Acid_Knight 2 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 LOL @ Matt reading that and actually trying to respond. I was expecting a more angry and hilarious response I hate disappointing people :(But FWIW, I skimmed, found "Martingale," started laughing, and then started typing responses. Link to post Share on other sites
ziioo 0 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Some of the Martingale computer simulations for roulette are pretty conclusive, it's not a long term winning strategy.. your potential win per round (the initial bet size) always stays the same, but to actually turn your profit into a meaningful number against the required bankroll you need from the start you need to play gazillions of hands, and at some point you're going to have a frozen streak that destroys you. Throw in the need to move tables if the next bet puts you over the limit for the table you've been on etc etc, and long term it's just bad.Pokerwise, imo you're better playing a set buy-in a large number of times to i) overcome variance and ii) get comfortable and therefore play as well as possible at that level, rather than continually increase your stake and be constantly adapting to different environments with more and more of your BR in play and therefore vulnerable. Link to post Share on other sites
Whatever 1 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 But if you lost would you then immediately play him in a $1K SNG? Link to post Share on other sites
KHSPoker21 0 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 LOL @ 85% of the ppl in this thread Link to post Share on other sites
XXEddie 0 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Double the bet or buy in each game. It would be used for just sitngo's or HU games but not fully. For example, $20sng lose AA vs KK, lol because no mistakes will be made for the most part. It will be mainly suckouts, but lose the $20 then drop another 20 then possibly 30 etc. I'm giving myself a lot of room to play with and will be somewhat of a nit about it. So in the end I can play up to 5% of my bankroll but for a while I probably wont even be close to that. I'm talking about $20-$500 those exist but I'm sure I wont have to go that high. gg your bankrollPWYGB Link to post Share on other sites
Snamuh 0 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 LOL @ 86.8% of the ppl in this threadFYP, since we're breaking down this strategy into numbers and all. Link to post Share on other sites
Snamuh 0 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Its risky, very risky but if you are confident you can win just 1 game within the number of levels you can create for yourself then you will make money.What does this mean? How can you be confident that you can win just 1 game? It's straight gambling man. Link to post Share on other sites
XXEddie 0 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Actually, the Martingale is nearly perfectassuming you have an infinite bankroll reserve and there is no limit to bet size, and you quit and start over when you reach your desired $ goal. 1) If you had an infinite bankroll, why would someone do this? It seems you already have enough money and wouldn't need to gamble.2) It is NOT 'nearly perfect' when it comes to HU SnGs because.... a) SnGs take a rake, lets assume it is 10%. So...Play a $20+2 and lose, -$22Play a $40+4 and lose, -$66Play a $80+8 and lose, -$158Play a $160+$16 and lose, -$326Play a $320+$32 and WIN, you are still down $38. B) SnG buyins don't double. On stars, the HU SnGs go... $2, $5, $10, $20, $30, $50, $100, $200, $500, $1000, $2000, $5000.But yeah, go ahead and try it. Let me know when you go broke. Link to post Share on other sites
XXEddie 0 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Ok, finally read the OP.....biggest LOL comes when you say the double up, catch up strat(or the martingale?...or w/e) is bad for blackjack but good from poker. If there is ANY place i would used that start, it would be BJ. Because, like in my above post, in BJ you get paid even money, and you can double your bets. In poker you cannot. Link to post Share on other sites
PocketAcesA5 6 Posted February 11, 2009 Author Share Posted February 11, 2009 It wouldn't be a gamble because I'm not just going to buy in and start pushing. This is roughly how it would go.buy in22 - lose22 - lose33 - lose33 - lose33 - lose33 - win $13533 - lose55 - lose55 - lose55 - lose109 - lose109 - win $450I'm not going to lose this many in the first place but here's the worst case senario, win 2/12 with a total loss of -$7. I could go on with 2nd place finishes and 3rd place finishes but there's no point. In a nut shell it would go something like that. Link to post Share on other sites
Merby 3 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Actually, the Martingale is nearly perfect assuming you have an infinite bankroll reserve and there is no limit to bet size, and you quit and start over when you reach your desired $ goal. This is a true statement.Here is another true statement: "If I had seven arms, then I would own half of Florida and be able to bench press the Empire State building."That's the wonderful thing about "FALSE implies TRUE" statements. They can conclude whatever they want and still be provably true, because the premise is false. The caveat "infinite bankroll and no limit to bet size" is an insurmountable obstacle because such a situation will never exist and is *absolutely* necessary for the Martingale strategy.That's it for caveats?QFT Link to post Share on other sites
