Betting the field martingale system

[gargoil]

Okay been gone a while since the job had me travelling all over the place ( no casino where I was) but got a chance to sneak out to one a week ago. Saw a player buy in for 5000 on a 25 minimum table. All he did was bet the field regardless of the shooter or the sequence (come out, etc...) and use a martingale system. He colored up 45 minutes later up 2000 from his buy in. I tracked him down and talked to him about it and he told me he has been doing this for years. He got bit one time when 8 non field numbers in a row showed up. The rest of the time the most he has seen were 6 in a row.

Am I missing something here? 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 (that's for seven non field numbers in a row).
I went back and tried it with a 2000 buy in (all I had with me) and 35 minutes later colored up 600 up.

Thanks

[dork]

Forgive me... I thought I understood the Martingale. I thought it was a betting scheme in which the bettor doubled her/his bet every time he lost, and regressed to the original single unit bet once s/he'd won.

My grasp of the betting scheme says that any winning bet after the original single unit loss only recouped all previous losses; that that winning bet only made a marginal profit. As I understand it, the scheme you outlined wins $25 anytime a winner pays after the first loss.

If that's so, how'd the $5000 bettor win $2000 in 45 minutes betting a system that paid a maximum of only $25 per winning roll? I can see you making $600 in 35 minutes if the table's REALLY *HOT*... but even your winnings (in the alloted time with that betting scheme) are something I wouldn't expect on a random table.

[gargoil]

Yea in order to be up 2000 you have to hit the field 80 times. It just happened that he had 800 on the field when a 12 rolled (double the payout). Actually that happened twice so 1600 in the bank. He just worked for the rest of the 400 dollars

The idea is that you get your money back + 25. Seemed to work for him and he says he doesn't roll the dice. He wants 2000 from the session regardless if it took 10 minutes or 2 hours and he walks away. Also he says he has the bankroll to withstand a couple of big hits. He says that's important to have.

just wanted to put it out there for thoughts.

[dork]

You *do* have me thinking... I was about to consult my book of rolls to see if I've ever gone "8 straight", and if so, how many times. I can remember several incidents of three consecutive 7's, but I dunno about accompanying 5, 6, 8's. I could "stand it", too, on a $1000/$5 scheme, especially since my dice setting strategy now leans towards a variation of x6's. (and that's what I'd play for, too--the 2x payoffs in the 'mid-range' rolls)

[gargoil]

Yea and I forgot to mention I had 200 on the field at one time and the 2 hit so that was a 225 right there which helped put me up 600.
I have to lean on some of the folks on the forums who track rolls for a long time and see the max non field numbers in a row hit and what it the percentage. I am hoping MP and Wizard can chime in since they have the percentages and the odds down to almost a perfect formula.

It will be interesting to see what they say. Also what is the max bet on the field for a 25 minimum table? Anyone knows?

[Mad Professor]

Hi Gargoil,

Well if you are going to Martingale the field-bet; you might as well Grand Martingale the Field, to make one-unit per wager instead of one-unit per series.

~The plain Martingale is a double-on-each-loss progression, ie. 25-50-100-200-400-1000…where, at the end of the series when you (hopefully) win; you gain one (1) unit of profit for the entire series.

~The Grand Martingale progression is a double-plus-one-unit on each loss (1-3-7-15-31-63-127-255, etc.) progression, where at the end of the series when you (hopefully) win; you gain one (1) unit of profit for each losing BET in the series.

So for example, the G-Marty series would be 25-75-175-375-775-1575…where, you would win a net-gain of SIX-units for that series (+$150), instead of the simple one-unit (+$25) gain that you’d make off of a normal Marty.

Now to be clear, I am NOT endorsing either of the Marty-twins as a viable random-beating approach (because it isn’t); but rather, suggesting that IF you choose to use a Marty, then the Grand Martingale will likely give more immediate satisfaction (knowing you are making one-unit of profit with each bet in the series, instead of just one-unit of profit for the entire series)…that is…until you hit the non-Field streak that ENDS in a total bankroll LOSS.



MP

[dork]

Wellll, I'm back from the 'war room' where the craps pc is stored. I guess I wouldn't try the system against me. In my last 2-1/2 "books" (1753 rolls) I've rolled 7's or non-Field numbers for a consecutive "8-straight" four times, "9-straight" two times, "10-straignt" once, and "12-straight" once.

