i want to use the no expert disclaimer, too. you're right, in my example #1, on play #7, the odds are the same as on play #1. the point is, the odds of getting 7 losses in a row without a winner is low. so the 7th play is not a 99% winner, but the series together is. the key is starting with the right bet size and sizing the bets right throughout a losing streak so you can withstand it. i don't know the actual win rates of roulette or the payoffs. i'm just using simple examples here. for the record, i'm not claiming this makes money in the long term. i'm just saying, if you gamble twice in your life, you may be able to walk away with money doing something like this--if it is possible. i don't know how casinos operate.
Just figured I'd let you know... I was flipping a coin today and tracking the results (for an experiment in chaos, why - what did you think?) and within a hundred flips had a series of 7 consecutive heads & 7 consecutive tails.... just a coincidence, but I thought it humorous.
Gordon, I've struggled with this for a long time. In another thread someone explained it in an elegant way, sorry I forgot who it was. The probability of a series of events happening is the product of their individual probabilities. Thus, 7 heads is .5*.5 seven times. But if you have 6 heads already, the probability of having six heads is now 1, so the total probability is 1*.5=.5.
with a 50% win rate... ...the chance of getting 6 in a row is 1.56%. ...the chance of getting 7 in a row is .78%.
You're much to smart to fall for any of this.... 5% negative edge, period (there is no winning game, except for blackjack or poker). The idea of using the basic "Martingale" system is appealing, but many a poor soul has helped to pay our Nevada taxes by trying it. You reach table limits quickly, you lose 1 or 2 out of 20 times, which takes all your profits plus everything you risk. Read the blackjack book, or simply trade, IMHO. Don See below: The Martingale system: (Money management betting systems, gambling systems.) Negative progression system, the oldest known system. The Martingale system is a very old and extremely simple system. It is based on the probability of losing infinite times in a row and is usually applied to 'even money' bets. You start with one bet. If you win, you start again with one bet. If you lose, you double your bet. Each time you lose, you double your last lost bet. Eventually you are bound to win. When you win you would recover all your lost bets plus one unit (or chip) profit against your initial wager. Although infallible in theory, the Martingale system requires a large bankroll, has a very low return and is a very risky one because of the maximum bet limits imposed by the casinos. If you run out of money or reach the house limit, you can lose a lot with no chance to recover your losses. * Negative progression betting systems: You increase the bet when you lose. Require more capital and usually employed to force a winning outcome following a losing streak. (Nerve-wracking, very painful when you lose. Avoid these systems if you can.)
I think a better strategy is playing the three rows of 12 #'s. Once you win, leave out the row that you won on and bet on the other two. The only problem is you would have to triple your bet if you lost. I actually tried this with pennies on an online casino just to test it out. I ended up losing because of the table limits. The black and red strategy is not even worth trying. Isn't roulette set up in a way that no matter what combinations you use the house edge will always remain the same?
Don't worry about those zero's and double zero's ....2 of 38 numbers = negative 5% +, ......either way, still negative .... Don (keep em' comin" ....come to Vegas, we need the tourist action). LOL.....
correct. The house always wins in the long run. If you are up short term you have to find an exit point and never go back or you will lose it all and then some.