Could this be an always-profit Blackjack strategy?

[joshman1204]

No it dosent because there is always the possiblity of an inifinite losing streak. It is an insanely small possibility but it is possible.

[SheetWise]

You're about the 20 millionth to think of it, and I could name the flaws in a row, about 15 of them. If you had $160,000 on the other hand, I could name 16 flaws.

Here's the distribution starting with 255 units (from wizardofodds.com):

[cardcounter0]

With an infinite bankroll, after an infinite losing streak, your bankroll would still be the same --- infinity.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[wonkadaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
The amt you win before the inevitible does happen will never make you a winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

obviously the martingale system provides no edge over normal play. but it also provides no disadvantage over normal (non-counting) play making your statement incorrect.

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
I just thought of this strategy now.

Say you want to make $5 from blackjack, and you have a bankroll of $80,000.

You could do a $5 hand, if you lose, do a $10 hand, if you lose, do a $20 hand, etc. untill you win. Obviously the odds are so so so small that you would not win at least once before losing $80,000 (15 hands in a row), and if you win a hand, you profit $5. Is there a flaw to this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Betting strategies don't change the underlying odds of a game - they just redistribute your wins and losses. Normally you get a mix of a few large wins, a lot of small wins, some roughly breakeven sessions, a lot of small losses (slightly more than the small wins), and a few large losses (slightly more than the large wins). With your system, you have a huge number of $5 wins, with a tiny but realistic chance of a gigantic loss. Long losing streaks in a just-below-breakeven game are not nearly as uncommon as you think.

[parttimepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the distribution starting with 255 units (from wizardofodds.com)

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess wizard doesn't like direct links to images.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The amt you win before the inevitible does happen will never make you a winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

obviously the martingale system provides no edge over normal play. but it also provides no disadvantage over normal (non-counting) play making your statement incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, yes it does. It causes people to play above their bankroll and bet more money than they can afford to lose. I can't think of worse advice for losing gamblers.

[CORed]

Although the Martingale (this is the common name for the "strategy" that you, and several hundred thousand other mathematically challenged gamblers "thought up") is a horrible strategy for any game, blackjack is an especially bad game to use it on. The probability of winning a given hand is something like 47% IIRC, ignoring pushes. Blackjack has a small house edge because some of your wins are more than your original bet: You get 3:2 for blackjack, and you get a double win on a double down. The low win percentage makes long losing streaks even more likely than in a coin toss. The need to double down and split if you're going to play optimally means that your bet in a losing streak will escalalate even faster than in a game of straight even-money bets. If you lose a double down, or both hands on a split. You will have to triple your bet the next hand, if you are intent of making a 1 unit net win on that bet. If you start with a $10 bet. You will likely soon finding yourself risking tens of thousands of dollars make a net profit of $10.

It seems like in every discussion of the Martingale, a debate comes up on whether it would work with an infinite bankroll. I'm not enough of a mathematical theorist to have an intelligent opinion on this matter, and besides, it really doesn't matter because no one actually has an infinite bankroll.

[GMan42]

[ QUOTE ]
With an infinite bankroll, after an infinite losing streak, your bankroll would still be the same --- infinity.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. And if you left the table a billion dollars richer, yippee!!!...oh wait, I still have an infinite bankroll. Doesn't even matter. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] Why am I wasting my time playing BJ anyway?