5. The Martingale Systems

The chart on the opposite page shows a sample of eighty plays on a Single-0 wheel of the Monte Carlo type. It will be used to illustrate the ins and outs of the various systems to be described.

This, however, should not be taken as a proof of any merit where those systems are concerned. It would require literally hundreds of such charts and reams of figure work to show any truly positive or negative results.

System players have worked weeks, months, even years, be­fore trying out their pet brainwaves, only to have them broken on the wheel when they were put to the acid test. Season after season, the Monte Carlo Casino published a "Green Book" giving the day-by-day play of the Roulette wheels, just to en­courage "system players" because, like everyone else, they all went broke—though it may have taken them longer.

At the same time, many have slipped through the mesh, or their faces wouldn't be seen so often in the same places. Wheth­er they've just had more luck or have played a better system is a question beyond our present scope. The chart used for illustra­tion purposes is adequate to bring home the fundamental points involved, particularly as it shows three Zeros in a series of eighty plays, which is more than a normal quota. The question of a Double-Zero wheel will be discussed as a supplementary subject while we proceed.

This chart shows the winning numbers during the eighty plays, as well as Colors, High-Low, Odd-Even, the First, Sec­ond and Third Dozens, and the Three Columns.

First we have:

The Small Martingale

Called also the "Simple Martingale" and the "Single Martin­gale," this is the basic "double-up" system already described. Theoretically, it should have no limit; practically, that is im­possible, both from the standpoint of the player's finances and the limit imposed by the casino.

On that basis a limit of $1024 has been chosen for our first consideration of the accompanying chart. Assuming that Red-Black, High-Low, Odd-Even are all being played, the elimina­tion of 3 Zeros gives us 77 coups or wins for each group. That is, Red and Black together win 77 times. So do High and Low; Odd and Even. Adding these, the player who uses the Small Martingale brings in a total of $231 assuming that he plays $1 every turn.

With the series shown here, that would represent $231 profit. The reason being that at no time did any adverse sequence even approach the danger point. Run through the list and you will note that the worst hazard was experienced while playing Black, beginning with the 71st play.

That play, and the six that followed it, all went Red, piling up losses of $1, $2, $4, $8, $16, $32 and $64, which totaled $127. But, on the 78th play, the sum of $128 placed on Black not only cleared the board but put the player $1 to the good. His deepest point was $255 consisting of the $127 deficit plus the $128 needed for the 78th play.

If two or three Double-Zeros were added to the list, one might have fallen into the "bad" sequence just listed. That would have required a play of $256 to meet the $255 deficit, or a capital of $512 in all, still well below the required risk fund. That brings us to:

The Grand Martingale

In this system, known also as the "Great Martingale," the player jumps an additional unit after each loss. That is, in­stead of being satisfied with regaining his loss, plus a single unit, say $1, he demands two units, then three, and so on, making $1 for every play, win or lose.
This actually does more than double the profits of the Small Martingale because the player picks up $1 on each Zero shown by the wheel. Just keep track of the total number of spins and that will be your profit from the Grand Martingale, provided it doesn't wipe out your bankroll before the session ends.

Yet the system is very easy to remember. It is merely a case of "double and add one" after every losing play.

A succession of "pyramiding" plays, with losses on the Grand Martingale would, therefore, run: 1st Play, 1 unit; 2nd, 3; 3rd, 7; 4th, 15; 5th, 31; 6th, 63; 7th, 127; 8th, 255; 9th, 511; 10th, 1023; 11th, 2047.

The Grand Martingale, therefore, stacks as follows: After 0 losses, for 0, a win brings 1

After 1 loss, for 1, a win brings 2 + 1 = 3

After 2 losses, for 4, a win brings 6 + 1 = 7

After 3 losses, for 11, a win brings 14 + 1 = 15

After 4 losses, for 26, a win brings 30 + 1 = 31

After 5 losses, for 57, a win brings 62 + 1 = 63

After 6 losses, for 120, a win brings 126 + 1 = 127 After 7 losses, for 247, a win brings 254 + 1 = 255 After 8 losses, for 502, a win brings 510 + 1 = 511 After 9 losses, for 1013, a win brings 1022 + 1 = 1023 After 10 losses, for 2036, a win brings 2046 + 1 = 2047

Compared to the Small Martingale, it will be seen that the Grand Martingale reaches the "limit" one play sooner, as the extra units that were inserted early forced a more rapid double-up. Since the purpose of the system is to wipe out losses, the Small Martingale is, therefore, safer.

The one advantage of the Grand Martingale is that it gets faster results and gives the player a chance to build up a quick fund if he considers it worth the risk. In the sample chart, the player would have been forced to wager $255 on the 78th play instead of the $128 required by the Small Martingale. With a Double-Zero wheel, he might have been forced to put up $511 to stay along with Black, which would mean having more than $1000 in the original bankroll.

However: By playing all six "equal" chances, Red, Black, High, Low, Even, Odd, the Grand Martingale would net $480 in this instance. Such dividends make this system look very attractive, perhaps too attractive, in that they may lure a player into too great a risk.

Besides, $1000 or more is a lot of capital for the average player. He may only be able to afford what may be termed:

The Limited Martingale

All Martingales are limited, of course, by the amount that the house will let a player venture on a single turn of the wheel, but with the "Limited Martingale" the ceiling is set by the player himself, according to the amount he feels that he can afford.

Suppose, for example, that he sets $32 as the most that he can risk on a single play, meaning that he would be taking a $63 loss in that particular sequence. Let's see how that would check against our chart of sample play when applied to the Small Martingale.

We find that it would "sink" the player on two occasions: First, when he loses the 49th play on Even; Again, when he loses the 76th play on Black. The question then arises: How badly will he be sunk?

