Roulette Ask Me Anything About Betting the EC's (Even Chances)

You should write a fiction book, you are a great story teller.

 

If that's a true statement, why do you constantly comment on it?

 

wow, you constantly amaze me, making statements you know absolutely nothing about. I have tested my strategy a number of times on live spin casinos, same results. Just takes to long.

 

Yet another possible calculation of the expected loss is to consider the loss EV on each phase.

For the 32 games we have an expected loss EV of 0.222 × -127u = -28.19u whilst the expected gain on those losses is 0.222 × 32u = 7.1u.

This makes the EV for the first 32 game phase 7.1u -28.19u = -21.08u and the remaining 56 games in the series being a full 127u loss so the EV is -127u × 0.278 = -35.3u. Noting that 0.222 + 0.278 = 50% and is the total probability of losing a martingale in an 88 game series.

The overall EV for a 50% series loss is therefore the sum of the two phases which is -21.08u + -35.3u = -56.4u

We double it to normalise back to 100% and get an average series loss amount of 112.7u which is conspicuously close to the expected gains on a win of 113 accounting for some rounding errors.

Now we compute the expected values:

• WW is 0.5×0.5 = 0.25. EV is 0.25×113u×2 = +56.5u
• WL is 0.5×0.5 = 0.25. EV is 0.25x113u- 0.5×113u = 0
• L is 0.5. EV is 0.5×113u = -56.5u

Add it all up and we get a zero sum which I am suggesting is the correct answer and the correct way to calculate.

So at this point, you can see that calculating conditional probabilities is not always easy to get right and testing via simulation would be a good idea to confirm.

 

So we know that in the long run without any edge a fixed level martingale is a zero sum game and flat betting is also zero sum ignoring the house edge.

If you believe you have an edge with your flat betting bet selection then that edge is magnified with a positive progression, and even with a martingale and even more with a compounding martingale (which is both a positive and negative progression). If you get better than a 50% strike rate a progression provides increased returns.

If you claim to have a strike rate of 60% then a 7 level plain old marty means you win 99.836% of the time. Your expected gain over 100 games is 99.8 units and your expected loss is 127u × 0.0016 = 0.2 units. Which is just a fraction of a unit for every 99 you win.

Long term you can't lose with a sensible progression when you actually have an edge. If you claim to consistently win flat betting with a better than 50% strike rate then you're actually saying you have an edge.

As I've shown a seven level marty can easily put you in clover if you have an edge.

My personal view is that you're better off with a positive progression than a fixed martingale but the most appropriate progression will depend on the nature of your WL regristry and longest loss streaks vs choppy results. If you have choppy results a simple positive progression will not work, but a martingale or a progression ladder with a fixed negative progression at each level like tier et tout will work well.

Staying flat is an irrational fear based decision if you actually have a real edge. If it's only a "sometimes edge" it's actually variance (luck) and that's where the fear comes from.

 

Beware of traps with fake questions.

 

Wow, TwoUp, thanks for taking so much time creating this post, it is the most comprehensive regarding the Martingale I have ever seen posted. You have stated everything I have come to to realize but not quite understanding why. There is a lot said there, I will have to read it over a couple more times.

Here is where I am at: Flat betting my strategy proved to do very well but just not quite well enough. That is why when I switched to a Martingale progression things started looking very promising. The one thing I learned when using the Martingale is you cannot win just a unit or two per session and walk a way. My Martingale strategy came down to this and I would like for you to analyze this if you would: 1. The strategy for bet placement had to be such that it does fairly well when flat betting. 2. The win goal per session is determined by the maximum unit loss that can happen by the number of Martingale steps used. For instance: Using a 7 step Marty you can have a 128 (127) unit loss. Just guessing at first, I figured I should set my goal to win back at least 1/2 of that loss per session or 64 units. This way I only have to win two sessions to recoup a complete 7 step Marty failure. But like you said, many times you have won a little or maybe even a lot of units before that happens. 3. Bankroll was detrained by allowing me for 3 Marty failures. 3 X 128 = A 384 unit bankroll. So far, I have hit my goal of winning 64 units per session 6 times or more to every 1 loss.

Recently I adjusted my strategy to a 6 step Marty which amounts to a 64 unit loss. I did this because I noticed how rarely I needed 7 steps to win. My win goal per session remains at 64 units. Now I only need to win one session to recoup a complete 6 step loss with no units in the bag. So far so good. I have played 254 sessions and I am up by 8,029 units. There are those on this site that call me a liar for stating that. But that's okay, they just don't know what I know.

I have no visions grandeur here, this will probably crash and burn in the near future. But testing it has been fun; especially witnessing the session W/L ratio. I am amazed, but all good things eventually come to an end. I think.

 

Pay attention, which you have an extreme problem doing. He said Often attributed to Einstein, which means it could possibly not be his quote.

 

I forgot to ask you if you believe my results or not?

