Negative Progression roulette
 

I think I have found a system that could make anyone money, playing roulette. Just pick a color, put down a bet of...200 bucks(or w/e is within your bankroll, which should be about 100X the size of your initial bet). If you win your bet, you quit(profit 200 bucks, from 1 lucky coin toss, basically). If you lose, you bet 400. Win, quit, lose, bet 200+400+200=800. Win, quit, lose, bet 1800. Etc.

Why doesn't everyone do this? Im sure there are plenty of online casino's that would have you even if u did break every casino in vegas regularly. Is there something I'm not seeing?

thanks...

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

Yap. You are not seeing the little green 0 and 00 on the wheel.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

There is a casino that has only 1 green spot...you could play there, and I think it would be worth it because even if it landed green every time you could still get away with just one win.

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

With just one green spot then you lose your money at a rate of AVG BET x 2.6%, or 1/2 as fast as with two green spots.

Let's flip a coin. Heads you win, tails you lose. Bet as much as you want on any flip. Every 38 tosses, you pay me $100. The more you flip, the more times you pay me $100, and eventually I have all your money. You can spread your bets around on the other tosses however you want -- you are going to break even on them in the long run.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think I have found a system that could make anyone money, playing roulette.

[/ QUOTE ]

The casinos have already found such a system.
1) Put a roulette wheel in your casino
2) Wait for people to come and play their "system".
3) Profit.

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

He's talking about the Martingle system. (At least I'm pretty sure.)

This is a fine system, if you have unlimited funds, with unlimited wagering ability. If you hit a streak of 11 misses in a row, which isn't too crazy to think of happening, then ... frankly, you're [censored].

And many casinos have limits on bets.

So, basically, your system has you double your bet each time until you win, then you're up one initial bet. Let's use your system ($200 bet with a $20,000 bankroll (100x$200)

Assume you lose each roll (for the sake of 'bad luck'):
Bet 1: $200 Total down: $200
Bet 2: $400 Total down: $600
Bet 3: $800 Total down: $1400
Bet 4: $1600 Total down: $3000
Bet 5: $3200 Total down: $6200
Bet 6: $6400 Total down: $13000
Bet 7: $12800 Total down: $25800

You can only spin the wheel 6 times until you don't have enough money for the next bet to bring you back up to even.

6 rolls ... could it really land on one color that many times in a row? Well ... why not?

Edit: millions --> unlimited

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

practical example:I was 13, and I said ..mmmm Ill see if this system works...I had my monopoly and my european roullete( 1 cero)
I was doing good, and then it happened...I lost 9 times on a row and lost all my playmoney. Then I realized the only way to make money with roullette is to BE THE HOUSE. Of course I started an illegal casino in my middle school with an overwhelming profit of 30 cents.
Theorical demostration: IT doesnt matter if you bet with ur fingers crossed or if u bet praying to god...THE HOUSE HAS AN EDGE OVER YOU!!! IT DOESNT MATTER HOW U PUT UR MONEY , WHEN DO U PUT UR MONEY , HOW MUCH MONEY U PUT OR WHERE DO U PUT IT, THE MATH IS AGAINST U.

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

[ QUOTE ]
He's talking about the Martingle system. (At least I'm pretty sure.)

This is a fine system, if you have millions.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It is not a fine system if you have millions. There is no betting system that can turn a negative expectation bet into a positive expectation bet.

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's talking about the Martingle system. (At least I'm pretty sure.)

This is a fine system, if you have millions.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It is not a fine system if you have millions. There is no betting system that can turn a negative expectation bet into a positive expectation bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I changed my post to say unlimited funds with unlimited wagering ablility. (At which point, why would you want to make small amounts of cash?)

This system will work in the above situation: If you have a 47% chance to hit your color, you're going to hit it. It's that simple. If you double your money every time you lose, until you win, and then start over with the initial bet, you will win. It's that simple. This system can beat the house. Problem is, the house has betting limits (that I'm sure you could get them to wave if you're losing as much money as you are). Other problem is that you have a limited bank roll.

With an unlimited bankroll and unlimited wagering ability, this is a profitable system. Every spin is -EV, but the design of the system is +EV in these conditions.

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

If u suppose infinite bankroll, i can suppose infinite losses.

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

This is impossible. As you approach infinity with the number of spins, the distribution of black v. red v. green will become more statistically accurate to it's true statistical distribution. So, you will have wins intelaced there. And with the infinite bankroll, there is no fear of ever busting. So, sure, you could have infinite losses, but you still have one more roll to try to win. And if you lose, one more.

