 4 losses in a row. After 4 losing hands you reset your bet to the original unit amount, don't double the bet on that 5th hand.
Colin I know you are against progressive betting but if you play basic strategy and are not a card counter what is your opinion of a player betting for example starting at $5 and remaining at $5 until he wins a hand then going to $10,$15,$20 on up until you lose then starting over to $5 repeating the process? Thanks for your answer.
That's very similar to Oscar's grind betting system. You are just trying to make one unit, your original bet. So if it's $5 you do the increase until you win $5 and then go back down to $5. So lose first bet, lose second bet, win 3rd, go up to $10 and raise by $5 until you're up $5.
Honestly people: forget blackjack and focus long run investments to stock markets. It's the only "gambling" where even ordinary people more likely win than lose.
As long as you buy actual stocks/ETFs and not leveraged CFDs (you might still have a positive EV with CFDs but you really have to watch the interest rates)
One thing I don't understand is, if I win around 50% of the time (a bit less) then why would I end up in a 10 losing streak? Aren't I suppose to win around 1 hand every 3 at least?
Okay, think about it like this. The probability that you win (with optimal play) is about 0.48. So, you lose about 52% of the games. So, the probability that you lose 10 games in a row is (0.52)^10=0.00144555..., which is approximately 1/692, meaning that in a run of 701 hands, you are expected to lose 10 times in a row 1 time. And you are guaranteed to play that many hands eventually if you are a regular Blackjack player. Just remember that as long as something is possible, it is bound to happen at some point.
What about progressive system in a FREE BET black jack where you double down or split for free on 9-10-11 , in half an hour is possible to win between
200-500 $ then you should leave and not continue for the day .
I’ve only been to a Casino once.I had £50.10 £5 bets and out £1 0-2 and £1 on 20-17:19,21,23.Hit 0 first spin and 20 on the fifth spin.But,after the 10th spin,I walked.Always have a limit on your playing.
As a poker player I love the math, variance, ev, long sample etc. It's all the same.
We have to remember you need not only the table max you also need the amount up to that as well plus black jack gets you 2 to 1 so imagine being able to pick up black jack at the 5th plus hand martingaled so if you hit BJ at lets say 320 or 640... you get your money back plus the 2 to 1 and then drop back down and repeat... you stack the BJ money as well
In the online casinos I suppose is impossible to do the counting method, because the dealer shuffle the cards frequently.
For example: I play the BJ with 8 decks and after we've played 50% of the cards, the decks will be shuffle... consequently the precision /affidability of the count isn't fully trusted because the precision isn't enough (is only 50%, not for example 75%)... If it is not true, why?
I think his most recent video talks about it. You are right. If you play an 8 deck game in which the cards are reshuffled after only 50% of them are dealt, then counting is much less effective.
I am able to calculate the true count decently well but I don't know what kind of bet spread to use?
What if I am progressive betting when the count is high? Statistically the probability is in my favor so is this system good to use once the count is high enough? Obviously you will lose some hands when the count is high, so if you double it eventually you will probably when within 7 hands correct? So long as the count stays high?
this sounds to me like it's just card counting. although when the count is high, we put our corresponding, pre-determined bet out there no matter how what the results were previously.
Im doing it with a Wong Halves calculator, it works
@@marcelloadriani9235how can I get this calculator?
So can't u use both? Count and progressive system?
Why use progressive system if you are counting, though? You should be betting based on whether or not you have the edge now.
Progressive betting to me means betting more every hand that I win. Not every hand that I lose
Yeah, there are lots of forms of progressions, but none of them shift the odds to the player, meaning you'll still lose in the long run.
Wrong
Also wrong..
@@Blackjackapprenticeship Then how do you bet when the count is in your favor for multiple hands? I was always told you're supposed to increase your bet as the true count continues to go up. Isn't that a type of progressive betting even though it might not necessarily be after every hand?
I find that the best way to play is to progressive bet when you win, not when you lose. Losing 10 times in a row will lose minimally. But with progressive betting, winning 10 times in a row can make you banks. You only need that streak.
This is why I play Baccarat. Banker or player. Ties push. Closest 50/50 game in the Casino. Blackjack is not 50/50, to many intangibles. Baccarat is a game of patterns.
People who think that games have patterns are people who help the casino make money. Anyone who knows math would scoff at people who say that there are patterns.
