silly roulette system spam

[Thabiguy]

Er, what does your comment have to do with mine?

It addresses what you wrote.

You wrote that there was some advantage to using a martingale with very small bets, like pennies:

If you bet 1 penny on red, and doubled whenever you lost, you'd probably end up ahead most nights.

You wrote that doing that will bring you almost "guaranteed" winning of a small amount of money:

Of course, your "guaranteed" winnings would be well below what the casino would be making out of you in drinks etc.

I explained to you that this has nothing at all to do with the amount you bet, and entirely depends on how much you are going to accumulate before you leave.

If you bet $0.01 on red, and double your bet every time you lose (until you win, at which point you bet $0.01 again next turn), you are guaranteed to win $0.01 everytime red comes up. If you stay for, say, 1000 spins of the wheel, red will come up about 500 times on average (or 486 times if there's a 0), so your "guaranteed" winning would be $5.

Except that it's not guaranteed, because there is a chance that before red comes up, you'll end up betting and losing all your money. - Now, you reasoned that by making the initial bet small, you'll also make the chance of that happening smaller. But that is not true. The chance that you'll lose all your money depends only on your total amount of money and the amount you are about to accumulate before you leave (and the advantage of the casino).

In the aforementioned example, instead of having an initial bet of $0.01, you could have an initial bet of $1, and by the time you accumulate $5, you will have had the exact same chance of losing all your money instead as if the initial bet was $0.01 - the only difference being that when betting $0.01, it will take some 1000 spins to get to those $5 (or lose all your money), while when betting $1, you'll arrive to the outcome much quicker - and with equal odds of either outcome occuring. That's why I said that what you proposed was a waste of time.

Where to I talk about quitting at a given maximum?

You wrote about using a martingale with a very small initial bet for many spins of the wheel. That boils down to either winning a pretty much predetermined amount of money (about half your initial bet * number of spins) or losing all money you have.

In yet other words, sooner or later, you will quit. At the moment you quit, you will have gained the amount X (or lost everything). What I'm trying to explain to you is that getting to that amount X penny by penny was a waste of time. If you had bet X right away (and doubled everytime you lose), you would have had the same chance of gaining X (or losing everything).

If you bet 1 penny on red on every spin (assuming, as I said, true 50-50odds), and double your bet every time you lose, you'll walk out of the casino ahead of the game.

Or you'll lose all money you have. The odds of that happening depends only on the amount of money you brought, the amount of money you'll accumulate before you leave, and the advantage of the casino. It does not depend on the amount you bet every spin.

And, it's not a substantial difference if the odds on every spin are 50-50 or if the casino uses a 0, or even a 00. That just means that your odds of losing everything will be higher for a given target amount, or equivalently, that you can win less at the same risk of losing everything.

Perhaps you missed the part where I stipulated that this wouldn't work in a real-world casino?

The flaw is in the concept, not in the actual minimum amount you're allowed to bet.

 

[Yoink]

The chance that you'll lose all your money depends only on your total amount of money and the amount you are about to accumulate before you leave (and the advantage of the casino).

The part of my post that you keep failing to read is the part where I said that the casino would have no advantage. There is no 0 and no 00, it's true 50% odds. Now tell me how it is that you don't win under that assumption.

What kills you in the real world is the 0 and 00 outcomes and the fact that starting from the casino's minimum bet, doubling quickly gets you to the casino maximum-bet.

With true 50-50 odds, a minimum bet of 1 penny and a maximum bet of $1,000, you only "break" when you hit a streak of 20 losses. That will effectively never happen. There is also no casino in the world where you can make do this.

 

[Thabiguy]

The part of my post that you keep failing to read is the part where I said that the casino would have no advantage. There is no 0 and no 00, it's true 50% odds. Now tell me how it is that you don't win under that assumption.

The part of my post that you failed to read was that this does not matter. It only slightly changes the actual numeric value of the odds, nothing else.

What kills you in the real world is the 0 and 00 outcomes and the fact that starting from the casino's minimum bet, doubling quickly gets you to the casino maximum-bet.