Basic point. This system works for what I have described. No one uses it and wins long term with it, because no one can meet the specifications.

Nothing I have said before is openly disputed. Anywhere you read about the martingle system you will read things similar to what I have written.

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

go here

I remember when I first came up with the martingale system too, and I felt pretty smart for a while.

Making a long-term profit off a -EV game is like violating the law of conservation of mass-energy, it just won't happen no matter how hard you try.

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

And yet again youre wrong...if red has come 56 times on a row...there is a 48% red will fall again.

You CANNOT beat roulette, buuut....
 

...you can eliminate the house advantage, that is, make it an even money game, at least according to mike caro and his computers: linky

it sounds like BS, but i believe it's been tested and proven a few times. NO MORE HA? . [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

[ QUOTE ]
He's talking about the Martingle system. (At least I'm pretty sure.)

This is a fine system, if you have unlimited funds, with unlimited wagering ability. If you hit a streak of 11 misses in a row, which isn't too crazy to think of happening, then ... frankly, you're [censored].

And many casinos have limits on bets.

So, basically, your system has you double your bet each time until you win, then you're up one initial bet. Let's use your system ($200 bet with a $20,000 bankroll (100x$200)

Assume you lose each roll (for the sake of 'bad luck'):
Bet 1: $200 Total down: $200
Bet 2: $400 Total down: $600
Bet 3: $800 Total down: $1400
Bet 4: $1600 Total down: $3000
Bet 5: $3200 Total down: $6200
Bet 6: $6400 Total down: $13000
Bet 7: $12800 Total down: $25800

You can only spin the wheel 6 times until you don't have enough money for the next bet to bring you back up to even.

6 rolls ... could it really land on one color that many times in a row? Well ... why not?

Edit: millions --> unlimited

[/ QUOTE ]

I was playing poker somewhere in Vegas the other night. Guys bitching and moaning about the wheel. 13 blacks in a row. The wheel [censored] him!

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's talking about the Martingle system. (At least I'm pretty sure.)

This is a fine system, if you have millions.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It is not a fine system if you have millions. There is no betting system that can turn a negative expectation bet into a positive expectation bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I changed my post to say unlimited funds with unlimited wagering ablility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever. Okay. The system is great for those people who have an infinite amount of money and also are playing roulette at some place that will book billion dollar bets. Much better than just admitting that you were wrong. Woohoo. There is no betting system by which you can turn a negative expectation bet into a positive expectation bet. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

odds of losing 13 bets in a row: 1 in 2048. you'd need a 1.6mil roll to be able to absorb a 1 in 2k event. that's risking 1.6m to win 200$x2000 plays, or400k. you're taking like 4 to 1 the worst of it with this sysytem, and that doesn't count the green 0 and 00.

excuse my drunk math, please.

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

would i be correct in saying that if you bet $1 every time, and made a profit of $2048 after an extended period of time, that the law of averages would dictate that you would in turn lose $2048 consecutively by using the martingale system, cancelling out all profits and totally discreditting the martingale system?

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

I cant believe this thread now has 18 posts.

Re: You CANNOT beat roulette, buuut....
 

[ QUOTE ]
...you can eliminate the house advantage, that is, make it an even money game, at least according to mike caro and his computers: linky



it sounds like BS, but i believe it's been tested and proven a few times. NO MORE HA? . [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Could u please explain this to me lik e I am a 3 year old?

esp thiss part.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, you need to be very disciplined in excluding the number 30 and the group of consecutive numbers that begins with 11 and continues clockwise through and including 14.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

lmao
5 ppl voted yes.
So sad is the state of 2+2.

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

Just to make it clear if anyone still thinks that Martingale would be a winning system under certain circumstances (such as a very big bankroll, or an infinite bankroll):

If, and only if, you assume a) an infinite bankroll b) possibilities to bet an infinite sum but NOT c) the possibility of an infinite losing streak, the Martingale is a safe system.

In the real world a) and b) are practically impossible conditions. Also, I don't think you ever could assume that an infinite losing streak is impossible, but someone better than me at maths might convince me otherwise, I don't know.

However, even if you had an infinite bankroll, could bet any amount you like and never hit an infinite losing streak, this would not be a winning system. Why? Because infinity + 1 = infinity. If you have an infinite bankroll, you can not add to your bankroll. It is already infinite.

So... back to the real world. If you want a probable small win, and can accept a small possibility of a huge loss, then you can play the Martingale for a while. But it will still be a -EV proposition, and if you do it often enough, you'll end up losing your bankroll often enough more often than your many small winnings would compensate for. Nuff said.

