Topic: Martingale Betting Strategy on BlackJack, how effective it is? - page 5. (Read 948 times)

People should put up into their minds on whats martingale and how it should be treated.This isnt some sort of that holy grail where some people do believe on.They would really be finding
and realize those things once they have been fucked up with martingale strategy even on a BJ game it wont really be giving out guarantees that you cant really be having a long losing streak.
So better make use of this strategy on your own risk and dont push up yourself too much because you are indeed just trying these strategy whether you do end up on profitable
or getting wrecked.So the best thing to be done is knowing on when to quit when you are in greens.

It doesn't matter how big your final bet is with Martingale, you get your initial bet back, that's it. There are some variants but it is not the OP case.

Sometimes it's not just about applying a strategy, people complain a lot about martingale, but they have no idea of ​​additional information needed, they just understand that it's just doubling the bet and you winner.

In the case of blackjack, like roulette, they are successful but because you have a bankroll and an adequate bet, also do not forget to manage the odds, it is important to be more successful and avoid unnecessary long losing streaks that have a psychological effect on negative, depending on how experienced you are or how adequate your banking is.

I do not use martingale because of the size of my bet (Blackjack), it would break my bankroll, sometimes I have lost up to 6 times in a row and the calculations do not give me to apply it, it is easier for me to lose 7 times and then recover at long time.

It is a classic mistake of those who apply Martingale to think I have lost "x" times this one that comes if I win and that is when the variance does its thing.
In the case of roulette, it does not accept "skills", but in Blackjack you can "change" those odds of losing.

Then, retreat, stand, etc. they make the difference of not taking a loss +,  that they will make the next bet put you in limits that you do not manage and then they make you play badly, betting $500, $1000 in a BJ hand when you are not used to that size of bet, so it distracts you.

In any case, I think that everything always depends on the scenarios and what you want, so wagers, a winning streak, etc.
In any case, always do the  game calculations and be aware that if the variance decides that day to change things, if your limit is $1,000, a variation of one more loss means that you should have $2,000, by the way, if you have the capacity for large bets, find out what limits maximums the table has, "you can't double the bet", it is "fatality^{Mortal Kombat : )} for the strategy.

---

Considerations:

• Martingale is a game strategy, it is not a 100% winning ticket as they want you to understand, the strategy works for any scenario, not for any individual.
• Learn to play BJ.
• Use play money with that strategy before using your real money.
• Know and study the odds of the BJ.

Gambling alone is a game of chance and luck. Whether players come to gamble with prepared skills and strategies, i don't think they can easily win bets without luck in them. Although there are games that are sometimes considered skill based, but in reality the fact that you gamble, you should have more luck other then skills for it to work. Martingale may increase our chances to win but its certainly very risky that it could be a source of your quick losses and leaves you empty handed.

yes I agree with this statement, many gamblers are stuck with the martingale technique, many believe that with a big bag they will be able to overcome a losing streak. However, many forget that the house has certain limits on each bet. especially for the game of blackjack, 10 times a person's losing streak will not be able to return the funds that have been staked. so I don't think there is a strategy that really guarantees victory, including the martingale. 
so I guess the answer is not effective.

Regardless of the capital you have, I don't think it will work. For example, if you do martingale strategy on dice and let's say you have an infinite bankroll, do you think the casino will not limit your bet? I think it's a wrong perception that the martingale strategy would really work since a limit is always implemented in every casino.

Better in blackjack than in dice? Possibly. But for a martingale strategy to work it requires a large amount of capital. There could be instances that the house will be on a good roll and keeps on winning every set of game. Ending up with nothing more to bet will cut the strategy leaving you with nothing in return.
But yes, it's better used in a game like that where there's a chance you might get 1/10 win. Pulling off that one win will clear things back with profits and then reset.

Just like any other strategies/algorithms/patterns, martingale is also useless against the house edge and the other limitations. The casino protects itself with the house edge and most of them won't let you wager more than a certain amount. (maximum bet limit)

When a player uses martingale, he mathematically ruins himself.  Since blackjack is also a game where player is against the house, the limitations are pretty much there. There isn't much of a difference than playing dice using martingale.

It is very effective for the Casino to make money at your expense. And the answer is in your quote

This is simply not true because you do not take into account the total amount bet. The bottom line is that you bet increasing amounts to win the initial amount, which is small compared to the increasing stakes. Smaller and smaller.

Why martingale is PURE SHIT.