No. What kills you is that you have a finite amount of money with you. If you play long enough, you will eventually be forced to bet your last penny and lose.

The 0 and 00 only somewhat increase the odds of that happening. But the odds are mainly determined by how long you play - which is just another way of expressing how much you intend to win.

The casino maximum bet is even less important; it does not even ruin the martingale system. If you need to bet X which is more than what casino allows, just keep betting smaller amounts, until you either win X or lose X. The odds of either eventual outcome is the same as if you bet X right away; it will just take a longer time.

With true 50-50 odds, a minimum bet of 1 penny and a maximum bet of $1,000, you only "break" when you hit a streak of 20 losses. That will effectively never happen. There is also no casino in the world where you can make do this.

I tried to explain to you that 1) whether you have true 50-50 odds or not only affects the outcome slightly, 2) the initial bet and maximum bet are irrelevant, 3) the chance of losing all your money depends only on your total amount of money and money you intend to win.

Let's take your example of initial bet of $0.01. Let's say you brought $1000, and you will play about 2000 spins, after which you can expect to have amassed about $10. You will lose all your money whenever there is a consecutive run of 17 (not 20) losses (and also some other cases that we'll not go into). Contrary to your estimate that this will "effectively never happen", the probability of that occuring during 2000 spins is about 0.8% when the odds are 50-50, and about 1.1% when the roulette has a 0 (values determined by Monte Carlo simulations).

You would have the exact same chance of losing all your $1000 if you just bet $10 to begin with, and doubled your bet every time you lost. Indeed, any way of betting whatsoever that offers you the chance of winning $10 has the exact same risk of losing all your $1000.

 

[Yoink]

The part of my post that you failed to read was that this does not matter. It only slightly changes the actual numeric value of the odds, nothing else.



No. What kills you is that you have a finite amount of money with you. If you play long enough, you will eventually be forced to bet your last penny and lose.

The 0 and 00 only somewhat increase the odds of that happening. But the odds are mainly determined by how long you play - which is just another way of expressing how much you intend to win.

The casino maximum bet is even less important; it does not even ruin the martingale system. If you need to bet X which is more than what casino allows, just keep betting smaller amounts, until you either win X or lose X. The odds of either eventual outcome is the same as if you bet X right away; it will just take a longer time.



I tried to explain to you that 1) whether you have true 50-50 odds or not only affects the outcome slightly, 2) the initial bet and maximum bet are irrelevant, 3) the chance of losing all your money depends only on your total amount of money and money you intend to win.

Let's take your example of initial bet of $0.01. Let's say you brought $1000, and you will play about 2000 spins, after which you can expect to have amassed about $10. You will lose all your money whenever there is a consecutive run of 17 (not 20) losses (and also some other cases that we'll not go into). Contrary to your estimate that this will "effectively never happen", the probability of that occuring during 2000 spins is about 0.8% when the odds are 50-50, and about 1.1% when the roulette has a 0 (values determined by Monte Carlo simulations).

You would have the exact same chance of losing all your $1000 if you just bet $10 to begin with, and doubled your bet every time you lost. Indeed, any way of betting whatsoever that offers you the chance of winning $10 has the exact same risk of losing all your $1000.

So, calculating 45 spins per hour (thanks Google), that means that if I go to the casino once a week for two hours a week and play my strategy, I can play for six months (more or less) and have a .08% chance of going bust. Or, to put it another way, a 99.02% chance of coming out ahead. I like those odds.

I really don't understand what you're trying to argue. As far as I can see you missed the fact that I'd specified the true 50-50 odds and from that point on you just don't want to admit to being wrong. It's simply self-evident that if you have an actually infinite bankroll and actually infinite maximum bets the strategy works (it's pointless, but it works). All I'm saying is the obvious corollary: that if the bankroll is sufficiently high relative to the stakes of the bet then you can lower the risks of failure to the point where they're negligible: either by betting sufficiently pathetic amounts OR by raising the maximum amount sufficiently high. It's not a particularly interesting point, but it's not really debatable.

And, clearly, it has no practical consequences. You can't use it to make money (well, you could, I suppose, but not as much money as you'd make just leaving your money in a decent CD).