This may just be adding to the stupidity, but what about a Progressive Progressive-Betting system?
Place 5$ bet
Double after first loss
Triple after second loss
Quadruple after third loss etc.
Of course this would only work in one of these imaginary capless scenarios or a particularly high cap scenario.
But theoretically, since it is more than double, you should do more than break even when you finally win. And I would assume the advantage would be multiple folds beyond that of the percentage of house advantage.
For instance
Start with 5 bet
Lose move to 10 bet
Lose move to 30 bet
Lose move to 120 bet
Lose move to 600 bet
Lose move to 3600 bet
it gets pretty wild after this loss as it moves to a 25,200 bet
Assuming you win this bet you get 50,400.
It only took 29,565 to get there though.
That theoretically means you could break even with this strategy even if the odds were 60/40 in favor of the house.
But with normal house odds this would absolutely be profitable over time if it was capless and you had infinite bank roll
What about this system:
I go to a casino, buy chips for $1000 with a debit card, and instantly cash them out. I still have the same amount of money in my bank account, plus the extra $1000 in cash (so I've won $1000).
It only works with an infinite bankroll, but it's pretty cool, isn't it?
The only good thing about martingale is that it helps the casino to make $ even faster LOL
Yep.
DragonPupEclipse that is why casinos promote books like that in their gift stores. PT Barnum summed it up when he said “There is a sucker born every minute.”
@Dice Doctor exactly
Martingale is the cheese of the trap where the rats (players) easy smell it and easy died!!!!!!
The only problem is if you get caught counting cards, you’re gonna get kicked out and possibly beat up
I know the system I use is not a good one. I at this time am learning to count cards. FB 1unit, W. SB 2 units. W TB 3 United, 4th B 5 units. And the rest is just betting 5 units. I vary it with the deck. Have lost, broke even and normally I walk away with 5,000. My Personal stoping amount.
My method is $25 and if I win I let it ride and if that wins I pull back $50 with a$50 bet still out there and repeat this pattern until I lose. Then I go back to $25 and start over. It has worked for me well, but I only play until I am up $500 and then I go away.
There is no long run winning strategy in Let it Ride. If you try it for long enough, you will eventually be down money.
colin what do you think of david Kuvelas blackjack system
david said he broke the bj code back in 1988 playing for 3 hours in a casino in las vegas
If there was no table stakes and you had an infinite bankroll you could never lose regardless of the house edge.
My only issue with the video is that it is profitable if you have an unlimited bankroll and no limit table maximum. If you do it ad infinitum, you eventually win back your money from your lost hands 100% of the time, regardless of the house advantage. The problem is that those prerequisites are never true, and you will ultimately get in over your head. It's a risk/reward type of issue, as mentioned in the video; you're often betting hundreds or thousands of dollars to recover just $5 worth of losses. It just takes the one bet you can't make to lose it all.
It'd be interesting to see someone do the math on this - but it seems to me that a progressive betting system would actually affect your EV because blackjack hands are not completely random. Decks can be "hot" or "cold", depending on the current count. Plus this hot or cold-ness is somewhat sticky; in other words if the count is positive it is not a 50/50 chance that the next hand is positive or negative. So could a progressive betting system take advantage of this "stickiness" in the count to increase the player's EV? I bet if you do the math the edge you get, if there is one, would be pretty minimal but it'd be interesting to see it. Basically I'm wondering if a progressive betting system could be made such that the bet size is correlated with the current count of the deck without actually having to work out the count yourself.
a +EV bet is +EV no matter the bet size. When the count makes the bet +EV, then you want to bet as big as possible to maximize profits, not be shackled by a progressive betting system. That is the whole basis of card counting. Bet small until the count is in your favor, then go really big.
You increase the bet amount when the ev is higher?
How would this work, correlating your bet to the current count of the deck without knowing the current count of the deck?
@@andrewmccullough559 Haven't done the math so don't know if it'd work, but I'm just kind of assuming that the count is somehow sticky in that if you have a positive count in one hand in the next hand it's not 50/50 that it's positive or negative. If that's true and you are more likely to win when the count is positive then wouldn't progressive betting mean you are betting more when the count is high on average? But you'd have to do the math, maybe you do bet more when the count is high but you also bet more when the count is low so it kind of averages out to no net benefit.