XXEddie 0 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I'm not going to lose this many in the first place but here's the worst case senario, win 2/12 with a total loss of -$7. I could go on with 2nd place finishes and 3rd place finishes but there's no point. In a nut shell it would go something like that.HAHAHAHAHAHA. What the **** made you exempt from going on terrible runs.No seriously, tell me. Link to post Share on other sites
051103 0 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 CBASS that is on top notch sig. mmm chicken. Tanners sig just makes me think very bad things and yours does the same and makes me hungry. I'm so torn. I need to find picture of Jessica Alba in a bikini wearing ice skates and doing the splits. Link to post Share on other sites
PocketAcesA5 6 Posted February 12, 2009 Author Share Posted February 12, 2009 HAHAHAHAHAHA. What the **** made you exempt from going on terrible runs.No seriously, tell me.I've played well over a million hands online and I am positive that a bad run isn't going to screw me over. Plus if I did lose a bunch of games in a row I would just stop and go over hand histories and make sure I'm not doing anything wrong then slowly get back into it. Either way it was pointless even trying to get some views on this. Link to post Share on other sites
therescav 0 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Am I the only one thats noticed a recent high influx of new posters (who, by default, post some retardedly weird stuff) Link to post Share on other sites
RDog 0 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Am I the only one thats noticed a recent high influx of new posters (who, by default, post some retardedly weird stuff)See my comment in the challenge thread this morning. Link to post Share on other sites
wsox8 10 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I've played well over a million hands online and I am positive that a bad run isn't going to screw me over. Plus if I did lose a bunch of games in a row I would just stop and go over hand histories and make sure I'm not doing anything wrong then slowly get back into it. Either way it was pointless even trying to get some views on this.I like the first sentence Link to post Share on other sites
Snamuh 0 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Am I the only one thats noticed a recent high influx of new posters (who, by default, post some retardedly weird stuff)Hopefully in a year or two, they develop into the next generation of solid grinders. Link to post Share on other sites
KHSPoker21 0 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Hopefully in a year or two, they develop into the next generation of solid grinders.your optimism makes me wonder who you are Link to post Share on other sites
Snamuh 0 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 your optimism makes me wonder who you areI had a winning session today. My bad posts come when I downswing. Link to post Share on other sites
Acid_Knight 2 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I've played well over a million hands online and I am positive that a bad run isn't going to screw me over. Plus if I did lose a bunch of games in a row I would just stop and go over hand histories and make sure I'm not doing anything wrong then slowly get back into it. Either way it was pointless even trying to get some views on this. Link to post Share on other sites
XXEddie 0 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I've played well over a million hands online and I am positive that a bad run isn't going to screw me over. Plus if I did lose a bunch of games in a row I would just stop and go over hand histories and make sure I'm not doing anything wrong then slowly get back into it. Either way it was pointless even trying to get some views on this.A quote from your OP;'I learned that on absolute poker turning $100 into $500 on poker then in blackjack turning the $500 into $1500 then all gone, lol. But in 2007 I turned $100 into about $5000 using that method but also did it exceeding my bankroll limit up to 30% which is huge, went on massive tilt but it worked out in the end'Ok....whatever you say. Link to post Share on other sites
RabidTortuga 0 Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 This is a true statement.Here is another true statement: "If I had seven arms, then I would own half of Florida and be able to bench press the Empire State building."That's the wonderful thing about "FALSE implies TRUE" statements. They can conclude whatever they want and still be provably true, because the premise is false. The caveat "infinite bankroll and no limit to bet size" is an insurmountable obstacle because such a situation will never exist and is *absolutely* necessary for the Martingale strategy.QFTThis was the point of my post. Link to post Share on other sites
PocketAcesA5 6 Posted July 30, 2011 Author Share Posted July 30, 2011 I thought I would bring this back for some lol's. I went broke Link to post Share on other sites
CoolHandKai 0 Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 I thought I would bring this back for some lol's. I went broke Hmpf, not the ending I had hoped for. Also, I read the replies and like everyone who replied, I did not read the original post... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now