 

[Thabiguy]

So, calculating 45 spins per hour (thanks Google), that means that if I go to the casino once a week for two hours a week and play my strategy, I can play for six months (more or less) and have a .08% chance of going bust. Or, to put it another way, a 99.02% chance of coming out ahead. I like those odds.

It would seem you missed the part where I pointed out that any strategy whatsoever will offer you those odds for the same amount of money to win. The only difference is that "your strategy" will take six months to win what another will win in one night. With the same probability.

I really don't understand what you're trying to argue.

I thought I said it pretty clearly: that the system you proposed is a waste of time, as there are much faster systems that offer exactly the same odds of winning exactly the same amount of money. Yet, it seems I'm unable to push that through to you. Alas.

(And even if your goal is not to get it done quickly, but just to play as long as possible, there are, again, systems that will let you play much longer than the one you proposed.)

As far as I can see you missed the fact that I'd specified the true 50-50 odds

I didn't miss that at all. I repeatedly tried to explain to you why that is not relevant here. Whether the odds are 18:18 or 18:19 or 18:20 doesn't change anything about the fact that you can use a large amount of money to win a very small amount money with a very low risk of losing everything - again, that remains true regardless of whether the roulette is "fair" or has 0/00 - and that risk is completely independent of whether you bet pennies or dollars - except that your proposed strategy is a spectacularly slow way to accomplish that.

Apparently, I wasn't successful.

and from that point on you just don't want to admit to being wrong.

Perhaps when you actually point out something wrong that I said, I will be in a position to admit that. So far, it has been just me pointing out where you were wrong (such as, "What kills you in the real world is the 0 and 00 outcomes", "you only "break" when you hit a streak of 20 losses", "That will effectively never happen", ...)

All I'm saying is the obvious corollary: that if the bankroll is sufficiently high relative to the stakes of the bet then you can lower the risks of failure to the point where they're negligible: either by betting sufficiently pathetic amounts OR by raising the maximum amount sufficiently high.

And I tried to explain to you that this is not true; that the risk of failure is not lowered by making the bankroll high relative to individual bets - only to the sum you amass before you decide to quit. I even showed you a quick calculation illustrating that. I could even run simulations for you demonstrating that a person betting $0.01 and a person betting $1 have exactly the same chance of losing $1000 before they amass $10; that they both will be, on average, ahead by the same amount before they lose all; the only difference being that the $0.01 guy will take much longer to get to the same outcome.

It's not a particularly interesting point, but it's not really debatable.

I'm afraid it's not merely debatable, but false. As I extensively explained in several posts, and can back with math and simulations. You cannot lower your risk of failure by "betting sufficiently pathetic amounts", as you claim. You can only lower it by winning a small total; it doesn't matter at all whether you get to that by making a bunch of teeny tiny pathetic bets, or one moderate bet.

 

[Yoink]

I thought I said it pretty clearly: that the system you proposed is a waste of time, as there are much faster systems that offer exactly the same odds of winning exactly the same amount of money. Yet, it seems I'm unable to push that through to you. Alas.

And if your goal is just to play as long as possible, there are, again, systems that will let you play much longer than the one you proposed.



I didn't miss that at all. I repeatedly tried to explain to you why that is not relevant here. Whether the odds are 18:18 or 18:19 or 18:20 doesn't change anything about the fact that you can use a large amount of money to win a very small amount money with a very low risk of losing everything, and that risk is completely independent of whether you bet pennies or dollars - except that your proposed way is a spectacular waste of time.

Apparently, I wasn't successful.



Perhaps when you actually point out something wrong that I said, I will be in a position to admit that. So far, it has been just me pointing out where you were wrong (such as, "What kills you in the real world is the 0 and 00 outcomes", "you only "break" when you hit a streak of 20 losses", "That will effectively never happen", ...)



And I tried to explain to you that this is not true; that the risk of failure is not lowered by making the bankroll high relative to individual bets - only to the sum you amass before you decide to quit. I even showed you a quick calculation illustrating that. I could even run simulations for you demonstrating that a person betting $0.01 and a person betting $1 have exactly the same chance of losing $1000 before they amass $10; that they both will be, on average, ahead by the same amount before they lose all; the only difference being that the $0.01 guy will took much longer to get to the same outcome.