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

[ QUOTE ]
would i be correct in saying that if you bet $1 every time, and made a profit of $2048 after an extended period of time, that the law of averages would dictate that you would in turn lose $2048 consecutively by using the martingale system, cancelling out all profits and totally discreditting the martingale system?

[/ QUOTE ]

i think everybody ignored my post because 1), you dont know the answer and 2), you thought i actually believed the martingale system works.

i believe that it doesnt work simply because of all the talk on these boards in the past that it doesnt. i believe you guys. now i want to know why it doesnt work, and how to explain that it doesnt work to a person who is not familiar with gambling.

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

why it doesn't work: (in this example, you do the martingale betting black at roulette)

1. sooner or later, red WILL turn up ten times in a row and you will lose all your money. that DOES actually happen and there is nothing strange about that.

2. the odds at casino games like roulette and craps are set up against you. on each bet you make, you will lose on average. if you bet on red a millions times, you will lose more than half a million of those times. as long as the odds remain the same, no betting system can change that.

if you do the martingale for just a short while, you are more likely to win than lose. however, if you do it over again a million times, your many small wins will not cover up for your unfrequent, but big, losses.

3. size of the bankroll does not matter, any finite bankroll could be lost, because red could theoretically come up any number of finite times in a rew.

4. even if you have an infinite bankroll, it still does not work (for reasons stated in my previous post). and by the way, if you have an infinite bankroll, why bother to try to make more money?

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

...and if they still don't believe you, tell them that the casinos would be out of business by now if this system worked. and give them the url to www.wizardofodds.com

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
would i be correct in saying that if you bet $1 every time, and made a profit of $2048 after an extended period of time, that the law of averages would dictate that you would in turn lose $2048 consecutively by using the martingale system, cancelling out all profits and totally discreditting the martingale system?

[/ QUOTE ]

i think everybody ignored my post because 1), you dont know the answer and 2), you thought i actually believed the martingale system works.

i believe that it doesnt work simply because of all the talk on these boards in the past that it doesnt. i believe you guys. now i want to know why it doesnt work, and how to explain that it doesnt work to a person who is not familiar with gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think part of the reason you didn't get any replies is that you used the dubious term "law of averages". I know you don't mean it this way, but lots of fallacious thinkers use it to justify the thinking that previous random events have an impact on future indepedant events (i.e. "its hit black 10 times in a row, by the law of averages this next spin is more likely to be red!").

Here's my take on the easiest way to explain why martingale doesn't work:

Suppose we play a simple game - you bet 1 unit and I shuffle and turn over a card. If the card is 9-A, you win a bet, if it's 2-8 you lose your bet. Clearly your expectation is -1/13 bet per play (over 13 tries, you lose 8 times and win 7 times).

Now we modify the game. Now, you have to bet 13 units to play. If the card is anything but a deuce, you win 1 unit. If its a deuce, you lose your whole bet (all 13 units). Sounds good right? Now, for each time you play you have a 12/13 chance of winning 1 unit.

It's clear, though, that you haven't changed your expectation at all. Over 13 tries, you win 1 unit 12 times, and lose 13 units once. This is exactly what you are doing by playing a martingale system - you are trading off a greater chance of a small win for smaller chance or a large loss. The more times you can afford to double up (and the not hit the table limit), the more likely you are to make a small win, but the amount that you stand to lose goes up proportionally and you keep your expectation the same.

Also note that as your bankroll goes to infinity your chance of winning a small amount approaches 1, your chance of losing approaches 0, and the amount that you can lose approaches infinity. Your infinitesimal chance of losing is cancelled out by your infinite loss, and the whole mess is still going to have the exact same EV as you started with.

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

Why the martingale doesn't work:

Using the martingale, double your bet on the next toss.
Flip a coin, heads you win, tails you lose. Here are the possible outcomes:

H - win $1
T - lose $1
net results - $0

flip it twice. Here are the possible outcomes:
HH - win $2
HT - win $0
TH - win $1
TT - lose $3
net results - $0 (notice you have two winning sessions, but your one losing session wipes out your wins)

flip it three times. Here are the possible outcomes:
HHH - win $3
HHT - win $1
HTH - win $2
THH - win $2
TTH - win $1
THT - win $0
HTT - lose $2
TTT - lose $7
net result - $0 (notice you have 5 winning sessions, but two losing sessions wipe out your wins)

Continue flipping and using a martingale as many times as you want. You will find that eventually you hit the long losing streak that wipes out all your previous wins.

