|
|
#1
02-28-2004, 07:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Why doesn\'t the old roulette trick work?
I'm sure many has heard of the old roulette strategy of betting, say $1 on red. If you lose, you double your bet and bet again. If you lose again, you double again and bet $4. You just keep doubling until you hit and then you have netted a $1 gain.
I can see that the 0 and 00 toss off the 50/50 chance but no matter how I look at it I can't see why this would not be a legit strategy as long as you have the bankroll to support the huge amount of doubling that you eventually will run into. Any comments? 
|
|
#3
02-28-2004, 11:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why doesn\'t the old roulette trick work?
Sure its somewhat unlikely for awhile that you will hit a limit that is too high...but in the long run you will. $1, 2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512....eventually it will hit millions and you still haven't won.
|
|
#4
02-29-2004, 02:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why doesn\'t the old roulette trick work?
Don't forget that your EV on each spin is independant of your EV on any other spin. There is no memory in roulette.
Let's forget 0 and 00 to make the math easier. If your bankroll is 1 bet, you will win 1 50% of the time and lose 1 50% of the time. If your bankroll is 3 bets, you will win 1 50% of the time (first spin), win 1 25% of the time (from betting 2 on your second bet), and lose 3 25% of the time. If your bankroll is 7 bets, you will win 1 50% of the time (first spin), win 1 25% of the time (from betting 2 on your second bet), win 1 12.5% of the time (from betting 4 on your third spin), and lose 7 12.5% of the time. In each scenario, your EV is 0. Sure, you will win far more often than you lose, but when you lose, it's a doozy. This only considers bankrolls of up to 7 bets, but feel free to continue the math, and you will see that in each case, your EV is always 0.
|
|
#5
02-29-2004, 04:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why doesn\'t the old roulette trick work?
Add in that #1 your EV is negative, and #2 bad streaks DO happen. Check the archives, one or two people did this, lost, and complained some time ago.
See also: martingale system
|
|
#7
02-29-2004, 11:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why doesn\'t the old roulette trick work?
[ QUOTE ]
It WOULD work if there were no house limit and you had an unlimited bankroll. In other words, it won't work! [/ QUOTE ] no it wouldn't b/c theoretically you would never come out ahead b/c of the zero/double zero.
|
|
#8
02-29-2004, 11:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why doesn\'t the old roulette trick work?
Yes it would, it doesn't matter if it's a 50/50 proposition, you will always profit with the martingale system given an unlimited bankroll and no limits. You will just win at a rate relative to the odds of winning. If it's a 25% chance of simply winning 1:1, you will win at that rate.
|
|
#9
02-29-2004, 11:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why doesn\'t the old roulette trick work?
[ QUOTE ]
Yes it would, it doesn't matter if it's a 50/50 proposition, you will always profit with the martingale system given an unlimited bankroll and no limits. You will just win at a rate relative to the odds of winning. If it's a 25% chance of simply winning 1:1, you will win at that rate. [/ QUOTE ] Yep, you're right, I can't recall the specifics of martingale, but isn't your EV exactly zero, unless you stop after winning two spins in a row?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
