Martingale Betting Strategy on BlackJack, how effective it is?

[BitcoinAccepted]

Very effective, as long as everything just keeps going according to plan. But then the inevitable happens, you lose 7 bets in a row. Knowing that you started with a $1 bet, that's a decent amount. 1,2,4,8,16,32,64 already lost together. Then you have to bet 128$ the 8th time to be able to win only 1$. Then you realize it's crazy. Again, it could work but you need high table limits and be able to absorb 10 losses in a row by continuing to gamble. It may happen that you have lost even 12 times in a row and you are still betting to only win 1$. Not logical actually.

[1715530161]

1715530161

[1715530161]

1715530161

[1715530161]

1715530161

[1715530161]

1715530161

[Saint-loup]

Hesitancy means you are not sure if you have a chance to beat the house edge but you can proceed and check if martingale can help you win, even if its proven thousands of times that doubling your bet or martingale is still a 50/50 chance to win or get busted, people are very persistent in using a martingale, all I know is martingale can excite you but do not use it to challenge the house edge my own experienced in martingale is very worse 15 straight losses wiping all my tokens I've earned from bounty campaign for 4 months in just 5 minutes using this strategy.

At which game did you encounter 15 straight losses precisely? It would be surprising you got that at BJ especially if you are not a bad player. I think the martingale strategy could be applied to a hot shoe if you have counting enough cards before, but it's certainly better to just raise your stake in this case. Using it at freebet blackjack could also gives better results since you get free splits and then more chances to break losing streak.  

This result is easy to achieve in any game if you have chosen the appropriate odds (if you bet not on x2 but on x1.1, then of course a series of 15 defeats in a row will wait a very long time). For example, when playing dice choosing <49.5% you will get similar results. In Black Jack, the house edge varies depending on the variations of the rules and is close to 0.5% at best. Whether you are a good player or a bad one, if you play long enough, you will easily see a series of 15 defeats in a row, and if you used Martingale, it will bankrupt your deposit.

That's why I said if you are a good player and you have counted enough cards to be able to know that the remaining shoe is more in favor of the player than of the dealer. You can maybe still encounter 15 defeats in a row as you say but it's highly unlikely. In addition to that if you are playing at a Freebet Blackjack version, you are very likely to get a free split during this 15 rounds, and to get an additional chance to beat the dealer for free. As BitcoinAccepted said this strategy has certainly a very bad risk-reward ratio but if you have a wide bank roll and you have fixed a clear limit before starting the game, it could be ok if the shoe is hot.

[Slow death]

Very effective, as long as everything just keeps going according to plan. But then the inevitable happens, you lose 7 bets in a row. Knowing that you started with a $1 bet, that's a decent amount. 1,2,4,8,16,32,64 already lost together. Then you have to bet 128$ the 8th time to be able to win only 1$. Then you realize it's crazy. Again, it could work but you need high table limits and be able to absorb 10 losses in a row by continuing to gamble. It may happen that you have lost even 12 times in a row and you are still betting to only win 1$. Not logical actually.

Using Martingale in sports betting is a useless and meaningless strategy, in sports betting for example you should never run after the loss, the person should focus on making a profit and when you have a loss you should continue to make bets normally as if nothing had happened. in sports betting, for example, you should not bet on odds below @1.60 because it only generates long-term damage unless the person makes a multi bet and adds it to the parlay of games with odds of less than 1.60, this is profitable. but using Martingale in sports betting is a serious mistake

[harizen]

in sports betting, for example, you should not bet on odds below @1.60 because it only generates long-term damage unless the person makes a multi bet and adds it to the parlay of games with odds of less than 1.60, this is profitable.

That's not making sense. You conclude already that it's a sure win if a bettor always does a parlay with sets of bets within the odds of less than @1.60 since you say it's "profitable". That's even a risky move compared to a single bet.

When you say "profitable" the winning chance should be high but I don't see how betting on a parlay with the sets of small odds can make it possible.

Aside from that, to feel the profits on a parlay with the series of matches with low odds, you need to include more parlay legs on that bet adding some more risks. Placing a high stake won't also do the trick and that's even riskier.

