So you hedge 1/2 your bet with a guarantee to save the principal , or principal +1, other half is leverage on a system with %55 accurate. Together the probability is more for wins. Ok. But I think op is saying he is using roulette method like a (whole) trading system? But maybe I did not understand.
There is nothing chity chaty about OP. Its a real position sizing method that of course has flaws like any other. But our resident WW2 german seems to be having a bad day
Oldest concept in the book. It only leads to failure. Just run the numbers. What's your bet after say 7, 8 or 9 losses in a row. And, yes, this will happen (more often than you think). EVERYONE who has every tried this has lost a fortune. Are you willing to bet $256 to win $1? How about over $1000 to win $1? How about if you are playing for $10. Are you willing to bet $10,000 to win $10? Trust me, either move on or play that game with me. I'll take the other side. You can have the guaranteed winning side.
LOL! blah blah blah-- martingale betting gets its butt handed to it on the back of Swiss Central Bank Intervention! Kabooom!
That's why I said made the two (2) stipulations before explaining how it can be successfully done. That part is not a well known fact among many traders, certainly.
Yep, he is saying exactly that and on that basis alone, I'd never do it. However, with modification, it could work. I'm not saying that there are not far more superior ways to trade. I'm saying that this particular way can be made to work if modified. Would it be purely the roulette wheel that the OP is writing about? No. But, it would use that same wheel and still be far more profitable than the wheel by itself.
Isn't everyone making an assumption that the win is equal to the loss? In trading, the amount won can be larger than the amount loss.