Need opinion about the following roulette strategy

You will lose in the long run.

Originally posted by MariusK
You will lose in the long run.

Ok, let me rephrase my question..

Noone is looking for a perfect strategy that will win 100%, cause such not exist. I'm asking from mathematical point of view, does this strategy has lower chance of losing than the regular martingale?
Also, it's more useful when you elaborate your answer

Originally posted by whatever61

Originally posted by MariusK
You will lose in the long run.

Ok, let me rephrase my question..

Noone is looking for a perfect strategy that will win 100%, cause such not exist. I'm asking from mathematical point of view, does this strategy has lower chance of losing than the regular martingale?
Also, it's more useful when you elaborate your answer

No matter how you run the math on different betting patterns your never be able to beat the roulette. Its just made so the house has the edge no matter how you play it. If your still not convinced go try out your strategy for a year and see the results

You are still going to need a huge BR for this to work. Losing twice would cost ~600points to continue. This is still mathematically going to happen around one in a hundred times (13%*13%=1.369%). Someone please correct me is my maths is wrong lol.

And then losing 3 times in a row (unlikely but still possible) is going to cost 4,096 points to continue.

The wheel always has the edge.
But anyway enough of the discouragement, try it out on a demo account and let us know how you get on :).

Good luck.

you're winning small, and are bound to lose big.

eventually the losing streak will eat your entire bankroll.

surely there are some roulette simulators made in php or something online that you can try and test your strategy.

altough, you won't be able to see much with it anyway.
you'll be winning and winning until one point.

Thanks for the answers, however as I said I am not looking for 100% system.
So general replies about something like "At some point you will lose" without any calculation behind it are also clear to me. I am looking to see which system has the lowest chance to lose MATHEMATICALLY.

Now..
3prswins, I can make it 5 times (by splitting the double betting, since the chance is higher to win, you can easily win two times in a row, so you don't double bet, you actually half double bet.. kinda =)), this way you will have to lose with a 13% 5 times in A ROW.

However, my initial problem with the martingale was that every time there's only 50% chance to win, therefore every double up only gives you another 50% chance and it becomes scary to double up high amounts cause chance to lose is big, however here you get 87% chance.

Note that your calculation has to be 13% and then another 13% and then another 13% IN A ROW. I don't even know how to calculate it..

So if you can make it 5 times you would still need a big bankroll:
1st Spin cost: 8 points
2nd Spin cost: 32 Points
3rd Spin cost: 256 Points
4th Spin cost: 2,048 Points
5th Spin cost: 16,384 Points

This give a total of 18,728 points in order to survive 4 losses. or $18,728 as most online casinos have a minimum $1 bet. Also most have an upper limit you can bet too.

The chances of losing 5 times are as follows
(13%*13%*13%*13%*13%) or (0.13*0.13*0.13*0.13*0.13)

This equates to 0.003712% or roughly 1 in 33,000 chance.

This is still a huge gamble, if you're looking to make a living from this you would be playing more than 33k times in a year. So you would be odds on to lose your entire roll each and every year at least once.

First of all, forget about making a living, that's not the intention intention is to find the lowest risk strategy. I would run out of time, playing 33,000 spins anyway ♦
Also, I am curious which strategy side is less risky (note the word "LESS", not "NOT risky at all"):

a. 50/50 double betting
b. low chance of winning double betting (like putting on 6 numbers and then increasing the bet after 6 rounds and stuff like that)
c. high chance of winning double betting (what we're talking about now)

I wouldn't do it like this..

I would do:

1. 8 points - 13.51% (every 7.40th turn)
2. 32 points - 1.83% (every 54th turn)
3. 160 points - 0.24% (every 416th turn)
4. 800 points (or maybe 1600 points, I will explain later) - 0.031% (3225th turn)
Here I would stop.

The only thing is that I would need 2 wins in a row to make the money back every time, but since chance to win is 86.49%, there's a very high chance it will happen. If I would win one round (when winning back), but the 2nd round I would lose, then I would have to just go to the next double betting..