[Gozie51]

It may happen that you have lost even 12 times in a row and you are still betting to only win 1$. Not logical actually.

It is not really a problem of losing so many times and trying to recover but if you don't have much capital left, you have no choice to stop. I think that has regulated the control for a gambler who wants to control themselves by funding very little so that if it is exhausted then playing in martingale stay will not continue. But it doesn't stop an addict from going on to play by all means including borrowing.

[Fredomago]

It may happen that you have lost even 12 times in a row and you are still betting to only win 1$. Not logical actually.

It is not really a problem of losing so many times and trying to recover but if you don't have much capital left, you have no choice to stop. I think that has regulated the control for a gambler who wants to control themselves by funding very little so that if it is exhausted then playing in martingale stay will not continue. But it doesn't stop an addict from going on to play by all means including borrowing.

If you don't want to lose a lot funding, your gambling activities with small funds will save your ass. Just make sure not to top up once you already consume everything. It's time to move away and quit for the day. Nothing will harm you even you are using martingale as long as you know when to stop and quit if it's already triggering both your losing balance and your target profits.

[qwertyup23]

Very effective, as long as everything just keeps going according to plan. But then the inevitable happens, you lose 7 bets in a row. Knowing that you started with a $1 bet, that's a decent amount. 1,2,4,8,16,32,64 already lost together. Then you have to bet 128$ the 8th time to be able to win only 1$. Then you realize it's crazy. Again, it could work but you need high table limits and be able to absorb 10 losses in a row by continuing to gamble. It may happen that you have lost even 12 times in a row and you are still betting to only win 1$. Not logical actually.

This is very true. Like what I usually comment when people ask for a strategy, the martingale system comes into mind. But the only limitation comes with the amount of capital that you are willing to shoulder in case of a losing streak. As you all know, the higher the losing streak, the higher the money that you have to bet in order to neutralize you losses in the given bet.

Personally, the martingale strategy works best for me. My brother also used the same strategy but there was a time where he had to bet like $500 in order to recover all of his previous losses. At the end of the day, this strategy is not for the faint hearted.

[Jim1X]

The rule of thumb is that any game that involves CHOICE over a set or randomized factors have a combination of both luck and skill. This goes for Trading, Card Games such as Blackjack, Poker, Living Card Games ect..

The difference with BlackJack (compared to poker for example) is that you're not competing against other players,only the dealer, this significantly decreases the skill factor in the game so luck does indeed plays a huge role.

[KTChampions]

Using Martingale in sports betting is a useless and meaningless strategy, in sports betting for example you should never run after the loss, the person should focus on making a profit and when you have a loss you should continue to make bets normally as if nothing had happened. in sports betting, for example, you should not bet on odds below @1.60 because it only generates long-term damage unless the person makes a multi bet and adds it to the parlay of games with odds of less than 1.60, this is profitable. but using Martingale in sports betting is a serious mistake

Do you think that odds above 1.6 are fundamentally different from odds below 1.6? In my opinion, in both cases there is no difference and the bookmaker has the same advantage. Martingale in sports is also bad because, compared to dice and other casino games, the bookmaker has a greater advantage than house edge. The minimum bookmaker edge is 4%, and in dice the house edge is 1%. Therefore, using Martingale in sports, you are forced to raise bets more sharply than in a regular casino.

[skarais]

Do you think that odds above 1.6 are fundamentally different from odds below 1.6? In my opinion, in both cases there is no difference and the bookmaker has the same advantage. Martingale in sports is also bad because, compared to dice and other casino games, the bookmaker has a greater advantage than house edge. The minimum bookmaker edge is 4%, and in dice the house edge is 1%. Therefore, using Martingale in sports, you are forced to raise bets more sharply than in a regular casino.

I've never applied the martingale strategy to sports betting, but seem to use it quite often on dice, but I just think that winning is luck with that strategy. Odds on sports betting can fluctuate for every match, even if it's a multy bet then I think gamblers should really consider the odds. But on dice, we can set it ourselves based on need.