Now a coin flip is a strict 50/50 proposition, with no house edge. That is why the ending result comes out to $0. If you are playing a game with an unfair payout (ie. the house edge) then your results will come out to losing your AVG BET X HOUSE EDGE.

So just take the total amount you wager, divide by the number of bets you make, this gives you your average bet, multiple by the HOUSE EDGE for the game - that is how much a martingale will lose you in the long run. In the short run, you will have many winning sessions, until you eventually hit the wall on the long losing streak, and wipe out your profits.

Re: You CANNOT beat roulette, buuut....
 

it's a joke. if you take a look at a wheel, you'll see that his system eliminates ALL numbers. (thus, no HA!) [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

I voted 'good idea' cause I want you to learn the hard way.


outs

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

Question for all you guys who say it doesn't work:

When you were younger, did you go broke trying it?

(I did. Now I'm one of you, telling all the youngsters, "It doesn't work.")

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

Is there any way we can get the screen names of the people who think a martingale will work? I would like to play poker with them.

One other thing about the martigale system, Which side has all the risk? You are gambling against money you have ALREADY given the casino. The Casino is risking about 1 dollar....

Cheers
Wino67

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

[ QUOTE ]
Question for all you guys who say it doesn't work:

When you were younger, did you go broke trying it?

[/ QUOTE ]
I knew it didn't work. I tried it at an online casino anyway as cover play for bonus whoring. On about the 10th trial, I hit a bad streak and lost more than the table limit.

Those who think streaks don't happen are not observant. Randomness involves a lot of long streaks of wins and losses.

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

[ QUOTE ]
Question for all you guys who say it doesn't work:

When you were younger, did you go broke trying it?

(I did. Now I'm one of you, telling all the youngsters, "It doesn't work.")

[/ QUOTE ]

Im 16 I realized the system didnt work when I was 13. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Martingale +EV
 

I bring it up in conversation at the poker table so the sharks think I am a fish.

Stu

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

Me and some of my friends did some serious math trying to find a system to win in roulette. Anyway, we called this system red-black double (I'm not sure if it's the actual name, or if it has one).

The biggest flaw with most systems, which I didn't see anyone mention, is the fact that casinos impose limits on their tables. Their minimum limit is because they are greedy, and want people to bet at least a certain amount. Their maximum limit is there so that people can't walk in with giant bankrolls, and play some sort of increasing bet system.

In short: The casinos ALWAYS win...NO MATTER WHAT!

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

[ QUOTE ]
Their maximum limit is there so that people can't walk in with giant bankrolls, and play some sort of increasing bet system.

[/ QUOTE ]
That seems to be a common misconception. That the martingale fails does not depend on the table limit. It gives you no advantage over the casino. Betting systems only allow you to push your losses over the horizon so you can ignore them for a while.

You can't add negative numbers to make a positive number, even if there is no limit on the size of the negative numbers.

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

Maximum limits are not imposed to thwart the Martingale. A successful Martingale series only nets one unit. The rest of the payout of the winning bet simply gets back the money lost. Maximum limits are imposed to limit the casinos variance, so that a whale on a lucky streak (or winning a single humongous bet) doesn't kill their profit, and to protect the casinos reserve fund. A Martingale doesn't work regardless of the size of the bankroll or the betting limit. The risk vs. reward for a Martingale is ridiculous. If you start with a $1 bet, sooner or later you will find yourself risking several thousand dollars to make a net profit of $1.

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

When i was younger i too believed I had invented a system that would beat the house....later I found that it already had a name and people had been getting busted with it for years....however in my process of 'developing' it I had several very profitable sessions....then...payback. The losing sessions are crushing....having several thousand taken down by the house on the 10th red in a row to try to win back my money + $10 isn't fun. Whats even worse is, as a spectator now, you watch the next number come up black.

Bottom line is it doesn't work in the long run.....but hey...we all play table games in the casino and know the odds are stacked against us....so if you feel lucky go for it...just don't be fooled into thinking you've beat the system.

Beat The Wheel
 

Roulette, straight up:

If your bankroll is bigger than the house's and they allow you to play with a sufficiently high limit at the table, you can beat the crap out of them, through a simple progression.

If it's not, head for the bar instead.

If they don't, can you loan me a grand ?

Re: Beat The Wheel
 

[ QUOTE ]

If your bankroll is bigger than the house's and they allow you to play with a sufficiently high limit at the table, you can beat the crap out of them, through a simple progression.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, you can't. With no table limits, and a bankroll larger than the house's, you still lose.

Why do so many people think there is a way to arrange negative numbers to add up to a positive number?