I'm afraid it's not merely debatable, but false. As I extensively explained in several posts, and can back it with math and simulations. You cannot lower your risk of failure by "betting sufficiently pathetic amounts", as you claim. You can only lower it by winning a small total; it doesn't matter at all whether you get to that by making a bunch of teeny tiny pathetic bets, or one moderate bet.

Ah, I see where your misunderstanding has been the entire time. You are fixated on the idea that I'm saying that this will be some sort of cunning money-making scheme. I'm not--the fact that it "takes much longer" is all I'm saying. That if you were able to do this, you could effectively keep gambling and keep winning. It is exactly "lowering your odds of failure" by "winning a small total." I've never once claimed that you would win more money this way than by any other method.

As for the 1$ bet vs the 1 penny bet, you're simply wrong about how long you could keep that going. If you have a $1,000 maximum bet you break every time you get a sequence of 10 losses rather than a sequence of 17 (thanks for correcting me on that--not that it really changed my main point; shows you should never calculate things in your head on this site). Those odds are substantially worse.

ETA: that was, by the way, why I insisted in my first reply to you that I wasn't talking about any "target" point at which one would stop betting. The goal isn't to make X amount of winnings, it's just to stay alive and stay "winning." At penny bets with a $1000 maximum you can do that for a very, very long time unless you're fantastically unlucky. But, as I said in my very first post on the issue, you're not even going to win enough to cover the profit margins on your drinks while you do it.

 

[Thabiguy]

You are fixated on the idea that I'm saying that this will be some sort of cunning money-making scheme.

Not really. I believe I expressed myself clearly in the very first post: you proposed this as a way to stay ahead at the end of the night. I pointed out that one can easily accomplish that, with the same risk and same gain, and have the night to spend in a more productive way.

That is, really, all. (And the simple bonus quiz for interested readers.)

As for the 1$ bet vs the 1 penny bet, you're simply wrong about how long you could keep that going. If you have a $1,000 maximum bet you break every time you get a sequence of 10 losses rather than a sequence of 17 (thanks for correcting me on that--not that it really changed my main point; shows you should never calculate things in your head on this site). Those odds are substantially worse.

They're the same. It's important to realize that the $1 guy will need, on average, 2 spins to get to $1, while the $0.01 guy will need, on average, 200 spins, having many more chances of running into the unlucky streak. By the time you amass the same amount, your odds of losing everything are exactly the same, no matter whether you're betting $0.01 or $1. The $0.01 guy and the $1 guy will be ahead by the same amount before they lose.

 

[sol invictus]

Ah, I see where your misunderstanding has been the entire time. You are fixated on the idea that I'm saying that this will be some sort of cunning money-making scheme. I'm not--the fact that it "takes much longer" is all I'm saying. That if you were able to do this, you could effectively keep gambling and keep winning. It is exactly "lowering your odds of failure" by "winning a small total." I've never once claimed that you would win more money this way than by any other method.

That's correct. Assuming you have a stake that's significantly larger than the minimum bet, the double-when-you-lose strategy is a way of very slowly winning, with a small chance each round of losing everything.

Personally in a casino I prefer to lose slowly with a small chance of winning a lot, which is why I sometimes use the opposite strategy.

 

[69dodge]

Except in impossible cases like infinite bankrolls, I think it is (I'm defining it to mean the average over many instances of playing with the same strategy under the same conditions).

Do you have an example where it isn't defined?

I was only talking about the very theoretical case of an infinite bankroll. Certainly, I don't recommend that anyone actually try this in a real casino.

An example of a discrete random variable N with undefined (i.e., infinite) expectation is one that has this distribution: P(N = 2ⁿ) = 1/2ⁿ for positive integers n, and P(N = x) = 0 for all other values of x.

There's nothing wrong with this as a probability distribution -- all the probabilities sum to 1 -- but it has no expectation. No matter how many instances of random variables with this distribution you average together, the average never settles down to any particular value. The more instances you average together, the higher the average tends to become.

