Roulette Martingale alternative (Carsch)

It's ok, I don't mind answering questions. It is far better than irrational nonsense statements that I have experienced from others.

Everyone learns differently, some seek various opinions, ask twice, three times or more, either eventually it clicks and if not the casino dreams of surfing on a profit wave will come crashing down in the ocean of reality with cuts and bruises from the barbed coral.

Others may tread this same path and read what has been written and take away something useful.

 

Fair call, I hope so , but you get the mother Theresa award nevertheless. Lol.

 

You may actually be a successful gambler, but as far as being a successful human , you have no soul, you are rotten inside.

 

Criticism of the marty is well-founded, but it's just an example of a negative progression designed to recover all losses and make a profit at any step. This is no different from many other progressions I've seen on forums, which are essentially the same as the marty, only designed for higher odds bets. Progressions for SU, splits, and streets might look relatively mild compared to a marty, but players tend to forget that it takes proportionally longer to get a win than on an EC. These progressions are marty by nature if not name. For example, here is a progression for double streets:

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16.

A win at every step returns a profit. This doesn't look too bad compared to 1,2,4,8,16..., but the probability of busting is just under 6%, which is about the same as 4 EC losses in a row. The equivalent marty is 1,2,4,8, but you would actually bust more often (6.95% chance) than the DS progression. Yet I doubt that many would throw up their hands in horror at the DS progression and call anyone who uses it a moron. If they are being consistent, they would, but they haven't done the math. Actually, in terms of ROI the marty doesn't come off too badly when you compare it to equivalent progressions on the higher odds bets.

 

Phew, now I know why my head does 360 degree spins spewing green bile over all an sundry, it’s also the only way I can place myself when I pass a mirror. By the way my throat is now used to the guttural inaudible shrieks I use for communication. Being human is overrated,yeah you know it.

 

Interesting this method, but it only pays up to the tenth bet. At the 11th tie and from there it's a loss.

 

I made a mistake in my previous post. Those were the bet numbers, not the progression.

The actual progression for DS is this:

1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,4,5,6,7,8,10

 

I think the main criticism is because main engine of progression is losses. So we increased the bet because we lost, or in other words - the trigger for increasing is losing, which is not very logical.
For example, Black Jack also increases bets - but the trigger for that is that situation become better - what is logical - better chances - higher bet.

I think is much better to use some trigger that is not inconsistent with logic?

 

Accurate assessment for sure. A year or so ago, I came up with an approach to betting patterns as you are well aware of. I am experienced enough to know and understand the down-falls of the Martingale progression. There must be thousands of articles written about it and none of them positive. I have tried every popular progression known to man, but so far with my limited testing, the Marty works better than the rest. There are people on this forum that lothe the Marty and anybody that uses it is a stupid fool and a moron. I agree, anybody using it for real money play are headed for it's calculated disaster. But what I cannot seem to get through to these thick-headed jerks is I am only in a testing mode. I am not facing any financial risk at all. I do not understand their constant bombardment of how foolish and stupid I am when in all reality I am doing nothing stupid or foolish. The way they badger me is where all the stupidity and foolishness is.

My strategy is holding up well so far, and I emphasize so far. That's what puzzles me because it should have crashed and burned a long time ago using the Marty progression. I have used the Marty testing other strategies and they failed in a New York minute. And for this reason I ask a lot of questions having doubt of my testing methods because the results I am seeing are too good to be true. I have no illusions of me having the holy grail as Spike claims he has. And maybe he does, but we will never know because it is his secret. However, what I am doing is out in the open for anybody to try and then critisize according to their results. Contrary to popular belief, I do listen to those whom I respect. But most have nothing to offer at all other than critisizm. Maybe I should remove myself from this forum and just be happy with my kitchen table testing and let the rest of them blow smoke up each others ass.

 

I figured it might have been a mistake.
I liked the strategy. I did some tests here.
From time to time a double street delays for more than 24 rounds, and when it comes back it is not expected to delay it again, so this progression is a good idea.

 

David, as you know, my simulations showed that your results far exceeded the profits which you would expect if using the 6 & 7 step marty merely betting one side only, which suggests that your bet selection is reducing the dispersion between wins. As I said in a previous post, a BS doesn't need to make a flat bet profit if the progression can leverage the reduced dispersion, and it may well be that the marty is the best possible progression for your BS. However, this post was ignored and members continued with their "bash Dave" campaign. I guess it's more fun being a troll.

Gizmo implicitly agrees with me. He says his BS doesn't have an edge (it doesn't win more than mathematical expectation predicts), but in that case the only way he could win consistently is if there are fewer losses between wins. The number of wins & losses result in a flat bet loss, but the way they are distributed favours a progression of some kind.

Of course, all this is hypothetical. Maybe everyone's pants are on fire, lol.

