Log-in members only
Multiplayer, or team martingale play...This is a discussion thread · 30 replies Scott: Greetings all,I have a general question... Along time ago, I met this guy who claimed that he and a bunch of (blackjack) dealer friends used to play a team martingale. It was straight basic strategy with a martingale progression. What they would do is all seperate, and play to a specified win limit or loss limit, at the end of the night, perhaps one would lose... but the other 6 (winners) I think (total of 7) would make up for the loss of the other. The winning money was split between the total of 7. Without doing the math, and figuring the total to win between say just four player at a $5min-$500max table playing any 50/50 bet, or since Im a craps player just martingale on the line. I was wondering if anyone has tried this or know the validity of it as a viable team play? The guy I spoke to said they of course had their losses but had won much more than not. I knew this guy in Baton Rouge, he said he was a dealer in Vegas when he did this and he married a woman who moved them back to her home town in Louisiana. He seemed interested in doing it again if others were interested. I have never done any martingales becuase it seems like a bad idea, but I was wondering if team play might make it more viable.. Thanks all and take care, By The way, any players that frequent the Shreveport area from DFW?
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Timmyrocker: 10 simultanious plays will not have the odds to add up to better than 10consecutive sessions. There is still the same amount of snakes and the same amount of ladders out there. If these guys did this just once or twice, it is brilliant, but ongoing, it would result no better than if one guy had done all the play over a longer time
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
HBianco: the only way a team would benefit is when the bets got to the max bet a second player could make up the difference, and if that losses a third or fourth would have to bet, it could take 30 (guessing without figuring the exact number) members or more to bet . Say a table has a $3000 max and you losae 10 straight so the next bet would be $5120 so you would be $3000 and your second team member would bet $2120. If lose the 11th bet the bet would be $10,240 so three members would bet $3000 and the fourth would bet $1240, AIN'T THIS FUN, all to win $5.The next bet would be $20,480.This would need 7 team members.This would be the 13th bet.Would it be worth it,I don't know but it probably would be your best chance to win everyday, BUT someday you will hit that losing streak and lose it all plus more but if you don't..
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Alan Shank: [nq:1]10 simultanious plays will not have the odds to add up to better than 10 consecutive sessions. There is still ... but ongoing, it would result no better than if one guy had done all the play over a longer time[/nq]It is no more brilliant doing it once or twice than doing it over a longer time. The odds of busting are always the same. Cheers, Alan Shank
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Timmyrocker: that's why doing a tilted ratio strategy is wiser as a one-off.Best gamble ever : one single sequence of a six deep martingale with initial bet of $100,000 (takes $3,200,000 to do), then retire with your $100,000. The odds of busting are always the same, THEREFORE more exposure gets less benefit from the huge advantage inherant in a martingale. That is why i say that if these guys do this over and over, they are far more certain to have the sequence-busts catch up to their current "being ahead" that they enjoy.
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Alan Shank: [nq:1]that's why doing a tilted ratio strategy is wiser as a one-off. Best gamble ever : one single sequence of ... of busting are always the same, THEREFORE more exposure gets less benefit from the huge advantage inherant in a martingale.[/nq]That's simply not true. You continue to have conceptual difficulties with probabilities. You might retire with your $100,000 or lose the whole $3 million plus. [nq:1]That is why i say that if these guys do this over and over, they are far more certain to have the sequence-busts catch up to their current "being ahead" that they enjoy.[/nq] I am not talking about these particular guys, but in general. It is not brilliant to do this just one time in the first place, because your bust can happen any time, including right away. IF you try it and do not have the bust, it may make good sense to stop there. Cheers, Alan Shank
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Timmyrocker: still, 1 attempt = 1% odds of ever seeing a sequence-bust, 100 attempts = 100% odds. 400 attempts would have odds of experiencing 4 sequence busts.
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Jeff Ramin: That's not true; you don't add probabilities in this way. Doing something 100 times with a 1% chance of disaster does not mean it will definitely happen in those 100 trials.
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Mason: [nq:2]still, 1 attempt = 1% odds of ever seeing a ... 400 attempts would have odds of experiencing 4 sequence busts.[/nq]Jeff, Timmyrocker's analysis is based on the hindsight experience peakpoint gleaned metacurve system in the absence of the "official actual mean average". (see below) Save your breath. (or would that be fingers?) Timmyrocker [nq:2]more entertainment value in remaining at the gambling table, than leaving at whatever peak point the player reached[/nq] Everyone has to pick their own, just like anything else. Hindsight can offer clues. if a player plays a certain way consistantly... over many sessions he will start to get a feel for the range of his curve by using that hindsight. Even if he doesn't take the time to calculate the official actual mean average, some idea can be gleaned. if, for a few sessions of his chosen play, he never got ahead by more than 4 units, and if for a few sessions he lucked out and at one point was up 40 units, and if those extremes were just a few rare sessions and the peak of the curve seemed to be that almost all of the other sessions had a high point of between 15-25 units... Then the player can determine the realistic potential that his play will offer most times he has seen. Therefore, with the example figures above, he could use a guideline that any more than a conservative 15 to a luck-pushing 25 units, is a range realizing the most consistantly attainable potential, and he could act accordingly. This certainly is easier to do with some graphs than others. Some types of play might render an even spread, where over 100 sessions his hindsight of what his "peak being ahead" might be evenly spread from 1 unit to 40 units with no "fat part of the bell" on his chosen graph.
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Alan Shank: [nq:1]still, 1 attempt = 1% odds of ever seeing a sequence-bust,[/nq]If you're talking about "ever", you're not talking about 1 attempt, are you? But one attempt is not team play; each player has that .0143 probability of busting a six-deep Martingale on the pass line. [nq:1]100 attempts = 100%[/nq] Bzzt! Your lack of understanding of probability is showing, Timmy. Just because there's about a 1% of something occuring does not mean it's a certainty in 100 trials, not at all. Remember the thread about how many rolls it takes to yield a 50% probability that a 12 will have shown? If the probability of busting a six-deep Martingaleon the passline is .0143, then the probability of not busting is its complement, .9857. .9857^100 = .2369, so that leaves a .7631 probability of one or more busts in 100 trials. After about 48 times there is a 50% probability of one or more busts, and a 90% probability after 159 trials. Keep in mind that these figures are for ONE OR MORE busts. That's the rub; if you get more than your "share" of busts, it's a disaster. [nq:1]odds. 400 attempts would have odds of experiencing 4 sequence busts.Same error.[/nq] Cheers, Alan Shank
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Show more
| Have a question? People are waiting to help. Interesting stuff |
All RSS Feeds