I'm happy now that I tracked my W/L record along with hours at the table... Assuming 40-60 rolls/hour; if the table 'rate' is faster, that's just worse--with my $1000/$5 scheme, I'd be out $8G's over a span of what I figure to be about 29-40 hours of play. I've never had an aggregate loss that high over the same time period in a single year. The most I've lost as a gross loss (without counting ANY wins) in a year is almost $13,000 (over ~140 hours).

I guess those "law of averages" are just too average; at least for me. Rats. There was a real temptation there for "Snap!!"-- that long... it's possible the 2x payoffs could alleviate those losses, but I'd hate to have to compute the chances or count on them.

[offaxis]

Looked at my throws over the past week, OH v3 7 non fields followed by a 12, Uh v2 5 non fields followed by 2. On my v2 a lot of horn numbers, even though my numbers above a 7 are 8,5,6 . SRR runs between 7. 64 low and 10.44. I use the G-Marty with the pass line. On a $ 10 dollar table.

[HornHighJoe]

...Am I missing something here? 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 (that's for seven non field numbers in a row).
I went back and tried it with a 2000 buy in (all I had with me) and 35 minutes later colored up 600 up.

Thanks

Think of it this way. the House Edge on the field bet is WORSE than the red/black, high/low, odd/even bet in 00 roulette. Countless people have tried the martingale on those bets and have not come out ahead. Even before hitting the table max, I don't recall people saying that they would've won if they were allowed to continue betting.

I cringe every time I hear the word martingale or even the word double.

On a side note, I once (stupidly) did the martingale on a craps bubble machine. If it wasn't for the utter shock and total loss of energy after that final loss, my fist would've went through the screen, and I am not exaggerating.

[London Shooter]

I cringe too when I hear Martingale as you are doing nothing other than dodging bullets before you lose your whole bank.

Also, would you have the stomach to actually place that 7th bet, or 8th bet which is a four figure sum by this stage just to win your $25 or whatever?

No doubt if you were on your own throw exclusively with data to support that you had enough edge on the field to overcome the house advantage then in the long run a martingale would work, but then in the long run lots of betting strategies are going to work for anybody who has a true edge.

[dork]

No doubt if you were on your own throw exclusively with data to support that you had enough edge on the field to overcome the house advantage then in the long run a martingale would work, but then in the long run lots of betting strategies are going to work for anybody who has a true edge.

I dunno-- the results I posted from my most recent logs (in my post above) were from what I thought was a phenomenal run-- set x6's with an SRR of 7.42 and a BSR or 3.12. The TossStats figures say my Horn percentage was what I calculated as 23% (vs. 17% expected) and my Field percentage was 50% (vs. 44% expected), and still I had those 8 runs of "8-straight" or better non-Field numbers w/7's sprinkled in amongst all that.

Maybe the house edge on that bet is just too much to overcome even with a "true" edge--if my stats actually are biased enough in "our" favor to call it a true edge.

[shunkaha]

...Am I missing something here? 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 (that's for seven non field numbers in a row).
I went back and tried it with a 2000 buy in (all I had with me) and 35 minutes later colored up 600 up.

Thanks

Think of it this way. the House Edge on the field bet is WORSE than the red/black, high/low, odd/even bet in 00 roulette. Countless people have tried the martingale on those bets and have not come out ahead. Even before hitting the table max, I don't recall people saying that they would've won if they were allowed to continue betting.

I cringe every time I hear the word martingale or even the word double.

On a side note, I once (stupidly) did the martingale on a craps bubble machine. If it wasn't for the utter shock and total loss of energy after that final loss, my fist would've went through the screen, and I am not exaggerating.

Actually it depends, in a double triple field layout your odds are better than in roulette, in a double/double field layout you'd be correct a 5.56% house edge on double/double vs 5.26% in American [double zero roulette], on double/triple field layout the house edge is 2.78% vs 5.26%. In reality on a double/triple layout the house edge on the field is lower than on a place 5/9 where the edge is 4% [though on a buy 5/9 with the vig paid on a win the edge is 2%]. Also in a place like Santa Ana in New Mexico you'd be totally wrong in that a triple/triple field gives ZERO % house edge and would therefore tie for the best bet you could make the other being the 4/10 that has no vig and also therefore has ZERO % house edge.