Large bet sizes would simply mean that the fluctuations around the expectation are large, not that the expectation itself doesn't exist.

Yes, for large but fixed bet sizes, no matter how large. But not necessarily, if there's no upper bound on the bets.

That's the probability to be up by $1. But that's not what I said. I said the probability to be up by $100 under these circumstances is less than 1 (and in fact quite small if the house has a typical edge).

If you have a sure way of being up by $1, and you repeat it a hundred times, then you're sure to be up by $100.

 

[sol invictus]

I was only talking about the very theoretical case of an infinite bankroll. Certainly, I don't recommend that anyone actually try this in a real casino.

Sure - in that case there are plenty of examples.

If you have a sure way of being up by $1, and you repeat it a hundred times, then you're sure to be up by $100.

You make a compelling argument... yes, you're obviously right.

The calculation I did was for a different strategy, one where you don't change your bet size (I realized that earlier and then forgot, which accounts for the confusion over $1 we had earlier). Sorry about that.

 

[CardZeus]

Of course the roulette wheel has been beaten in the past. A group of physicists (a la MIT and blackjack) studied a wheel they bought and figured out a formula using trigonometric functions and 4 other variables including the periods of rotation of the wheel and the ball. Using a concealed device they managed to make an average profit of 44% for every $1 wagered.

The Eudaemons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaemons

 

[Yoink]

Not really. I believe I expressed myself clearly in the very first post: you proposed this as a way to stay ahead at the end of the night. I pointed out that one can easily accomplish that, with the same risk and same gain, and have the night to spend in a more productive way.

That is, really, all. (And the simple bonus quiz for interested readers.)



They're the same. It's important to realize that the $1 guy will need, on average, 2 spins to get to $1, while the $0.01 guy will need, on average, 200 spins, having many more chances of running into the unlucky streak. By the time you amass the same amount, your odds of losing everything are exactly the same, no matter whether you're betting $0.01 or $1. The $0.01 guy and the $1 guy will be ahead by the same amount before they lose.

And, once again, you go and introduce an arbitrary "target" into the scenario. Once again (and this time, for the last time) I will point out that I am not talking about making money. Obviously it takes the $.01 guy forever to get up to $1 of winnings: but that's my whole point. He got to play for that very, very long time, while the $1 bet guy got to play for 2 spins. If you focus on "amount won" then the 1 penny guy has no advantage; if you focus on "staying in the game" then he has a huge advantage. My sole point. O.K.?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

And, once again, you go and introduce an arbitrary "target" into the scenario. Once again (and this time, for the last time) I will point out that I am not talking about making money. Obviously it takes the $.01 guy forever to get up to $1 of winnings: but that's my whole point. He got to play for that very, very long time, while the $1 bet guy got to play for 2 spins. If you focus on "amount won" then the 1 penny guy has no advantage; if you focus on "staying in the game" then he has a huge advantage. My sole point. O.K.?

Why not just sit and watch the wheel go round without ever betting? That way you are still "in the game" (accepting what you say about amount won being irrelevant) and have eliminated entirely the risk of losing your bankroll.

What you propose is essentially a number of very long odds on bets. Based on the figures you used earlier, you are essentially betting a large amount that an event with a 1% likelihood will not take place. You have described such an event as something that will "effectively never happen" - this simply is not true.

 

[Yoink]

Why not just sit and watch the wheel go round without ever betting? That way you are still "in the game" (accepting what you say about amount won being irrelevant) and have eliminated entirely the risk of losing your bankroll.

What you propose is essentially a number of very long odds on bets. Based on the figures you used earlier, you are essentially betting a large amount that an event with a 1% likelihood will not take place. You have described such an event as something that will "effectively never happen" - this simply is not true.

I can't make "not betting" mean "being in the game." Nor can I make "effectively never happen" mean "never happen at all." You, somehow, seem to be able to. Bravo.

I would have thought it reasonably obvious that "effectively never happen" means "happen incredibly rarely"; if I meant that it would actually never happen then what on earth was the word "effectively" in there for?

