🔥 Modified Martingale Results (Read Before Diss) discussed in Blackjack/Gambling at Wizard of Vegas

Most Liked Casino Bonuses in the last 7 days 💰

Filter:

Active

Free bonus

Sort:

Newest

Popular

When I lose, my "puddle" goes down. Wolf, the math you're doing is for winning 3 in a row. Your system is a winning system lilawolf said:. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding. Unit for unit, this math makes sense. Even several bad runs will not result in the projected losses of a true martingale or hopefully the wins associated with several good runs. Learn to count if you want to make money. My point of this post is to detail progressions can not and will not work with actual results like these unless you have a tremendous BR. Forums Forums General JavaScript is disabled. Why won't it work? Here you are minimizing the max loss though limiting it's recovery benefits. I would love to see the math that would show if this works or not. I think at a certain length of the chain your benefits will outweigh the losses in the long run. Search forums. Doing any modified martingale, even only at high counts, will simply increase your variance and risk bombing out. No matter HOW much some people will try to pretend, and tell you otherwise. JJR said:. As I said at the beginning, I knew something had to be wrong with it Counting it is then. The mathematical optional bet is the bet at the kelly criterion that matches your EV from a positive count. On the other hand, I can't help but ask.

Forums New posts Search forums. Since we are looking at losing three hands in a row you do. I've tripled my minimum bet with success. Baseball John Member Sep 17, Lost 21 of 22 today at casino!!! No indices were used because the modified martingale blackjack did not drift modified martingale blackjack enough to either range.

Search Advanced search…. Hey wolf, I recently asked the same thing. A modified martingale. Log in. Thread starter lilawolf Start date Sep 12, First I will say that if I have thought of it, someone else has.

Modified martingale blackjack hands were played strickly at BS. Maybe when I start at a table, I'll go down but almost always go back up. Search titles only.

Modified martingale blackjack 3 in a row would be. I've been using this for years and it only fails when I break my own rules double when I shouldn't or double one too many times, split on a double College left modified martingale blackjack bad taste in my mouth regarding this statistical probability but if you remember the Bell Shaped Curve, lets just say that my experience has been, statistically, almost always positive.

Allthough my result are very marginally positive, I always walk away from a table after an up swing in momentum, or a few blackjacks in a row.

How it works for me, I generally win more than lose, so I have a little "puddle" of winning chips. Working on learning the rule variations now.

I sincerely appreciate and respect those who explained their reasoning. Would this work for someone who is not counting my fiance? After a loss you would begin back with one unit.

So for payouts standard blackjack 7.

This system I've been using isn't any 'edge' at all. If I can keep my unit bet more stav Ble ill enjoy the game more I'm sure. Log in Register. I always stop playing in negative counts. I now see what I was missing. Somewhere between the two is the gray area of "you're going to lose more than win because of statistical probability" but no one has made the mathematical modified martingale blackjack for that yet Sucker Well-Known Member Sep 12, Machinist Well-Known Member Sep 12, Sucker said:.

I've been looking into this statistically I've been extremely lucky. The count was always either neutral or slightly positive. I see what what modified martingale blackjack was talking about with this system being at odds with the bets you should make with the count.

Thank you for your time. You must log in or register to reply here.

What's new New posts New profile posts Latest activity. You tell me that you're good with math; I believe that if you go back and refigure, using the proper input; you'll understand the fallacy of this and any OTHER system that relies on betting patterns only. New posts. It works for me and mathematically it makes sense to me, though I don't remember enough from statistics to be able to articulate it with a formula this is a part of statistics, not math in general. Members Current visitors New profile posts Search profile posts. Thank you sucker. If you play like this, you are at a disadvantage, You will lose over time. Its possible that the payoff from blackjacks puts the math in my favor. I lost Luckily LS option saved me a few. I am not disagreeing with those who are against this strategy, I would like to ask the same to try it I've been doing it for years live and recently got Hoyle on the laptop and aces blackjack on my phone. You would NOT put in a bigger bet as someone asked to try and regain everything because that would be a true martingale which I clearly said was not what I was doing. This is no logic in this. Although I DID say "End of discussion"; I guess it's only fair of me to point out the error in your math: You're handling pushes as though they were wins. I am playing 6 deck, H17, DAS, resplit aces, surrender. Do this only at a positive count to reduce losses. I am good at math but do not have any experience with running simulations and finding probabilities etc. Please tell me what you think. Its a good argument against my system and when I get home ill do some math of my own. I hope to be an advantage player by your paradigm eventually. If you lose your 20, start the system over again.