Heavy's Axis Power Craps Forum

Have you ever considered that a 2:1 regression could also be described as a reverse martingale?... or is it inverse martingale?...perverse martingale? My brain hurts.

Actually, the term "Reverse Martingale" is routinely applied to one of my favorite betting strategies - The Paroli. The Paroli is essentially an up as you win betting strategy as opposed to an up as you lose strategy. For example, if I'm playing Blackjack for $10 a hand and win my next bet is $15. If I win that bet my next bet is $20. I continue to go up a unit until I lose a bet, at which point I regress to my original $10 bet and start the progression over. As long as you lose you continue to bet at the $10 level. My favorite place to play the Paroli - strange as it may sound - is on cruise ships.

...And if the ocean is turbulent you can call it the Rolli Paroli. (insert drum hit here)
I can see how the Paroli would be considered reverse because a martingale is (usually) up as you lose, but a regression is down as you win which is a perfect mirror image of an up as you lose martingale.

I know there are many who would NEVER even consider a martingale, yet are very happy using regressions. When you think about it, the two really are actually very similar.

Actually, I've used a Martingale more times than I'd care to admit. But usually for small action relatively speaking. From time to time, though, I'll have a "screw it, you blew it" moment and just pick up about a third of my chips and pile them in the Field like the Field posse guys do. If it doesn't hit I'll pull the other two-thirds out and go all in. Surprising how often luck (as Caesars says in their Horseshoe casino ads) favors the bold. Or stupid.

I don't see them as too similar.

With a Martingale you are trying to win 1 unit and may not know your max exposure unless you have a rigid stop loss in play - the old story of eventually hitting table max or running out of funds. Perhaps you look to win $10 but go no further than staking up $160 as your limit ie 5 losses then stop chasing.

With a regression at least you define your max loss up front, say 88 inside but what are you looking to win in terms of units? When do you regress? What do you regress to? Regress to $44 inside after one hit, two hits, more? Do you pull all your bets down eventually?

The martingale is a simple double up on a loss to win one unit. The regression play can be much more complex. I find it hard to think of a situation where they can be compared as like for like.

They each have their place, I would never play a regression on a choppy table where a Marty would be just the ticket.

HI LS,
I get your point (and agree) about how they are used differently to lock in profit, define max loss, etc. I think people think of regressions as "safer" than Martingales, but I'm not sure they are neccessarily so. It depends on how many steps are involved in each. Most regressions are a lot more flexible than Martingales, I will agree.

Think of a 2 to 1 regression as the mirror image of a negative progression Martingale. A 3 to 1 regression is like a Grand Martingale. A 4 to 1 regression is like a WildBill Martingale. They are similar in that they are exact opposites. Ouch, now my brain really hurts. This is the same feeling I used to get in high school mathematics class.

Let me explain- In a 2 to 1 regression. You bet, you win, you cut the bet in half.
In a loss progression Martingale........ You bet, you lose, you double the bet. In both instances there is a bet, a result and either a doubling or halfing of the bet. This is the similarity, and the mirror imaging, I was referring to. In a way they are equivalent.

I wonder if anyone out there has combined these two strategies- Regress if you win, one time double up if you lose, -
Let's assume a $5 table,
1) Bet $44 inside.
2) Lets say you roll a 6. Take down all other numbers, and reduce the 6 to $6. Leave it there till the end of the hand.
or
3) Let's say you throw a 7 before getting any hits, now you double your bet to $88 in, and keep doubling till you get a hit then reduce the action to $5 (or $6) and take the other numbers down.

Call it the RePro, it could be an interesting wargame experiment.

Edited to add- The above martingale step #3 doesn't add up to a profit. In order to overcome your $44 loss, you've got to bet 4x what you originally bet on each number ($176 in), although I'd probably go 5x ($220) for simplicity. If you hit your $60 six, it pays $70 and you are ahead $26.

Here's where the 'illusion' of safety comes in. I'm sure there are shooters who bet the 5 to 1 regression. $220 inside and then regress to $44 after 1 hit. (I know thats not the only way to play a regression, but for purposes of apples to apples comparision, I'll use this method). Bottom line is, they are risking $220, only for a toss or two or three, but that risk is out there. If they hit that inside number, they collect $70 and then regress to $44 inside, they are ahead $26, with $44 action on the layout. The exact same amount as the 5 to 1 Martingale.

The player using the Martingale ($44 in to $220 in) would probably be percieved as wild and risky, whereas the Regressor would be viewed as more conservative. I believe, in some ways the regressor is the one actually taking more risk than the Martingaler. Why? Because he is shelling out $220 from the beginning and exposing himself to an opening whack. I know what that feels like, and it ain't pretty.

The Martingaler risks less in the beginning, and reduces his exposure to getting the big wack by at least 1 toss, and probably more. Of course, he earns a lot less when he gets his hit. $54 less. There's one of the tradeoffs, less risk, less reward. If the Martingaler would add a step, his risk would go through the roof, so in this example we are staying with the 2 step.

The risk becomes the same once the Martingaler puts out the $220.

Now consider this- After losing his $44 in, at a full table, the Martingaler waits for an hour or more before getting that chance to get his money back, and then has to put out his $220 for his one hit before regressing to $44 in. Did you notice in this scenario that the Martingaler became a regressor?

Americraps - I think your 44 and 220 comparison gives me a much better feel for how a regression and martingale can be seen as opposite sides, or mirror images of the same thing. Probably better termed as the regression equating to a grand martingale structure as you are not just halving or doubling.

I think when multiple numbers are involved, such as an inside bet, it is hard to equate one to another unless you do so in a 5:1 style as you have done above.

Also I guess that generally the martingale is dealing with even money shots, which again makes true comparison tricky if we are dealing with most craps payouts, though perhaps a single bet on 6 starting at $240, regress to $120, then $60 and finally $30 could be compared to a $30/$60/$120/$240 martingale. But then the aim of the martingale is only ever to win one unit, whereas the regression may win many more units, but with a lot more exposure to the 7 initially.

Perhaps it needs to be looked at over a long series of bets. If I do 100 x $240 bets on 6 and regress as above versus 100 x $30 martingales on the 6 stopping at a loss at the $240 level. Do they win the same amount of units overall? Well on average it will be a loss given the HA but you get my point.....

My head hurts too now

Welcome to my pain, LS! In your above post you have summed it up perfectly!

Since most of the time Martingale systems are being used on single outcome bets (such as the PL or DP), I think most bettors haven't really explored or considered using the various Martingale variants* as much as the Regression variants. By recognizing the similarities between the two, maybe some can gain by using them, or at least change the overly simplistic midset of Regression = good, Martingale = Bad.

* For instance, how many have considered using a 1 step martingale on a multi bet like inside, 6/8, across, even numbers, etc. I am currently testing independently running 4/10, 6/8, 5/9, 1 hit and off martingales.

A martingale doesn't have to be a 10 step all or nothing system. How about a 1,2, or 3 step Martingale. How about a 1/3, or a 1/2 martingale. Is that a even a martingale? Maybe we should call it an Ingale. Maybe we should rename the 2 to 1 regression the Elagnitram. (Martingale spelled backwards)

Sorry, I've had too much coffee this morning.