[arimamib]

It may happen that you have lost even 12 times in a row and you are still betting to only win 1$. Not logical actually.

It is not really a problem of losing so many times and trying to recover but if you don't have much capital left, you have no choice to stop. I think that has regulated the control for a gambler who wants to control themselves by funding very little so that if it is exhausted then playing in martingale stay will not continue. But it doesn't stop an addict from going on to play by all means including borrowing.

If you don't want to lose a lot funding, your gambling activities with small funds will save your ass. Just make sure not to top up once you already consume everything. It's time to move away and quit for the day. Nothing will harm you even you are using martingale as long as you know when to stop and quit if it's already triggering both your losing balance and your target profits.

It all really depends on luck, gambling can provide entertainment for anyone but don't get lost in subconscious feelings. There are so many gambling players who cannot control their emotions when they are losing, even though they know that in gambling games they must always prioritize patience. Emotions and patience have different roles, gamblers must have more patience than emotions, because when emotions overwhelm a person, his soul will be difficult to realize, someone will realize when his money runs out and eventually regret his careless actions when betting.

[KTChampions]

Do you think that odds above 1.6 are fundamentally different from odds below 1.6? In my opinion, in both cases there is no difference and the bookmaker has the same advantage. Martingale in sports is also bad because, compared to dice and other casino games, the bookmaker has a greater advantage than house edge. The minimum bookmaker edge is 4%, and in dice the house edge is 1%. Therefore, using Martingale in sports, you are forced to raise bets more sharply than in a regular casino.

I've never applied the martingale strategy to sports betting, but seem to use it quite often on dice, but I just think that winning is luck with that strategy. Odds on sports betting can fluctuate for every match, even if it's a multy bet then I think gamblers should really consider the odds. But on dice, we can set it ourselves based on need.

The problem with sports betting is that each event is unique there, and if, for example, we see odds of 2, then this does not mean at all that this event will happen with a probability of up to 50%. Nobody knows the real probability, but due to fluctuations in both directions over a long distance, the bookmaker is always in the black due to the advantage. In dice, everything is much simpler - there the probabilities are completely known and if we choose x2, then we know that this event will happen with a probability of 49.5%.

[skarais]

The problem with sports betting is that each event is unique there, and if, for example, we see odds of 2, then this does not mean at all that this event will happen with a probability of up to 50%. Nobody knows the real probability, but due to fluctuations in both directions over a long distance, the bookmaker is always in the black due to the advantage. In dice, everything is much simpler - there the probabilities are completely known and if we choose x2, then we know that this event will happen with a probability of 49.5%.

Exactly, that's a great explanation KTCampions.
Apparently I can conclude that in fact the strategy that we will apply in gambling more often makes us hesitate when implementing it. I believe strategy can sometimes help us win bets more often, but basically it can't consistently make us win every bet. So have fun, this shouldn't bother us and stress.

[serjent05]

Very effective, as long as everything just keeps going according to plan. But then the inevitable happens, you lose 7 bets in a row. Knowing that you started with a $1 bet, that's a decent amount. 1,2,4,8,16,32,64 already lost together. Then you have to bet 128$ the 8th time to be able to win only 1$. Then you realize it's crazy. Again, it could work but you need high table limits and be able to absorb 10 losses in a row by continuing to gamble. It may happen that you have lost even 12 times in a row and you are still betting to only win 1$. Not logical actually.

You can do a modified martingale wherein it is multiplied by 3 and above so that when you hit a win, you get more than $1 profit.  The downside is, that it is far riskier and needs more funds to execute. It is also devastating if the red streak is more than 8 .

Exactly, that's a great explanation KTCampions.
Apparently I can conclude that in fact the strategy that we will apply in gambling more often makes us hesitate when implementing it. I believe strategy can sometimes help us win bets more often, but basically it can't consistently make us win every bet. So have fun, this shouldn't bother us and stress.

That is why some gambler thinks that Martingale betting strategy is the way to recover losses in their last bet which is quite correct if he wins the bet.  Though Martingale  is proven to be devastating but some gambler use it with controlled factor wherein they give up doubling if its reach a certain threshold of losses.