 

Yes I'll tell you exactly what your strategy is: Guess work, short term luck.[/QUOTE]

You just described the strategy of every single person who enters the casino. I knew you had no idea about what I do, you don't have the vaguest hint have an idea about what my betting strategy is. Of course you use guessing and luck and you failed miserably just like everybody who uses guessing and luck fails miserably. Just like your ridiculous Martingale that hasn't made it off your kitchen table yet is it going to fail miserably. You want to start your own forum so you can somehow get people who have systems that work to post them there so you can steal them. Good luck with that.

 

If you ever get to playing this in a real casino for real money we will never hear about it again because it's going to fail big time because a Martingale always fails big time. I will repeat if you had a bet selection good enough to withstand a five or seven step Martingale you would not need the Martingale. My prediction is that you never play this for real money because it's a harebrained idea that has no legs and you know that.

 

You know nothing at all. All talk no show. Yours is a guess work strategy, nothing but luck. As you say just like everybody else's. I do have a bet selection that I can win with flat betting. But I would rather Martingale it and win 64 units per session than a measly 1 unit win per session. You are right, the Martingale does fail big time with my strategy, but my win/loss ratio is 6 to 1. More than enough to recover the Marty failure one in six times. Read TwoUp's posts and see if you can possibly understand his take. I doubt it. It contains real math, not guess work.

 

In other words you are just another run-of-the-mill compulsive gambler who cannot live without the thrill of pending doom hanging over your head all the time. Why is this not a big surprise. The only people who embrace the Martingale are compulsive gamblers, people who love the thrill of winning so much they're willing to risk everything to get that thrill. You are literally your own worst enemy. Self-destruction uses out of your pores. The fact that you would mock making one unit per session speaks volumes as to who you are.

 

Unit size is a personal choice . On some days I might consider base units on others go for HPB.


The choice mine to make .

 

But then again I would never specify what type I purchased .

 

One unit win game sessions. Lol, ha, ha, ha. Lol, ha, ha. ha. Who can't do that? Like I said, you should read TwoUp's post regarding the Martingale progression. It can have its advantages under the proper criteria, and that it does.

 

Playing 64 games per series is a 60.53% chance of success, to win 64u which represents a 39.47% chance of failure or 2.54 series wins for every time you lose the series due a martingale failure.

As I've said the loss is most often not 128u but far less due to some accumulated wins. In this case we expect you will have netted on average 64 × 0.3947 = 25.26 units on a losing series. That brings the average expected loss on a series where you do bust the martingale to 102.74 units.

The variance on 254 games any series is (n×p×q) which is (0.6053×0.3947) = 60.68

The standard deviation is √(variance) which is √(60.68) = 7.78

The standard error is 2× standard deviation which is ± 15.6.

The mean for winning 254 series is n×p which is 153 series wins.

1 sigma confidence (68.27%) is 153 ± 15.6
2 sigma confidence (95.45%) is 153 ± 31.2
3 sigma confidence (99.75%) is 153 ± 46.8

You lose 254-153 = 97 series losses ± 46 with 99.75% confidence, so the full range is from as low as 51 to as high as 143 losing series.

So best case we expect just 51 losses in 254 games, leaving 203 wins. The expected return is:

203×64u−51×103u = 7,739u profit.​

And worst case we expect 143 losses in 254 games, leaving just 111 wins. The expected return is:

111×64−143×103 = -7,625u loss
​

The mean result within 1 sigma confidence is 153±15.6 which is 137 - 169 series wins. So a range of -3,283u to 2,061u.

Your result is within a plausible range with 99.75% confidence albiet on the fortunate side of the range. It could very well be the opposite as the math shows.

No need to believe what the cold hard math predicts.

 

You can't, that's who. You cannot do it consistently session after session without going into the hole because you don't have a winning bet selection. If you did you would never be messing with the ridiculous Marty.

 

Thanks for your response. Truly appreciate it. I think it shows I may not be insane after all.

 

Quite the opposite, as I posted previously if you have an edge with your bet selection then any progression positive or negative magnifies the advantage.

Even just a 52% strike rate means the probability of losing a seven step Marty is 0.5% (half of one percent). So you win 1u in 99.5% of your games so that's 99.5u in 100 games with the marty and lose at most 127u×0.5 =64u with a net return of +36u.

Remember that the martingale even when it loses will have accumulated some wins which I have not included so the 36u average return is a worst case.

Not using the marty with a 52% strike rate will win 52 units and lose 48 with a paultry 2u return.

Hate to be blunt but a 36u return is a truck load more than 2u.

Your fear or belief is irrational if you actually have an edge.

I'm not saying that you should use a martingale (I much prefer positive progressions) but any reasonable progression will be better than flat betting if you actually have an edge.

Flat betting is great when validating your bet selection but that's just the first step. Profit comes from exploiting the situations where your bet selection wins and a progression will magnify the profit.

You can always use your W/L registry regardless of flat betting or not to provide the data for the effectiveness of your bet selection. And bet using a progression to exploit your edge.