Roulette Anybody think such bad streak can be won?

I have simulated a few more random sessions and got a session where it goes as extreme as -250,000 and max bet over 65,000. lol. Fool's Gold.

It is worth noting that the session is nothing extraordinary or rare in itself. With a few clicks of F9 anyone can see sessions with bets going extreme high and impractical.

 

I saw a topic in roulette30.com which was written two months back:
http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=669.0

The author Blue Angel says: The worst 200 spins for RED in roulette history have been proven not enough in front of the "Fallacious Holy Grail"!

In that topic he chose to beat the worst doing Red, i.e. 69/200 from a German casino record. although he did play it further to win this which is perfectly fine, he passed through this so called, "toughest" phase with his innovative use of Martingale in the spans of 37 spins.
Now, when I gave him a session which is betting on Red again, he says, why should he bet Red, it is like "party without music" or "sword without hands" and bla bla. It is interesting to note that the same person who believes that his method can beat the worst recorded, shying away from sessions that do not have such stretches. I put two sessions, called "horror" session and "superhorror" session where Red is not at the worst and his innovation is failing thousands and even hundreds of thousands of units, still.
I can see that most of the forums have become a garbage yard with such methods that are only blinding people to lose even faster in a false hopes without realizing the truth ever. I created the tracker to awaken people of such fallacies. Anyone can see a random session by going into the sheet called "random" and by pressing F9 in an empty cell. Anybody can witness losses of a few thousands or even a few hundred thousands with bets going even 100k units at times.

 

I cant see how there can be 23 straight losses in an even chance bets... haven't been using known-systems but I like to bet on all the even chances at the same session using the "the opposite is due now" logic. But even that never produced such a streak so my answer to your question is no it can't be won and you don't have to worry about it either because it's so rare that the chances of being bitten by a snake in Venus are higher.

 

Oh really? Your knowledge shows you are totally unaware of bigger streaks of losses and there is nothing like "due" in a game of chance. Each outcome being independent, there can be streaks of very long sizes. We call it variance and it doesn't let progression players win so easily, even if you have a million chips with you.

 

My knowledge on roulette strategies is, definitely, limited but I know that nothing is due in random games hence the tone in my earlier post, that is, if EVEN that doesn't produce those extreme streaks... I would be interested to know how you came up with those streaks(after how many simulations did that come up) and what are the chances of that coming up in real games?

The fact that none of the experienced strategists came up with a solution doesn't necessarily mean that their systems don't work, generally! In my opinion if a strategy works 75-80% of the time, we can say, in layman's terms, that it WORKS.

 

First use a table with fair odds (the 10% commission is equal to about -0,3% egde if you play long, and EC use to be long play). We bet flat on an EC and as long we win bet one unit. If we are back we use a reverse grand martingale. Which mean we pay a chip a spin until a run take us back to plus.
If we are say 10 units back, we need a run of 3 to catch up, if 57 back a run of 5 to get away. A step grand martingale needs a shorter run.
This is not a sure winner at all, we are not losing too fast and often make a win. I have been 300 points back and at the end got a good enough run.

 

Albalaha! Your worst and first post may be attacked using reverse D'alembert, revert to one unit if betting would overwhise be a negative number. Up 12 and down 12. Down on a loss 12 or if negative just 1.
bank 1000. Would probably end in plus.

 

Nope. Check that yourself.