@@alexfloyd5730 It's an interesting question! To flesh this out a little more: 1) high cards favor the dealer and low cards favor the house. 2) If a player has just lost a bunch of hands in a row, it is more likely that more house-favoring cards were dealt than player-favoring cards (though it isn’t always the case). 3) If more house-favoring cards have been dealt, the remaining decks will contain more player-favoring cards.
Your point is that a progressive betting scheme theoretically capitalizes on this. Take the Martingale strategy: after a loss, the bet is doubled. If I bet 1 and lose, then I bet 2 so that if I win, I have not only recuperated my previous loss but netted 1. Each bet in the doubling sequence - 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. - is 1 more than the sum of all the previous terms, so that no matter how many times in a row I lose, I will have netted one as soon as I win. After a win, I set aside my net earnings, which is always 1, and return to my starting betting unit of 1.
In the Martingale scheme, the bet gets bigger with the number of consecutive losses. In theory - and it would be interesting to see the simulations on this - progressive betting should produce a very small gain in EV owing to this effect of capitalizing on a positive count. However - and I would bet a lot of money on this - the effect, by itself, is not large enough to overcome a 0.5% house edge. In other words, while you might improve your (negative) EV by a small fraction of a percent, your EV will still be negative.
There is a simple way to increase this miniscule effect. Rather than using the Martingale scheme, which only increases the bet after recent consecutive losses, adjust your bet based on cumulative losses (or win-loss ratio). If we’re a couple decks into the shoe and I’ve won 5 hands but lost 15, it is more likely that more low cards have been played than high. You can think of this as the corollary/converse of the known fact that low cards produce more winning hands for the dealer - winning hands for the dealer suggest that more low cards have been played. So, after 5 W’s and 15 L’s in the first 20 hands of the shoe, you can confidently make the statement that it is more likely that the count is positive. However, this might be true only 52% of the time, or 55%.
Take the other case, where I’ve won 15 of the first 20 hands. But let’s say I’ve lost the last 3 hands. Under Martingale, I will be betting higher on the 21st hand, we’ll say (under the hypothesis you’ve put out) on account of the fact that the count is more likely to be positive. Of course, that’s not the justification for doing it under Martingale, but it would be the mechanism at work to make a progressive scheme like Martingale generative of a EV-boosting effect such as we see with card counting. I would be betting more, as if the count were positive, even though I’ve won far more hands than I’ve lost and the count is therefore more likely to be negative! This will happen not infrequently, actually.
Bottom line: if there’s any merit to the interesting idea you’ve suggested, you’d be better off ditching progressive schemes, which were not optimized to capitalize on positive counts, instead betting strictly according to cumulative losses and wins. If you ran simulations, you would find that the improvement is very small and not enough to get you into positive EV territory - i.e. by betting more, you are just losing more. Even if the simulations showed that there is some deck-adjusted win-loss ratio at which you turn the corner into positive EV, you would need to know what that is. I would guess it’s something like 15 losses out of 20, and maybe on average your running count is plus a few, but you still have a few decks remaining so you’re lucky to have a true count of +1. Also, how many times will you lose 15 or more out of the first 20? Binomial calculator says this will happen 3% of the time! In fact you have a true count of +1 about 30% of the time, which you can know 100% of the time by counting cards.
The thing that troubles me most about this approach, is that is not contextual. It doesn't respond to the situation; it superimposes a system over it. That can never work.
Did this yesterday and won $205 then I went to another casino and lost half of it
I agree it's a bad system, but I disagree about the table limit. You could just go to another higher limit table and continue your "system". The system doesn't say you have to stay at the same table.
you'll still run up against either table limits or you'll just run out of money.
good point. double or nothing will always come back to you, if you didn't have a limit.
So I saw another video that is progressive betting but slightly different from the standard martingale strategy. It involved betting in progressive increments of $5, $15, $35, $75, $150, $300, $600, and $1,200. There is no doubling down or splitting allowed. He also has a hitting and staying system based on the player hand and the dealer show card. It primarily is basic rules. Goal is $200 win then take a break. Leave with $400-500 profit. Claims he's been doing it for years and loses on average once out of twenty visits. Netting approximately $9,000 in wins and losing $2,380 for a net profit of $6,620 per month. What's your opinion on that?
Can you please give the link/url?
@@stijnvanleeuwen3647 not a mathematical approach to beating the game...possibly a fake video. as we always say at BJA, "please prove it with a simulation."
