very simple formula

[n00b]

Hi. I'm not an expert in roulette or anything and I'm just a high school kid, but during my statistics class, I had an idea about a formula for gambling, and I was wondering if it would work or not. To me it seems it would work, but then again it seems to simple, and I can't help thinking that if it was that simple everyone would be making money off of roulette....

My formula is really simple. First you go to a table and observe it for a few spins, keeping track of the numbers. If the numbers seem to come out more or less the same frequently for both odd and even numbers, you choose one and you bet a small amount on it. If you win, you bet the same amount again. If you lose, you bet an amount that will let you gain what you lost plus the additional original betting amount.

To make it easier to understand, here is an example.

I bet 1$ on odd.
I win. So I bet another 1$ on odd.
I lose this time. So to make up for my loss and also win, this time I bet 2$ on odd.
I lose again. So i bet 4$ on odd to make up for the 3$ i lost and to  gain the additional 1$.
This time I win. So I bet 1$ on odd again.

This way, if I start with a small enough bet so that I can keep betting without going bankrupt, I would be able to keep making money in the long run. Also, the probability that I lose n times in a row is 0.5 to the nth power. (For example if I were to lose 10 times in a row the probability of that would be 0.5 to the 10th power, or 1/1024) This is a very low proability and by studying the table prior to betting, i think it would be possible to make the probabilit of this even lower (since the actual roulette game can never be perfectly random, by studying the table ahead of time, we can somewhat predict the outcomes and gain a slight edge over the ideal probability of 0.5).

Anyway, I was just wondering if there is anything wrong with my formula, if it has any flaws, if it is possible to use at a real casino, etc. Any opinion will be greatly appreciated.

[TwoCatSam]

I say, Ol' Bean, I think you've got something there!

TwoCat

[MattyMattz]

Hey nOOb,

while your math is correct (well almost) this idea is still pretty risky.  
First off - you don't have a 50/50 chance of winning... the zero(s) skew that idea.  Also, what your suggesting is really a simply martingale and if you lost 10 times in a row, you'd be betting 1024$ on odd just for a 1$ profit.... not very good odds if you ask me.  And yes it is quite possible to loss 10 in a row (very possible).  Plus you also have to consider table limits...

Not to be a prune but, as they say, 'dem's da facts'
Of course, I could always rant on about the "table has no memory" concept, but I won't cause it's not how I play

Cheers,
Matt

[Carlitos]

............ what happens if odd does not show for 8 times in an row.......?  






Carlitos  8-)

[mystidark]

Hey Noob, practise your theory out on 1000s of spins (I think 10,000 is decent amount) and then you'll know better. Remember, proper MM is as important as a good strategy  

Keep it up!

MD  8-)

[admin]

n00b, [smiley=welcome/welcome01.png]

I am a fan of "grinding" systems. I will suggest you better try to recoup in several hits rather than just one.

The "1 hit recoups all" type of progression isn't an option at the professional gambler's arsenal, trust me. You will never know a single 'pro' making his living out of the double-up. Most use those boring money management plans such as the "bread winner" ( 11112222233333... ) or the like.

(Of course, there are the visual ballistics gurus who don't need to use any progression other than the positive ones; in fact they can win without money management at all, just flat betting)

For a better money management that keeps the units as low as possible with an acceptable recovery rate, I'd suggest the Cheating D'alembert which can be found here:
nolinks://vlsroulette.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1197589576

Best regards,
Victor

[SPIN DOCTOR]

This gives me hope that I can make it as a pro roulette player.
When the math guys suggest such naive strategic play it just tells me
that I can win because I put in 15 years studying why systems like that do not work.

SPIN DOCTOR

[AnandMajumdar]

hi there!

aha, the eternal battle between theory and practice..

martingale or what you call "doubling" sounds good only on paper..

why ?

1. what happens when you have 8 or 10 losses in a row? are you gonna bet 1024 dollars to gain 1 $.

2. what about all the money you have lost until bet 512 ? do you have that bankroll ?

3. does your casino table limits allow you to bet that high on a single bet ?

4. will you have the courage to keep betting higher and higher and not fumble ?

5. you say the probability of losing is 1/1024. fine. but if u lose the 1024 bet, you 2047 dollars in total for that sequence. you need 2047 sequences of 1 $ bets to recover that. that horrible streak of 10 losses will show up twice in 2047 sequences based on your maths. what then ?

martingale looks nice on paper, but can NEVER be succssfully used to beat roulette. in fact it is the FIRST system that every roulette player thinks of or reads about, gets excited, only to later laugh at himself about the absurdity of the plan.

it is as ridiculous as saying that i can shift the earth of its axis if i have somewhere to place a lever and a rod enough and someplace to stand while i do it

cheers
anand

[Roulette787]

"Even though Martingale has been around for 100s of years;
everyday, someone, somewhere reinvents it"

[Roulette787]

-