 

I suppose there is a certain logic to using negative progressions. If you believe a win is "due" it makes sense, or maybe you just want to recover your prior losses ASAP. Neither of these are very good reasons though.

 

That's one of the advantages of Black Jack, you do get the opportunity to double as per rules of basic strategy when the odds favour it and reduce the house edge down to 0.5%

Most progressions are trying to recover from the negative variance faster and make a profit in the face of overall less wins than the losses.

That post that @thereddiamanthe shared was quite interesting and was based on a significant number of outcomes in the millions I believe. It suggests that the use of a progression (not necessarily a martingale) improved the number of reversals (turnarounds/recovery to profit) and led to significany larger profits in 90% of sessions and that overwhelmingly outweighed any downsides.

I haven't verified the study myself or read the book referenced in that post but the suggestion was a significant amount of testing was involved. There may be some truth to it that if you are modest with your profit objective and can recover from the negative variance in the majority of cases (a range of different progressions were tested, positive and negative and blended) and surf the statistical upswing, you may end the session at achievable targets with high probability. The point of the book and the post was that flat betting didn't deliver the profitability whereas in most case with a progression the profitability was increased and the upswings both recovered losses and produced profit.

I think it is worth investigating to confirm or refute.

For certain any session will be doing one of three things, winning, losing, or treading water all the while the house edge is corroding away the bankroll.

 

Excellent point.

I think this is probably the most overlooked and undervalued property. Like you say a bet selection may not give any probability edge at all (and that is what us math folks expect) but you don't necessarily need more wins than losses than probability dictates if your selection reduces the dispersion.

Studying your win/loss W/L registry is important. Look to reduce the length of streaks if you can or the occurance relative to the probability. Note this includes both win and loss streaks as you can't have win streaks without balancing it out with loss streaks.

For example, a streak of 5 wins or losses on an EC is roughly a 1 in 2^5 = 1 in 32 event. If your bet selection reduces this average occurance rate for a streak of 5 wins or 5 losses to say 1 in 80 then you might have something and a martingale or even a grand martingale will do the job.

Sputnik also had some interesting ideas which he believed provided less volatility in the W/L registry.

What I would describe as the recipe for achieving what is commonly called a grail is to reduce the dispersion in W/L registry through bet selection and apply a progression over the top and basically you have a grail.

You don't need an actual edge in terms of strike rate if dispersion is favourable. A grand martingale can be the best weapon in such a situation as you make a unit on every bet. Don't ignore that qualifying if.

 

Thanks for the positive input, everybody appreciates that.

 

I agree.

I guess the key question is: can a bet selection affect the distribution of wins and losses? I'm talking about non-AP bet selections of course. As we know, theoretically it's not possible to tilt the odds in your favour, but that's about the number of wins and losses. As far as I'm aware, there's no theoretical reason why the distribution of wins and losses can't be changed by bet selection. Of course this can be done in the short term, that's obvious, but in the long-term? I'm not so sure. And if it can only be done short term you're back to the problem of which bet selection is going to reduce the dispersion in the next X spins, and when to change to it. The only guide you have is past results, but outcomes are independent...

Do you think it can be done?

 

The thing is though, you wouldn't expect someone who could do the above to show you exactly how it's done.
So you are never really going to know if it's possible unless you learn to do it by yourself and even then it's possible to get lucky for a very long time. Sometimes, I think it's easy to get wrapped up into the gambling forum bubble and we forget that there are probably hundreds / thousands of people who think about all this stuff and will never make a post on a gambling forum. Who is to say that any of them have not figured out how to achieve the above. I have met some really smart gamblers in my time and several of them were banned from a casino for winning consistently.

Personally, I think the above can be done and that there is a way. But then I was always a half full kind of guy and not half empty.

 

I'm certainly not expecting anyone to show me how it can be done, or even if it's possible. All I know so far is that I haven't found any math that says it can't be done, but then, not being a professional mathematician that doesn't count for much. Even a math PhD only knows a fraction of what there is. But sometimes not knowing that something can't be done can pay off, although most of the time it doesn't. At least, not directly.

 

Yes, try faster to recover.
But imagine that it's, say, boxing. And the boxer has just been beaten and he wants to win faster - let's name against a stronger opponent... is that - logical?
I don't think it's logical... but what - not logical?

In my opinion - not logical because it is faster and because against a stronger opponent.

This means that we should not hurry and somehow choose a weaker opponent.

How does all this transfer to roulette - that the goal is not to win back in one spin - but to spend more spins, and the probability of winning would be higher than where you lost ...

But again I all talk from point that we have some advantage - lets it is super small ...0.5%

 

Right thinking ... logic is very clear and simple - the player must observe what happened on the wheel and bet - where wins are more. Doing such a simple thing is maybe hard to become a super winner, but really not hard to reach that opponent will be equal to you...or even slight weaker.
That is the point from which manipulating bets can start giving benefits...