Stupid question, Stupid game - Roullete.
 

What are the odds of losing my entire bankroll of 2,000USD before getting it to 2,500USD using this tatic:
Progressiving on a dozen.

For example: bet 1 on one of the 3 dozen, if miss, bet 2 on any of them again, then if miss, bet 4, then 8, 16, 32, 64, until you hit the chosen dozen, triple up the bet and start from betting 1 again.

Thanks in advance for any serious answer ^^

Re: Stupid question, Stupid game - Roullete.
 

The easy answer is that you bust out far more than 1/5 of the time when you try to increase from 2000 to 2500.

To give an exact answer would be a pain, but doable. You need to specify what you do when you can't cover the next bet of the progression, and what to do when the amount you would win would put you over 2500. (If you win the bet of $8, you net $9 for the sequence. If you started with $2498, would you really bet $8 after losing $1, $2, and $4 bets?)

Re: Stupid question, Stupid game - Roullete.
 

If you are playing to go 0 or 2500, I think a much stronger (read: less -EV) strategy is to bet 500 when you are at 2000, 1000 if you are at 1500, and the max if you are lower.

The fast explanation is that you put less action because you play it faster.

Re: Stupid question, Stupid game - Roullete.
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you are playing to go 0 or 2500, I think a much stronger (read: less -EV) strategy is to bet 500 when you are at 2000, 1000 if you are at 1500, and the max if you are lower.

[/ QUOTE ]
That wins 1379952/1757197 ~ 78.53% of the time, for an average loss of $36.71.

Re: Stupid question, Stupid game - Roullete.
 

Your EV is always whatever the casino odds are on the game - no betting structure can change it. Just keep in mind the fact that betting systems don't change anything but the variance, and you'll see why you should not bother with any table game in Vegas.

Re: Stupid question, Stupid game - Roullete.
 

no such thing as a stupid question, just stupid games.

Re: Stupid question, Stupid game - Roullete.
 

What alpha was saying was that by reducing the number of bets needed to reach the desired goal, he would likely reduce the total take of the house on the money. Could easily go broke in three spins though.

Roulette is stupid! [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]