Doubling every time you lose

I have a question about the strategy of Doubling every time you lose. If you double the wager avery time you lose you move slowly forward not loosing any thing. Of course there is the table limit that can set the limit to how much you can wager and therefore you can loose anyhow. But,

1. Someone said it is not allowed to double like that. Is this correct?

2. What about the theory of "Doubling every time you lose", has there been any simulated calculations about how good or bad it is?

Mikael

You're referring to a Martingale progression. Running into the table limit is a potential problem. (However, you could probably continue at a higher-limit table if you start small.) The main problem I see is that you may exhaust your bankroll first. It is possible to lose many, many hands in a row -- and when that happens (not if it happens), that one losing streak could very well wipe you out.

Basically, such a progression is very dangerous to your bankroll. Granted, you will win every playing session except one -- but that one session will be your last!

that is why there are table limits. Limits usually will be reached after 7 or eight losses in a row. THEN, you are screwed BIG TIME!!!!! And, losing 7 (or more) hands in a row is not uncommon at all. It has happened to me many a time.

Potaire

You describe the classic Martingale. It is the surest way I know of to lose your bankroll. It will work until you hit a streak that is bigger than your bankroll and when you do, it's all gone.

As WGBJB explains, NO betting system has ANY effect on the house edge. You could increase your bet ten times after each loss, or even after each win. You'd still lose, on average, the same fraction of your money each time.

Unless, of course, your betting system is correlated to card counting or another method of determining the immediate advantage.

Suppose you lose a number of decisions in in a row.
Now you are really betting some serious money! Even if you do manage to win a decision before either tapping out or hitting the table maximum, what will you have gained from all this?
Zilch.
You will have risked all that money and only broken even.
That's an awful lot of risk when the best possible outcome is to only break even, isn't it?
The Martingale system is really a bad idea.

Take care,
@^)
Cyclops

The object is to win the initial bet, which will happen if you don't reach the table limit or run out of money.

Walter, we agree that a Martingale is a very bad idea, and that is what is important here.

"The object is to win the initial bet, which will happen if you don't reach the table limit or run out of money. "

-No, that's not right. The inital bet is only that first bet he makes at whatever his minimum is. If he doesn't win that bet, then the following bet (if he uses the Martingale system) is NOT an initial bet, but a double of the initial bet. A very big difference there.

So, in the hypothetical example I gave where he DOESN'T win the first (initial) bet, then (if he is using a Martingale system) the best he can hope for is to win a bet BEFORE he either taps out or hits the table Maximum, and thus break even for how much he is "in" for.

Again, its a terrible idea to play this way.

Take care,
@^)
Cyclops

even if there were no table limits...you would eventually (very soon actually if you play a significant number of hours) has a loss so big that most big players bankroll would be in serious jeapordy.

It is useless to talk about "infinite" bankrolls because such a thing does not exist...and even if it did...you still could not get ahead because there is no amount of money greater than an infinite amount.

You said, "You will have risked all your money and only broken even." "... the best possible outcome is to only break even, isn't it?" Fact is, ANY win in a Martingale will produce a one unit profit, whether you win the first hand or the 20th hand (if table limits allowed a 20 hand doubling of the initial wager.) Example: lose one unit, lose 2 units, lose 4 units, lose 8 units, win 16 units. Total lost: 15 units. Total won: 16 units. Theoretically the system is flawless and will produce a one unit profit, but an unlimited bankroll and no table limits must exist before it is practical... so, in other words, it don't work!

""The object is to win the initial bet, which will happen if you don't reach the table limit or run out of money""

So, if your initial bet is 10$ you might progress to a bet around $500? All of this to win the initial 10$ bet? I will pass.

Regards,

Forensic

You are ultimately going to risk big bucks to make one minimum bet.

This is like canceling you fire insurance, in the hope of saving the premium. You will most of the time win this bet, and save a small amount of money. But when you do lose, you will lose big time!

The only think to be said about this strategy is that casino love steamers, so it isn't bad-cover if you need an excuse to raise your bet in a positive count.

Actually, table limits are not really the problem if you select an upscale casino. When you run out of upper room at the low limit table, you just move to one of the upper limit tables. And when you run out of room at the upper limit table, you move to the high roller table. There is no rule that says you have to win your money back at the same table! If you play at a high end casino, there is virtually no limit to how high you can take your bets.

So the real limitation is in bankroll. And contrary to some assertions, there ARE people with unlimited bankrolls. If you don't believe that is true, you don't know about people like Kerry Packer, the billionaire Australian gambler. Yes, I know that he is the exception rather than the rule, but it would be possible for him to implement a Martingale progression across multiple denomination tables and ALWAYS be a winner at the end of the day. The catch is... why would he bother going to so much trouble for a $5 unit win each time! There is no thrill of the gamble in that, so he would always pass on this type of sure thing.

You hit one ot these chasing a big bet and you'll win alot more than one unit. I've always wondered about this but never tried it.

Pyth

some casinos won't take his action and there is a limit/max bet that even Kerry Packer must live with (usually between$25,000 and $50,000 per hand.) (MGM Grand has refuse Mr. Packer's action)

Finally, while Mr. Packer has a large bankroll...there is a figure...somewhere...that even he will refuse to lose. That figure is his ultimate stop loss figure...and let me tell you that it is possible that if a casino let him play that he would eventually lose that much....especially since he does not start at $5...and if he did start at $5 the casinos would not allow him a max bet of more than a few thousand...in case he was actually using some ultra-camouflage parlay gambit system...they wouldn't dare risk it.