Roulette Beating Random by Betting Random

I know I haven't simulated your bet selection, but theoretically it makes no difference. Even if your bet selection did increase the number of winning sessions it wouldn't get to anywhere near 6:1. And even if you were incredibly lucky you shouldn't get that ratio over 300 sessions.

 

That is baffling to me. I wonder what will be the conclusion of Mac's RX simulation.

 

It does. It makes the session unreasonably longer without increasing the odds in any way.
It is a horrible idea.

 

Theoretically it obviously does make a difference if you do not simulate the exact strategy and bet selection. Count me incredibly lucky, or it's a fairly good strategy, or both.

 

there you go:
- 963 live spins
- lost 7 step Martingale 3 times
- end up in profit (84u)

 

if you wonder about 8 step Martingale:
- same spins
- lost 1 time
- end up in profit (210u)

 

Thanks. That is interesting for sure. I think longer runs maybe warranted.
Any chance you can test it with a 5 step marti with a lower win goal of 15 units?

 

Once you figure out your most random EC trigger then fine tune your money management to the system's sweet spot you will find you then need to go and listen to what Gizmotron has been saying.

Put that all together and you stand a good shot at success.

 

According to my chart reading skill the 5 step marti only busts 7 times in this sample of 1000 spins.
That is a total drawdown of 224 units even outperforming the 8 step martingale single loss of 256 units.
End profit is 242 units.

 

Upon further analyzing the 4 step martingale busted 14 times (-224 units), while a 3 step marti 31 times (-248 units).

In this short run the performance of the 4 step is identical to the 5 step variant, even the 3 step variant is only slightly worse.
The sweet spot seems to be the 4 step martingale with a win goal as low as 8 units, but if you target a higher win goal like 16 units. You only need 1 successful session for every bust to break even.

 

I think I made a mistake in reading the charts, but still not sure about.
It could be that the 6 step variant busted 7 times and the 5 step variant 14 times, while the 4 step variant 31 times.

 

@ Mac,

So how many winning sessions to losing sessions? Just a chart doesn't tell us much... And you need to test over a larger sample.

Also David said that after 3 consecutive losses you switch from betting Red => Odd and Black => Even to the reverse. Did you include that rule in your code?

 

Why don't you put all that together and let us know what you come up with.

 

No. In theory - according to the math - no bet selection makes a difference in the random game of roulette. But I'll simulate the exact strategy anyway and let you know the results.

 

Hey Jerome, here's a mathematical challenge for you. On average, how often does either Red or Black appear 8 times in a row in 1,000 spins? How often does a pre-selected random pattern of 7 Black and Reds appear after just 7 spins, then after those 7 spins the random pattern is completely changed to a different pattern for the next 7 spins. This process is carried out for 1,000 spins. So, 1,000 spins divided by 7 spins = 142.8 different patterns are applied to 1,000 spins. Mathematically, how often does one of those 142.8 pre-selected different random patterns appear after every 7 spins throughout 1,000 spins?

 

red/ black you gotta love it.beat the outsideand the inside is easier.

 

25000 games 4 losses of 7 is in my imo great results

 

Just had my 5 th o well

 

What strategy were you using to get that result?

 

Just bettin random repeat strategy