[freak]

I looked back at the roll stats of our last four trips and the longest non-field string I saw was 9 rolls. You would hit the $3000 table max in eight rolls. There are many strings of 4-6 non-field numbers and one 7 string in my data.

I think there are several problems with this strategy. 1) If you are like me, you aren't going to feel like you are playing craps if you only bet the field. It becomes a different game and likely will not make you "craps satisfied" after a session. 2) You risk a lot and generally only win a little. 3) It requires a "perfect storm" in order to achieve a significant win. If you hit a string of 8 field numbers in a row you would only win $200. If you hit a string of 8 non-field numbers in a row you would lose $6,175. What has to happen for a nice win is that you NEED to lose several in a row to increase your bet and then hit 2 or 12 to get your loss back and that much again for a win. So this hand... 7 - 7 - 8 - 6 - 5 - 6 - 6 - 2 would win you $1600. But this hand 7 - 7 - 8 - 6 - 5 - 6 - 6 - 4 - 2 would win you only $75. It's the 2s and 12s in the right place that made this work for you.

A different way to look at the field would be to try for a triple or quad parley. In that same data we hit 3 field numbers in a row many times and 4 a few times. So if you put in $25 and always went for several parlays you stand to win a lot more on your investment. 4 field numbers in a row (no 2s or 12s) would turn $25 into $400. 4 field numbers in a row (ALL 2s or 12s) would turn $25 into $2025. 7 field numbers in a row (no 2s or 12s) would turn $25 into $3200. We once saw a string of 13 field numbers including several 2s an 12s. We calculated that a $5 bet parlayed would have won $27,000+ including the $3000 loss on the first non-field number at the end. Going for the field streak parlay would have a bigger upside and never more than $25 at risk from your bankroll. With a $3000 buyin you could try to get that nice parlay at least 120 times. Or with the martingale you could go bust in 8 rolls.

When L and I first learned about a martingale-like progression called the labby111, we tried it in the field. It worked great many times. What I noticed worked VERY well was when we actually got behind with a few losses and had a large bet up when a 2 or 12 rolled. For example if my bet was losing and increasing steadily like $10, $15, $20, $25, $30, $35 and then I rolled a 2 and a 12 I would do great. But then we hit a stretch where we were going bust on our $600 buy-in with regularity. We gave up on using it in the field. Nothing worse than being in the field and a string of 6s and 8s roll. You'll be kicking yourself for sure if you are normally on them like me and a big string goes by while you're messing with the field.

Anyway, what we DID get out of this labby111 field expirement was the realization that there IS a casino bet that has a 31% chance of hitting that pays 2:1 every time. That's WAY better than the 6% chance of hitting 2 or 12 in craps. So we took that labby111 progression over to the roulette table and starting betting the 1st third. We start with $120 buy in. First bet is $10 (2 units). If that loses it's same bet. If that loses the bet increases to $15 (3 units). So a losing string has this bet progression: $10 $10 $15 $15 $20 $20 $25 $25. With our starting bankroll we can survive a string of 6 losses in a row. On the 7th loss we bust. But if the 7th spin is a win our bank is back to $75. From there we either reset back to the original bet or try a $20 bet to get us all the way back to even. It depends on how we feel. We've done this about 10 times now and we've busted 3 times and won $50 - $90 7 times. At the roulette table, this is generally a very relaxing was to play. It's pretty rare to get 7 losses in a row right outta the gate. We usually can play for 20 - 45 minutes and leave up. Twice we have gotten 3 immediate wins in a row and left +$60.

We do notice when someone hits a string of field numbers at the craps table for a nice win. But we more often notice field bettors losing their rack by feeding the field. To each his own but I prefer the occasional field parlay when a field trend appears.

[gargoil]

Thanks all for the replies. Yea this is definitely a grinding strategy based on what he told me. Also he plays the 25 minimum because the max bet is higher (5000 I think).
So yea it is not a "craps" fun strategy. Betting 1600 to win 25 may not be good for some but if you loot at it his way, he is betting 1600 to win back his 1575 losses and 25.

I don't think I will try it although I do have the bankroll but like I said earlier just wanted to throw it out there for feedback. Seems to be working for him. And he told me he doesn't throw the dice. He bets on randy folks.

