Sorry for adding to this arguably non-cp thread: There is some ambiguity in the discussion of martingales and double-your-bet schemes in general. Most people think in terms of doubling when they *LOSE* their bet. This puts them in the ludicrous position Tim Werner described of having to bet $320 to win $5. How could this strategy break a bank? Your bets will average far larger than your winnings. If the table had a bank limit of $10,000, you'd have to have many times this in your suitcase. A more efficient strategy would probably be just to bet $10,000 at the beginning. If you really want to "break the bank", a more likely strategy would be to double your bets when you *WIN*. Most of the time you will eventually lose, and so you will see a steady loss. But eventually you will exceed the table "bank" limit, and the casino will not be able to pay off your bet - you will have broken the bank. Of course, this was stupid of you, since statistically this will only happen as often as your total losings add up to what your total winnings would have been. If there is some "bank" limit on how large the bets are that the casino will pay off, then you will actually get less than you should have. Hal