As for your "event with a 1% likelihood"--that's a bizarrely tendentious way of putting it. Thabiguy's claim was that in every two thousand spins there is a .08% chance of the event occurring. The probability that any given sequence of 17 spins will be "all red" or "all black" is 0.0000076. I think most of us would be happy to say that that represented the kind of odds that would "effectively never happen."

If I said to you "walk through this door and you'll receive a million dollars, but beware that there is a 0.0000076 chance that you'll be incinerated by the door" would you hesitate at all? Would you regard it as a bizarre comment if someone offered those odds said "that will effectively never happen"?

Don't worry, I know what your response will be: "But it WILL happen eventually, so how can you say it will NEVER happen."

My reply to your reply: "I didn't, I said it would effectively never happen."

Your reply to my reply to your reply: "But it WILL happen eventually."

And so on ad nauseam.

 

[Thabiguy]

And, once again, you go and introduce an arbitrary "target" into the scenario. Once again (and this time, for the last time) I will point out that I am not talking about making money.

I already replied to that, so I'll just quote my earlier post:

(And even if your goal is not to get it done quickly, but just to play as long as possible, there are, again, systems that will let you play much longer than the one you proposed.)

Obviously it takes the $.01 guy forever to get up to $1 of winnings: but that's my whole point. He got to play for that very, very long time, while the $1 bet guy got to play for 2 spins.

What? Excuse me, but your claim here, and really the only reason I even still replied, was that I was wrong, remember?

As for the 1$ bet vs the 1 penny bet, you're simply wrong about how long you could keep that going. If you have a $1,000 maximum bet you break every time you get a sequence of 10 losses rather than a sequence of 17 ... Those odds are substantially worse.

That's what I was responding to - to your claim that I was wrong when I said that

a person betting $0.01 and a person betting $1 have exactly the same chance of losing $1000 before they amass $10; that they both will be, on average, ahead by the same amount before they lose all; the only difference being that the $0.01 guy will took much longer to get to the same outcome.

And after I responded to this specific claim of yours, explaining why I was right and your claim baseless, you now try to change the subject and pretend that we were talking about who gets to enjoy the game more?

Sorry, mister, that is not going to fly.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I can't make "not betting" mean "being in the game." Nor can I make "effectively never happen" mean "never happen at all." You, somehow, seem to be able to. Bravo.

You said you were not talking about making money - take that away from roulette and what are you left with? Sitting watching a wheel go round.

I would have thought it reasonably obvious that "effectively never happen" means "happen incredibly rarely"; if I meant that it would actually never happen then what on earth was the word "effectively" in there for?

The problem with that is your argument completely ignores the consequences of these incredibly rare events. In effect you treat them as if they never happen. If, as you acknowledge, they will happen then your argument falls apart.

As for your "event with a 1% likelihood"--that's a bizarrely tendentious way of putting it. Thabiguy's claim was that in every two thousand spins there is a .08% chance of the event occurring. The probability that any given sequence of 17 spins will be "all red" or "all black" is 0.0000076. I think most of us would be happy to say that that represented the kind of odds that would "effectively never happen."

No, he said the chance of it occuring in 2000 spins was 0.8%, you are out by a factor of 10. I was basing my figure on your claim that you had a 99.02% chance of coming out ahead if you played 2 hours a week for 6 months. That means a 1% chance (rounded) of losing £1,000. Looking back it appears that you miscalculated and meant 99.2% (100 - 0.8) - as previously posted I was basing it on your figures.

On the basis that expected return must be nil on a wheel with 50/50 odds, then you are accepting a 99% chance of winning a small amount (£1,000/99 or slightly over £10) for a 1% chance of losing £1,000.

If I said to you "walk through this door and you'll receive a million dollars, but beware that there is a 0.0000076 chance that you'll be incinerated by the door" would you hesitate at all? Would you regard it as a bizarre comment if someone offered those odds said "that will effectively never happen"?

Wrong question - you should be asking how many people would hesitate if you told them "walk through this door and you'll receive a penny, but beware there is a 0.0000076 chance that you will lose £1,000".

And yes, I would find it a bizarre comment to say that will effectively never happen. And I don't think you would find many takers.

