This is one that I have not perfected. I have only run the game in my head and done a small 30 minute tester at the casino.

It goes like this:

Start at a 5 dollar 200 max table for instance.

Bet min until you lose 3 hands in a row. When you lose 3 hands in a row bet max. If you lose that hand Bet max again.

Repeat (min) until you lose 3 hands in a row.

What are the odds of losing 4 hands in a row more than once in a 3 hour session? Or for this strategy to be a losing strategy?

It seems very simple.. but effective.

This will not end well.

With all the high school exit exams, why don't they just ask for an essay where you have to use algebra to explain why a 3 or 4 bet martingale is a bad idea?

Edit: oh, yeah, people are supposed to pass

I will give this OP credit in that he did not use roulette as his martingale game of choice and talks of infinite bankrolls never came into play.

Also, at least his martingale approach will end badly quicker than others so he can get on with his life in a much more timely manner after busting whatever he had at the table while supporting the gambling industry with his special math breaking strategies.

He also created this thread

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/54...mbien-1235596/

which is entertaining.

Assuming a loss probability of 48% and 100 hands per hour, the probability of losing 4 in a row more than once in 3 hours is about 99.9%. That's from the multiple streak calculator that I developed for this site.


For you, 100%. For the house, 0%.

That's a novel idea. Teach people things that they will actually need in life. The same goes for other areas as well. When I went to school, they used to teach shop. Now that has been phased out of a lot of curricula. But even when I went to school, they didn't teach the right things in shop. They taught us how to make bookcases, forge tools out of steel, and make aluminum die castings. Few people will ever have a need to do any of those things. What people need to know is how to hang drywall and paint.

I still have my Quebec Nordiques clock somewhere that I made in shop. I actually got 100% on it. How that would help me now...lol, no chance.

Yeah, even when it comes to math, it's basically criminal that so few kids can do any kind of financial math, even if it's just interest-related. True story, when I was TAing at a flagship state school, on a little skills worksheet on day 1, over half the class could not solve 1.7=6.8/x, even with a calculator. And at the TA meeting after the class, the prof explained that the question was on there because it was the only way she could get the TAs to understand what they were dealing with and on what level they'd have to try to explain things. Just seeing responses to something like the dodgers-sox trade, so many people are just living in a completely different world when they have no concept of the basic math.

The boys would typically take shop, and the girls would typically take home economics. But for 2 weeks, we would switch because they decided that everyone should at least learn something very basic from the other area. Those 2 weeks in home economics were far more valuable to me than the year of shop because they taught us how to sew. I do need to be able to sew from time to time throughout my life. A sock, a button, a gash in my forehead...sewing is useful. I never would have learned it on my own. I understand that the girls learned how to do some basic appliance repairs. They didn't teach us how to fix any appliances. We were too busy forging chisels out of steel and casting anvils out of aluminum, like we were training to restart civilization from the iron age or something.

The thead or OP's bankroll?

Better than BJ, short stack PLO or NLHE (but plo is better), Shove when you think you're 50% equity threshold or above. Change tables, repeat.

OR stay and play the 'reverse martingale' Keep doubling up until you own George Soros.

OH CRAP, sorry Sally, I just blew away your whole post, and now I can't get it back. I was just trying to respond to it, not edit it. I don't know how that happened because it looked like I quoted you, but it put in my name. Sometimes strange things happen when I switch display modes. Perhaps you can still get it back from your history. There were tabulated probabilities for various numbers of loss streaks.

I decided to just report the result leaving ties in since it was already at 99.9%. It will get even worse when you ignore ties since then a tie can't end a loss streak, but to use 52% you have to reduce the total number of hands, and the actual number of non-drawn hands per hour will vary depending on the number of draws. Also the actual loss probability is closer to 49% than the 48% that I assumed. There could be much more than 100 total hands per hour heads up, or less than that with many players.