No doubling down or splitting? I’m out.
Is it safe to do this in a video game?
I think i i have a real problem. I‘ve been applying Martingale strategy on Blackjack at my local casino everyday. I only aim to win $50 bet. Then i go home. I’ve been fortunate over the last two months without going over 4 loses. I am now afraid to lose my winnings. Any advice guys？
don't gamble at all just invest in crypto
It's unfair to say that no amount of bankroll will make this work, if you have a larger bankroll than the casino and no bet limits then technically you could bankrupt the casino first. gottem
Yes. I doubled my bankroll in a day. And run a simulation of 1000 hands with positive outcome. I already ran same roulette strategy on 10 000 spins and I got 5000 profit, which is like 80% hit rate flat betting.
But it's not martingale. At least not in a classical sense.
In this video, you mentioned that in the $5 - $500 table limit. One can only double their bet up to 7 times. For the 8th one, we can go to a higher limit table right?
Even switching tables doesn’t make you win in the long run. Yes, it will make you take longer to hit the ceiling, but you will still hit it eventually, and you will lose even more money once you do. Here is a tip: as long as there is any limit at all to how much you can bet, then you cannot win in the long run.
I don't think there are tables with more than 100x the lowest limit. That wouldn't be in the casinos favor at that point.
@@BasketBloxBros It actually would still be in the casino's favor. It would just take longer to get to the long run. But don't overestimate how long it takes because even if you maximum bet is 100 times the minimum bet, you can still only double up to 7 times.
The system works, so long as the shoe isn't shit I went up $1,000 in an hour. And then the shoe changed and no matter what I got the dealer had one or two better
Early internet days the first on line casinos were techs guys not casinos. I played 2 dollar blackjack on a no limit table, I laughed all the way through a quart of scotch doubling my 2 dollar bet if I lost, lol some bets were 2k trying to win 2 bucks, but after that quart I cashed out with over 3 grand and a hangover. 😀
i use this strat and cash out after 200 profit .. minimum bet $10 with a bankroll of 7500 .. i’ve never lost it
If you are on low limit table with table max at $500; then you are screwed with martingale. Cause you are capped out there
Did you watch the video? Even with a high limit table, you're screwed. =)
What’s the best strategy to bet before you know how to count cards perfectly?
sorry but counting cards has become more and more irrelevant when dealers are shuffling cards much more frequently than generation ago.
I want to know. Progressive betting system and flat betting system in roulette
Do you guys know there are many other Progressive Betting Systems aside from the Martingale? Ever heard of the D'Alembert or the Thiers progressions? BTW what money management do you use when counting cards? Would appreciate a response. Thanks.
They're all failures, ultimately. It's clear that they're all just based on superstition.
There are no links to the math or explanations of the math so I'm still confused. When in the history of blackjack has someone lost 50 hands in a row? If it's impossible or near impossible to happen then it seems like this strategy would work eventually. Also I don't understand the math in general because if I start with a 5$ bet then 10$ then 20$ all the way to 320$ (if a table goes from 5 to 500 you can't double again to 640) then I have 7 chances to win before I lose 635$ so if the odds of losing 7 hands in a row are less than 2% that means I would lose 1270$ in 700 hands. But if I win 45% of those remaining 686 hands then I make 1643$ profit. So I risk 1270$ to make 1643$ and all those numbers are being conservative unless I'm wrong somewhere. If someone knows where I went wrong in the math Please give a actual mathematic explanation instead of just saying "the math doesn't work" with nothing to back it up.
1. There is a theorem called Doob's optional stopping theorem that proves, given very loose conditions (like you have a finite amount of time to live, there's a table limit, or you have a finite bankroll) that says, in effect for gambling games, that no choice of betting system that depends only on past information will improve your expected value. That's right. No amount of trying to be smart and changing the betting progression or changing the bet sizes or introducing some other scheme will do anything to help you. That's the math behind it, and you can read the proof if you want.
2. Suppose you bet like this on fair coin flips. Suppose your bankroll is $32, and you start at $1. Your chance of getting 5 losses in a row is 1/32, but you literally lose $32 if you do get unlucky. So, 31/32 of the time, you make $1. 1/32 of the time, you lose $32. The expected value of your scheme? 0. For rigged games, like the casino games, you will lose more than you win.