Don't worry, I know what your response will be: "But it WILL happen eventually, so how can you say it will NEVER happen."

My reply to your reply: "I didn't, I said it would effectively never happen."

Your reply to my reply to your reply: "But it WILL happen eventually."

And so on ad nauseam.

Your mind reading skills appear not to be working. Wouldn't go applying for the million just yet.

As I said, you are making a long odds on bet each time you start a chain of bets on red. Most times you win a very small amount. Very occasionally you lose a very large amount. You are completely ignoring the rare occasions when you lose a lot of money in an attempt to win a small amount.

Ask those who bet on Mike Tyson to beat Buster Douglas at 200-1 on or Chelsea to beat St Gallen at 100-1 on what can happen when you do that. Or the punter who put a huge bet on Spurs when they were 3-0 ahead of Man Utd at half time.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I'm having a little trouble following the dispute, but it seems me that you have a bankroll large enough to handle N consecutive losses where you double the bet until you win or lose it all, then making a flat bet of the minimum amount would allow you to play even longer than Martingale.

The chart on Martingale vs Flat Betting shown on the linked page seems to bear out my "gut" instinct about the betting system.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I'm having a little trouble following the dispute, but it seems me that you have a bankroll large enough to handle N consecutive losses where you double the bet until you win or lose it all, then making a flat bet of the minimum amount would allow you to play even longer than Martingale.

The chart on Martingale vs Flat Betting shown on the linked page seems to bear out my "gut" instinct about the betting system.

A Martingale system, even on a hypothetical 50:50 table, is clearly not the best system for maximising the time of play. It should be obvious that any system which can involve larger bets carries with it a greater risk of ending up in a position where play ends because the bankroll is exhausted than a system involving smaller bets at the same odds. This is the case whatever the size of the starting bet - it doesn't matter if you start at a penny or a pound - the risk is higher that you lose all your cash with Martingale as opposed to flat betting.

Basically it appears that what Yoink is arguing is that provided you make the risk of losing all your cash remote enough, you can ignore it. Every time you start betting under Martingale, you are essentially making an odds on bet of your entire bankroll to win your initial stake. Making your bankroll bigger relative to your initial stake lengthens the odds, but does not change the fundamental point.

 

[Ambrosia]

The chart on Martingale vs Flat Betting shown on the linked page seems to bear out my "gut" instinct about the betting system.

there's a better chart here...

why Martingale sucks

there are a myriad of better sytems you can play that let you lose your money slower.

My favourite is:

Observe 10 spins of the wheel, for every result note the following:

say 9 comes up, 9 is red add 1 point to all red numbers, 9 is odd add one point to all odd numbers, 9 is in the 1st dozen, add one point to all numbers in the 1st dozen, 9 is low add one point to all low numbers, 9 is in the 3rd column add one point to all numbers in 3rd column, 9 is on the 3rd line add one point to all numbers on the 3rd line. 0 and 00 score no points for anything and are not bet on

repeat this process for all 10 spins, and then for all subsequent spins where bets are placed.

After the initial 10 spins the single number that has the lowest points total has qualified. If two numbers are tied for a low score no number has qualified, continue observing until one single number has the lowest total score.

After the initial 10 spins any number that gets to be the lowest scored immediately qualifies.

The player places a 1 unit flat bet with no progression on any qualified number and removes the bet when that number hits. Rinse and repeat until the player gets bored, makes some predetermined target or loses their money.

This system outperforms just choosing random numbers and flat betting on those, or at least it has done has done for me repeatedly over a lot of testing.

It obviously will still lose long term at the house edge, it just takes longer to get there.

I do find it interesting why this is so. Every spin is an independant event and has no bearing on subsequent spins. Even so this system uses previous spins to calculate where best to place a bet and it beats just picking numbers to bet on at random, maybe there is some other reason I don't understand why it does this, or I just got "lucky" when I tested it. I don't know.

 

[Ladewig]

Roulette is second only to slots in games that give the casinos the highest return,

Keno has a house percentage that is over three times that of American roulette. Big Six (aka Wheel of Fortune) has a house advantage over twice that of American roulette.