Roulette Beating Random by Betting Random

Of course it won't. The odds of each invidual bets remain the same.
However that way he plays almost the same 7 or 8 step progression, yet both the win goal and the invidual risk are lower.
I bet his results would identical, but with far less stress.

 

Thanks for the positive comments, I always appreciate them.
You are correct and I have always known this, same odds either way. However, from the testing I have done, 7 of a kind happen more frequently in a lengthy series of play than a particular random sequence pattern that constantly changes. I do not know why that is so, maybe it is because of the constant changing of the pattern sequence you are betting being produced by random selection. If you continue to bet the same selection over and over, every hand brings you closer to 7 of a kind being produced in the opposite of the selection you are betting. A random sequence is not a constant, therefore, the odds come down to, what are the chances that a different random pattern on every next bet will be produced in complete opposite 7 times in a row at the exact moment in time you are betting it? But again, I don't know for sure. But what I do know for sure is that a random selection consistently produces better results than betting the same selection every time.

 

I wish I could program so, I could power test those claim for the benefit of other members to learn something. Like some sort of Wiki collection of tested ideas.

 

I'm late to this party but anyway, that's not random, not even close.

You have black, red, odd, even, high, low. They are positioned 1 through 6.

Roll a dice to decide who goes first. let's say you roll a 3 so odd goes first. The sequence for the next spin is 3,4,5,6,1,2
Roll the dice again, you roll a 6 so your bet is red, the 6th position (2).

Make your bet with whatever highfalutin staking takes your fancy.

Next spin;
Roll a dice to decide who goes first. let's say you roll a 1 so black goes first. The sequence for the next spin is 1,2,3,4,5,6
Roll the dice again, you roll a 2 so your bet is red, the 2nd position (2).

Make your bet with whatever highfalutin staking takes your fancy.

Next spin;
Roll a dice to decide who goes first. let's say you roll a 4 so even goes first. The sequence for the next spin is 4,5,6,1,2,3
Roll the dice again, you roll a 2 so your bet is high, the 2nd position (5).

Make your bet with whatever highfalutin staking takes your fancy.


Now you're getting closer to random.

 

It probably won't help though.

Also, d'Alembert or variant of would be more suitable, IMO.

 

I tried your suggestion of waiting for a trigger of 3 lost virtual bets before actually betting. Some times I would have to wait out 10 hands or more for that trigger to happen. In the mean time, I would have been winning quite a few units. Does a casino allow a Baccarat player to wait out 10 hands or more before betting? However, the idea of targeting only 15 units per session with a 5 step Martingale is actually very good; especially because it is now an 8 step Martingale. Better odds yet. My money management requires a 50 unit win per session to recoup a 7 step bust by only having to win a little over two and a half future sessions. A complete 7 step bust is a loss of 128 units divided by 50 units = 2.56 future winning sessions to recoup. Your suggestion accomplishes the same thing. A complete 5 step Martingale bust is a loss of 32 units divided by 15 units = 2.13 future winning sessions to recoup. That's actually better. It is much easier to win 15 units per session than 50 units. A lot less time actually betting and that also helps with the odds. Thanks, I will give it a serious try. Just out of curiosity, are you making these suggestions from actually testing the strategy, or are you just making suggestions?

 

I assure you that if you power test this you will still run into that sequence of death that kills the progression. You will run into it even if you wait 8 losses in a row. You will run into it if use virtual bets too. There is a sequence that kills you when you start back up. It's called losing in a sequence of first tries. You can't do anything to protect from this other than not betting. People with a lot of playing experience here can tell you all about losing streaks. A person can go on a bad stretch for months. It could be just a huge gap of slow grind downward without huge losses are minimal wins. A person can get fixed on a type of play and it then becomes a rut. My experience with this is to change everything and force my way out of the rut. I would expect that lingering grind downward to start any time that you play. You can get caught up in it for a while and not even know that you are in it. You must always be looking for the big picture. You can't force your way into a change. Even though I just suggested that you can try. Progressions are dangerous because you make many spins in a row that are aimed at losing streaks. At least try to aim your bets at winning streaks.

 

I don't see how it makes any difference at all because although it's easier to win 15 units, your unit size has to be at least 3 times as large in order to get the same benefit as when you were playing for a target of 50 units.

 

It makes a difference in European Roulette with La partage rules (1.35% house edge), as there is usually a higher minimal bet table limit on ECs, so your 7th progression is significant and hard to stomach. I would not want to deal with all that cortisole and adrenalin surge.

If your minimal bet is €25, then a win goal of 15 units would total at €300.
Even then betting €800 would be uncomfortable for most, but technically you risk less most of the time, because of previous wins adds up.

 

Actually a lot said both pro and con. The only real thing I have to go by are consistent results.

 

If we rely on coincidences to look for meaning and areas to explore in life, then here is an interesting coincidence.
Just as your new post appeared in this topic, I got hit by a notification from my smartphone that the battery is at 15%.

 

That was not a coincidence, it was based on the fact you did not pay attention to your battery level and allowed it to drop that low before being warned.

 

I will code this idea into RX and let you know later.
So red->odd and black->even
Martingale 7 steps with 50u WinGoal

 

Jerome, answer me this based on mathematical probabilities: A 7 step Martingale offers 128 to 1 in favor. How many 50 unit win sessions am I expected to lose for every 6 sessions played? As of date, I win an average of 6 sessions to 1 loss. The loss I incur of let's say a complete bust of losing 128 units, does that satisfy the house edge and mathematical probabilities of expected loss?

 

Additionally, continue to bet the winning result until a loss, then go back to above bet selection.

 

I wanted to reiterate this as I think these are valid questions.
Though probably you avoided answering them, because of the most likely logical conclusion is that your results are caused by lucky variance, which you were uncomfortable to accept.

 

Your approach above is probably just as good as any. The truer the random selection, the better.

 

If your hit rate is good and you hit with in the first 3 bets you have a winner

 

If this was addressed to me, I absolutely accept lucky variance, as long as the lucky variance continues to outweigh the unlucky variance I am good to go. And so far it has 6 to 1.

 

That's not easy to calculate because of the win goal and variable length of sessions, but I would have guessed the win to lose ratio should be FAR lower according to expectation. So I wrote a simulation to find out. Even if you're not a coder you should be able to get the gist of the logic and I've included comments on the right of the code -



I simulated 10,000 sessions betting on low (single zero roulette).

Here are the typical results of a run :

Number of busts : 3754
Number of +50 sessions : 6246
Ratio of successful sessions to busts = 1.664

That's a far cry from your 6:1 winning ratio. Any suggestions as to why the huge discrepancy?