[Mad Professor]

There was a guy who used to frequent Caesars-Windsor that played the Field-Martingale.

~When I first encountered him, his base bet was $5, and he'd double it on every loss. He played that way for awhile...about a year or so...then he moved up to a $10 base.

~He stayed at that $10 level for a good 6-months; but then switched to using a Grand Martingale (using the aforementioned double-plus-one 1-3-7-15-31-63-127-255-units progression) on the same base.

When he realized that he could win $10 a roll instead of $10 a series; his profit-accumulation really started to accelerate. That was around the time that Caesars-Windsor raised all of their craps tables to the $50,000 limit (except the Crapless one, which they only raised to $15,000-max).

From there it was only a matter of a couple of months before his base bet was $25...and then a month or so later, $100.

I wasn't there when he raised his base-bet to the $500 starting-point; but I understand that it was only a few days later that he hit a no-Field streak that wiped out EVERYTHING he had made up until that point, plus his starting-stake.

I'm not sure what happened to him; but I haven't seen him around that joint for well over a year or two.

If ever there was a cautionary tale about not using the Martingale; that player would embody it.


MP

[luxlogs]

I have used with some profits MP's CTSL on choppy tables.

[senorboogiewoogie]

This is how I play, at least on my computer. Especially in Baccarat and craps. I ran up a good money score on my IPad by just doubling up.

The martingale system fails because the casino has a table maximum. I dunno about now, but when I worked at Horseshoe in Tunica, the maximum bet was $10,000. Can't go over that. On my IPad craps game, I will progressive bet the Come, $5, 15, 25, 60, 150, 350, 750. Now on the eighth roll, I am risking over $1000. Now I try to make some profit instead of just chasing $5, 10, 20，40, 80, 160 etc.

But that computer game has a $5000 maximum, and I have hit that maximum wilt a seven or a to 11 in sight and I am stuck with several numbers to knock down. Great payday if you can do it. Even if there were no maximums, one would have to be very wealthy and have a huge bankroll to try to outlast the house. For example, My computer Baccarat game has no limits, and I always bet "Player" (and never Tie, sucker bet), and have doubled up from $100 to over $60,000 because the cards went "Banker" like 10 times in a row. Same with Roulette, or most any game.

One can get away with it for a bit, but it will come bite you in the ass. I took several thousand dollars from some clown and his wife who kept doubling up on their bets in Blackjack and I got them to table maximum (I think 5k) and he lost it all.

[offaxis]

http://vegasclick.com/gambling/martinga ... ystem.html
Just a little reading.

[DarthNater]

After reading about BankerDude's flurry of aces in practice, I started looking for MP's Field Harvest strategy on DiceSetter, then Google, to review; but found this thread; which I'll bump up......

First, those that play with me know, I seldom bet the field, except when I sense a trend (yeah, I know.....haha) or am with a DI that spins 'em out - then I'll tiptoe in......

Second in full disclosure, I've played CT-SL a lot, but never past the 4th cycle; and on the DP, not the field. However in looking at what Freak posted about using the appearance of the field number to parlay, vice take down & start over, has me thinking.

I know a field, non-field, field, non-field alternating result is no gain, but a single parlay or a partial parlay interests me since I seem to throw both nonfields & fields in chunks; I guess I'll look at some my numbers and study this. Ciao, D.N8r

[wild child]

Risking loss bet on EVERY FIELD seems like the road to ruin.
You could wait for 3 or 4 NOT A FIELD to show
and
chase no more than one time

Wagering select Don't Pass offers a more productive martingale
.

On a typical craps table ,were you to not bet a shooters first two Pass Line
and
Wager Don't Pass on the shooter's third Pass
and
IF
the shooter were to repeat his 3rd Pass Line

Would not a double up wager
against the shooter's 4th Pass Line Repeat
be favored wager ?

Check 720 rolls for the percentage of hands consisting of four or greater P L wins
verses
percentage of hands terminating in fewer than four hands....
.
You could go DARK against 2nd then 3rd Pass Line attempt
and place at risk of loss greater USD $ AMOUNTS ( at a higher loss % )
MORE OFTEN

Cashing out BIG USD $$$$$ at the cost of BOREDOM
may drive most to gamble
with an action plan
& cash out fun

w c