That's easy to figure. By the Small Martingale, the player would have made $231 if uninterrupted. His two losing runs, instead of being wiped out, cost him $63 each, a total of $126. Subtract that from $231 and the player still comes out $105 ahead. Moreover, he had piled up about $150 before he hit the first snag on the 49th play. So he already had enough profit to meet that loss ($63) and next one (also $63) that was due on the 76th play.

With the Grand Martingale reduced to one less "play" in or­der to hold a $32 limit, the player would have struck five snags in all, namely:

The 28th play on High: Loss $57

The 48th play on Even:             Loss $57

The 61st play on Low: Loss $57

The 63rd play on Even:             Loss $57

The 75th play on Black:            Loss $57

Total on all five runs: Loss $285

Adding to the loss are the twenty-five plays composing those five adverse runs, because the player failed to collect $1 each from them, as he would have if the Grand Martingale had been fulfilled. That must be deducted from the $480 that the series of eight plays promised, leaving $455.

From that we deduct $285 and obtain a balance of $170, the amount that the player is still ahead. So he came out better with the Grand Martingale. But in both cases, the player took some bad breaks later in the series, falling below the peak which he had attained earlier. If he had encountered those at the start, things might not have looked so good.

The longer the sequences the better; that is the whole theory of the Martingale, because its purpose is to turn losing runs into wins. Therefore, the true follower of the Martingale should seek to lessen the length of the sequences, rather man pile up bigger deficits in order to stage a greater killing at one fell swoop, as with the Grand Martingale.

But how, most people ask, can the sequences be lessened? Certainly in playing equal chances—Red or Black, etc.—you have reduced it to the lowest possible factor. But such is not the case. It is still possible to stack up an average of two wins for every loss by means of a variation which may be termed:

The Three-Way Martingale

The "three ways" are the dozens: Numbers 1 to 12; 13 to 24; 25 to 36. If played singly, they pay 2 to 1 for a win. But in this form of the Martingale they aren't played singly; they are played doubly. That turns is the other way about. It's 2 to 1 you won't lose.

This cuts the sequences to about the lowest possible, which is the thing that we are after. The way it's done is this: A wager is placed a cheval, as they say in Monte Carlo, which means that it goes across the line.

That means a bet can be placed on the 1st and 2nd Dozen; also on the 2nd and 3rd Dozens. It is also possible to play the 1st and 2nd Columns as one; likewise, the 2nd and 3rd Columns.

A $2 bet brings $1 when it wins. If lost, the player is out $2. He doubles the bet to $4, which either brings back $2 or be­comes a loss of $4. A loss forces him to double to $8, $16 and so on in regular Martingale style. This doesn't regain his losses in full; there is a law of diminishing return which works against the player but seldom too severely, because adverse runs are seldom long.

It's hard for those bad sequences to pile up and get out of hand; as many as five losses in a row is regarded as uncommon. Should a player experience that misfortune, he is advised to quit and start all over for two reasons: First, he won't plunge beyond his depth; second, because he is only winning half the amount he wagered, so it isn't worth messing with the higher brackets.

To show the working of this system, we are giving the play by play results of wagers on the 1st and 2nd Dozen, also on the 2nd and 3rd Dozen. These are taken from the sample chart."

* Refer to chart on page 28.

On the 1st and 2nd Dozens, the player won $91 and lost $71, a gain of $20. On the 2nd and 3rd Dozens, he won $98 and lost $96, a mere $2 profit. However, that showed a total gain of $22, not at all bad considering that the player's original bank­roll would not have to be much more than $60.

More important is the way that the play rode over lesser difficulties, thanks to the Martingale's recuperative qualities. To break even on a "flat bet" basis, the same wager being made with every play, it would be necessary to score 54 wins out of a possible 80. Playing two sets, as in this case, that would mean 108 wins in 160 plays.

In actual results, the player had 56 wins with the 1st and 2nd Dozens, a very slight margin in his favor. But there were only 44 wins on the 2nd and 3rd Dozens. These add up to exactly 100 wins, yet despite the shortage (of 8 wins) the Martingale brought the player in ahead.

On flat bets, the player would have taken in $100 (repre­senting $1 win on each $2 bet) and he would have paid out $120 (on 60 lost plays at $2 each), amounting to a loss of $20. So the Martingale showed a profit that was slightly larger than the loss that would have occurred from a series of flat bets.

It should be noted, too, that the three Zeros are listed as losses in each series of Dozens. Another virtue of the Martin­gale is the way it absorbs those numbers, wiping them out like any other losers. But with flat bets, a Zero is always an outright loss.

Dangers of the Martingale

However, don't count too much upon the Martingale. Experts who know—or should know—have branded it a delusion and a snare. Study the play just given and you will note that there was a crisis on the 61st play, when a stake of $32 was required to stave off a fifth successive loss with the 1st and 2nd Dozens.

The day was saved and it is gratifying to know that the odds were 2 to 1 that it would be. But if the play had been a loss, the player would have been sunk. At the end of the 28th play, he was $15 ahead on the 1st and 2nd Dozens. So a $62 loss (2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32) would have put him $47 in the hole. At the same time, he was running $5 behind on the 2nd and 3rd Dozens, so there was no help from that source.

The player would have needed a fresh stake of about $60 to begin all over, a good point to remember when taking a fling with this modified Martingale. Nor can he expect much from this system even when it clicks. As one expert aptly puts it: "The system that legislates to reduce the risk also reduces the profit.''

At least, such a system will keep the player in the game longer on very little capital. But if that is his prime purpose, he will do better to discard the Martingale and try the Labby System, which forms the subject of our next chapter.

Are You Ready To Move Onto The Next Lesson? Click Here….