Martingale system question?

Like someone else said, with a trillion dollars you'd find success using the martingale only if casinos didn't cap the max bet to $10,000 on most tables. It would be negative EV, but the chance of losing would be so low that it wouldn't matter.

Casinos cleverly set table limits to min 5 and max $10k. Look at what will happen to your bets if your unit bet is $5 and you use martingale and start getting unlucky

==> 5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 160, 320, 640, 1280, 2560, 5120, 10240.

You will usually not lose 12 in a row, but would you really feel comfortable betting $640 or $1280 to win $5? You will reach those stages the longer you play. There will also be a time where you get really unlucky and hit 12 streaks of red or black (with a few greens), and lose the sum of those sequences of bet amounts. You will look at your collection of $5 gains and see that its less than the sum of all those martingale bets you made.

Also, here's a fun fact for you. You can martingale your bets alternating on black or red. This is because getting 5 blacks in a row equals getting BRBRB. As long as you eventually hit your random sequence, you are still alive and win a unit.

I missed the part where you said: "almost complete winnings after one weekend". It really means nothing. I can go and reverse martingale with $100 and work my way up to $10,000 in a couple minutes. I'd have a winning weekend too. You got lucky, that's all there is to it!

>> "Looking for ideas to strengthen the system."

There are none.

>> "Instead of building off the money I have already made, i will keep using a base value. This seems to get rid of the catastrophic loss correct?"

Yes

>> "The flaw with this strategy is the fact that there can be a catastrophic loss."

No, the flaw is that it's -EV like any other strategy. You'll lose the $191 more often than you win any amount more than that. So you'll have enough losing weeks to lose money overall.

>> "it is very rare to get six blacks in a row"

On any given series of 6 spins, 1 in 47 chance. But in a session of dozens of spins, not so rare.

>> "When everyone was betting black, there was a point with almost all reds...could someone be screwing with us, or could the algorithm be causing this"

Could be, but unlikely. If suspicious, record more data to see if there's evidence.

>> "seeing as I'm playing now with almost complete winnings after one weekend, it cannot really hurt me economically."

It can't hurt you as long as you don't invest more money after losing your winnings (and make no mistake, you *will* lose those winnings unless you just pocket them).

Edit

------

>> "Anything can happen"

Short-term, yes. Long-term, no, only one thing can happen, which is that the percentages will become darn close to the theoretical ones (which for you means you'll lose since you have the negative edge).

>> "But I observed the roulette table for about 3 days"

Okay? Here's another way probability works: small sample sizes mean squat (yes, 3 days is a small sample size when keeping track of somewhat infrequent events like streaks of 7). Also, things can happen in clusters. So you might go a few days suffering fewer streaks than expected. Other weeks you'll go a few days with more streaks than expected. It'll all balance out to match the expected numbers, and the expected numbers are bad news for you.

>> "So what if i had one trillion dollars just for the sake of argument"

Good luck finding a casino with a max bet of 1 trillion. But if such a casino existed then yes, most likely the martingale would succeed for the duration of your life despite the -EV.

But a streak of 30 is much, much more unlikely than a streak of 7. A streak of 7 is commonplace. A 1 in 89 chance isn't exactly a miracle...

The bottom line is, the math says it will happen exactly often enough to make you lose >5 cents per every dollar wagered. So what else is there to debate? Do you think for some reason that the wheel is broken and nonrandom? If so then you don't need a system to beat it, you can just flat-bet and still win. Whereas if the wheel is sufficiently random, you'll lose exactly as much as the math says you will no matter what system you use.

Double up an initial winning wager, then streaking your way to owning the casino has multiple flaws, but far too many players also believe this system, the Martingale system, is foolproof when losing because you have to win eventually. The three problems with this money management system are: 1) you do not have an inexhaustible bankroll, 2) the casino owns the bank and sets the rules—like the table limit, and 3) your hourly wage if you win could be something like $0.01.