Might be on the 4th spin is not a good idea to split to two, since it's the last round, so if you lose here, you're kinda screwed, so another option is: 4. 1600 points.

p.s. - just for the record, IF i would play 33,000 times and lose on the 33,001th, that means I would make 33K by then, so it is NOT a huge gamble, but I wouldn't do such crazy bets, so forget it

I really don't get how dumb ppl can be... The flaw in every roulette strategy is that the ''strategy'' doesn't account for the fact that every spin is unique and that there is no ''less risky'' strategy.

A lot of idiots also don't understand variance and think that by betting bigger they will recover the loses when in fact they just lose more on the times they run bad and write it off to being unlucky lol.

There is no way to lower the risk. Once you make a bet on a roulette table you will lose some % of that bet in the long run and it really doesn't matter if you bet less on the previous or more on the next spin.

Originally posted by MatejM47
I really don't get how dumb ppl can be... The flaw in every roulette strategy is that the ''strategy'' doesn't account for the fact that every spin is unique and that there is no ''less risky'' strategy.

A lot of idiots also don't understand variance and think that by betting bigger they will recover the loses when in fact they just lose more on the times they run bad and write it off to being unlucky lol.

There is no way to lower the risk. Once you make a bet on a roulette table you will lose some % of that bet in the long run and it really doesn't matter if you bet less on the previous or more on the next spin.

Stop pushing your opinion about how bad it is to have a strategy. We got it, you don't believe in it. You can go and bet randomly as much as you want.

This subject interests me from logical and mathematical point of view and it's an idea I asked for feedback, but as feedback I need an interesting insight or a calculation. Not for some stupid bashing at everyone who has a strategy, just because you don't believe in strategies. Not saying it's the best idea of all times, just saying that this is the idea I had and these are the calculations I made and just want to discuss it. That's all

Thank you for your answers, now go away please, because you're ruining the purpose of this thread with unnecessary replies. I'm sure you as a diamond user understand that

if u want the lowest risk strategy, just bet blindly on black or red with the smallest bet size the table allows. that way u will last the longest and risk the least..

I guess if you're looking for the lowest risk (martingale) strategy then I think covering less of the board would be better as you would only be increasing your bet by a much smaller amount.

E.g. If you was to cover 1st 12th then each losing bet would require you to increase the bet by just 1/3. This I suppose would give you the lowest risk of ruin. But overall I have to agree with everyone here, there's no way to escape the house's edge in the long run.

Finally, what would be the point of this if you're not looking to make a living? I can't imagine it to be much fun grinding the roulette table as a hobby.

Cheers

Originally posted by 3prswins
I guess if you're looking for the lowest risk (martingale) strategy then I think covering less of the board would be better as you would only be increasing your bet by a much smaller amount.

E.g. If you was to cover 1st 12th then each losing bet would require you to increase the bet by just 1/3. This I suppose would give you the lowest risk of ruin. But overall I have to agree with everyone here, there's no way to escape the house's edge in the long run.

Well, this is an interesting idea, however you bet the lowest, but your chance to win is the lowest also, so you will just need to have a longer serie of losses, and the loss will be equal more or less to the regular martingale strategy, so I don't see how it lowers the risk.. Moreover, since we said that every spin is a new spin, that gives you 67.5% of losing chance every time instead of the regular 51.35%, so I find it on the contrary more risky.

Finally, what would be the point of this if you're not looking to make a living? I can't imagine it to be much fun grinding the roulette table as a hobby.

Cheers

Well, as I said 5 times already I think.. I am interested in it from a logical and mathematical interest and I am NOT looking for a 100% strategy, just for the least risky one. Imagine, I'm doing a research in this subject, mkay? Anyway, as hard as it is to understand.. my intentions are not relevant to this thread, just focus on the calculation please

IMO play poker, control your destiny!

If only there was an online Poker school.......

Oh wait - you're already here!

Originally posted by HollyMichelle
IMO play poker, control your destiny!

Y so serious, roulette could also control your destiny. ♦

What about "Get a job and control your destiny" then?