For me I dont see any difference in using martingale strategy on Blackjack or any other games. However there's an advantage if you're playing a game that is not only relying on luck, in short skills and strategy has a participation in order to maximize your chance to win. Its a risky strategy but can bring profit if the player has a huge bankroll and can bear losses even consistently. Because you cant tell how much money you need to spend first before winning the game.

I guess the creator of that article thought that because there is skill involved in playing blackjack, the player has a higher chance of winning rather than just completely relying on luck. I guess he never really factors in how much fund is actually needed or the rules casinos have put in place.

compare to the majority of casino games? yeah, I'd consider blackjack somewhat skill base game.

This is silly to me. Martingale remains as Martingale regardless of which game it is used. Regardless if it is blackjack or not, Martingale will prove to be a wrong strategy in the long run, unless if you have a very deep pocket that you can absorb a long losing streak and could still manage to double every succeeding bet.

But, make no mistake, it is wrong to classify blackjack as a skill-based game. It isn't a skill-based game. There are indeed skills used in the game, but your cards are given to you randomly. So there is still a big amount of luck needed for you to win consistently.

From my experience, it'd be better to look for another strategy because even though blackjack requires a bit of skill it's still not enough to make any strategy that effective since blackjack still has that luck factor as you rely on the cards you get. I get that it's better to have skills when playing blackjack but to me, it seems like you're just making the most out of a certain situation since you can't really do much against certain rounds whenever a dealer gets so much good cards in consecutive rounds.

I couldn't have put it in a better way, it's so true what you just said, if you have a good strategy, you don't need the martingale system, and blackjack is mostly luck just like all casino games, and speaking on martingale system, you can win a couple of times but you'll end up losing in the long run.

I do not believe in martingale as pointed out by others here. The risks exponentially become higher the longer you lose streak.

And as you point out, blackjack is a skill-based game. Meaning you can win with skill alone, and if luck favors you, you can win more. I do not think you still needs to use martingale in it. What you need is to hone your skills more and practice counting without the casino catching you.

Besides, the tip came from a casino. Do you think they will give you something that will make them lose money? I don't think so.

I agree that the use of martingale is beneficial in a game where the player's chance of winning does not depend solely on luck.
In games based only on luck, the player will always lose, as the math points to the house's victory, the use of martingale will only delay these losses and give the player a false sense of winning.

However, in a card game where strategy is mixed with skills, the martingale can indeed bring good results if used wisely and the player knows how to impose limits.

Before choosing any game to apply martingale, gamblers should think about doing it in reverse. Reverse martingale works best on min 2x multiplier since chances are high to hit back-to-back winning streaks, unlike bigger multipliers. I have used a gambling bot to bet on roulette 2x but at some point it busts the whole bankroll due to unbeatable house edge. Anyways, blackjack or other skill-based games don't increase our chances no matter which strategy you apply to profit. Better to simulate the strategy with a "perfect Blackjack chart" before doing it with real bets.

Well maybe, but looking at the article they are not encouraging player to use the Martingale betting system if a player has a low bankroll.

The article is about "best betting strategy" not a best-winning strategy, though I think they put up martingale because it is one of the popular methods used by those playing Blackjack.  The title should be the Three Most Best Popular Betting Strategy because I can't find martingale as one of the best betting strategies since the majority of us frown on this betting method and most often leaves player's bankroll easily depleted.

An excellent demonstration of the absurdity of the Martingale system! I think one more corollary should be mentioned: when using Martingale (even if you have infinite money) your winnings as a percentage of your deposit will be zero (infinitely small). Is it worth starting in this case?
Probably the sponsor of that article is a casino that lures new simpleton players 

This is true and doesnt matter on what game you are involving into even on a strategic based on which Martingale method wont really give out assurance for you to win since we know that
losing streak could really be long and plus having those max bet limit with those sites which does simply means that you cant totally able to follow and ending up losing huge amounts
if you couldnt able to hit a win on that particular series of bets on using martingale.This had been a common method since from the beginning of time but there are people who do
really love on pushing through into this kind of method and do realize in the end that it wasnt really effective at all but hey its peoples money then its their right on what
strategy they could be using.

The article is attached with the gambling fallacy of "eventually we will win", so automatically the belief that the Martingale Betting Strategy as one of the best strategy is a fallacy itself.  Like the earlier replies, it needs a limitless bankroll but the problem with that is Casino has bet limits.  It is easily countered with continuous shuffle where the deck refreshes every single bet so card counting would be impossible to apply.