Allow me to show you the fatal flaw with this form of wagering. You bet $25 and lose, then $50 to recoup that loss. Then $100, $200, $400, $800, $1,600, $3,200, and finally $6,400. You have just invested an extra $12,700 just to get your $25 back.

As for those table limits, on a $25 game, a string of 10 loses in a row, and your next bet would butt up against a 10K table limit, but you have already been wiped out in less than three minutes, so we might as well focus on the positive. Some pit boss will probably let you squeeze a $3.99 steak and eggs’ breakfast out of him.

1

As the old proverb states; "a fool and his money are soon parted".

The Martingale system may work for you in the short-term but it has been proven countless time to be a losing system in the long run. Why do you think casinos allow this system to be used? Because they know that they will get their money back...

$191 is not a lot of money so if you really want to try your system, feel free. I even invite you to come back after playing a few weekends to give us a progress report. The only thing I would ask is that you quit after loosing your initial $191.00. Don't go pouring more money down the bottomless pit that is the Martingale system.

Casinos love punters who play the Martingale.

I like that you have put in a stop gap and that you are starting with a new bank ever day so you dont get wipped out.

However I suggest you put each pound / dollar on red coming up 6 times in a row. You need to be more patient but you have a greater chance of red coming up 6 times straight ( a number of times) in 191 attempts than you have of red not coming up 6 times in 191 attempts. Remember its 191 attempts of getting 6 reds in a go (not 191 spins) as every time a red comes up you put your winning down again until you get 6 in a row.

Practice with a coin heads/tails and you see for yourself.

***By the way the longest recorded streak of one colour in roulette in American casino history happened in 1943 when the color red won 32 consecutive times. In a row... The longest in Europe was in Monte Carlo for something like 140+ spins (although a lot of people say it was a PR stunt)

Im not a fan of casino games, I prefer sports betting but I feel by far the best way to make money playing Roulette is to play down the board on the correct number.

Pick a number lets say 36.

Then cover every other number 1-35

That costs you 35 pound for every spin

But every time your number (36) does not come up you win 1 pound / dollar

So on nearly every spin you will 1 pound.

Sooner or later 36 will come up and you will loss 35 pound

Then you double your stake to 2 pound for the next few goes until your bank is 'up' to above 35 profit & then go back to 1 pound.

You can play around with it but im sure you gte the gist.

There are several betting simulators on the internet that let you try out different "systems". Here's one:

http://www.bettingsimulation.com/

I tried the parameters you outlined in your question. $191 stake to start, $1 initial bet, stop playing after a $300 profit. Table limit $1000.

I went bust 6 times, made $300 three times, and once finished with a $47 profit after 1000 spins.

Anyway, give it a shot and you'll get a better appreciation of the odds.

Why not just put your $191 on black (or red, your choice) for one spin. If you win, you'll go home with $191 in profits. If you lose, you'll save yourself a lot of time.

Do that on each weekend and you'll end up the same amount behind as if you bet $1 on 191 spins each day.

Do you remember the associative property of addition? It says that 1+1+1 + 1 = 1 + (1+1) + 1 = (1+1)+ (1 + 1).

In other words, you can't change the results of arithmetic just by grouping the terms differently.

NO SYSTEM CAN BEAT ROULETTE, EVER!!!

Mathematically impossible. Not only must you understand that you CAN lose, you must understand that you WILL lose.

Go watch roulette tables and see how often the same color comes up 6-7 times in a row. It happens ALL THE TIME.

Your strategy sounds just as bad as any roulette strategy proposed by someone who doesn't understand they can't beat the game.

No one may recognize that you had been therefore certain that last competition can win you right back all the money but you are able to just accomplish that with the Zcodes System from here https://tr.im/LNlu9 .  

Zcodes System will provide you with a sports betting strategy system. With Zcodes System you can gain some extra cash as you can have most of the activities betting systems that work in just one Zcodes System.