Roulette Anybody think such bad streak can be won?

Every progression or money management talks of increasing or decreasing bets like martingale, labouchere, D'alembert, Parlay etc. If we are betting on an Even Chances bet like "Red" of roulette, and get Wins(here shown as W) and Losses(shown as an L) in the given manner, is there any methodology, we can still win within a sane table and bankroll limit? Have a look:

L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W


Note: There are 140 Losses and only 77 Wins in total.

first 100 spins have only 23 wins and 77 losses, that is a virtual limit
there are only 67 wins in first 200 spins that is the WORSE THAN worst recorded event ever in
any EC bet as per roulette30.com forum i.e. 69/200.

there is a single losing stretch of 23 losses that would need 16 millions chips to get over
with martingale.

with labouchere or fibonacci we will go down in millions in this case


Any taker?

 

Got no response while there are many roulette players here and many from different roulette forums.

 

Horrible Session #2:
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W

93 Losses, 65 Wins
Only 16 wins in the first 60 spins.

 

Wow!!!

A reverse engineering genius in bs.cc saw cluster of wins in the end and suggested a fixed step martingale type progression, in the batches of every 37 spins. So, he will play with 1 unit for first 37 spins and then 2,4,8,16,32 etc. lol.

It is easy to make a key of one lock after having ample opportunity to diagnose that but the question is that of a master key. However, he could still not win my first horror session. He is presupposing a good cluster of wins anytime soon, which is unrealistic.

In this lesser horrible session given below with 89 wins and 112 losses, his reverse engineering wisdom will look foolish enough.

Horror session #3:
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W

 

I think no one responded because there's no reason to reverse engineer something to work against spins that won't appear in that order again.
And reason #2 would be that not many people worry much about the even chances bets.
(at least to my knowledge - I'm sure there is a group of fans who love betting on them, I've never been one, it's almost impossible to make any system that works against them whereas playing the inside and other bets can be worked out.

 

I THINK NONE RESPONDED BECAUSE THIS DEALS WITH THE CORE TROUBLE OF THE GAME FOR WHICH THERE IS NO ANSWER. Variance.
If such spans can be beaten the games get beaten itself because bad stretches cause irreparable losses to the bankroll. Everybody can describe MMs to play bets doing average number of hits or a little below average only or in a way favorable or bearable to him. In the given stretches an average gambler can only think of losses or at max stop loss.
In bs.cc BTW carried these sessions after asking me and I saw good attempts to handle them although blue-angel's MM won't hold as he has an expectation of getting too many wins clustered later, in out of proportion if it started bad, which is unreal.

Innovation can not be expected from everyone.

 

I didn't read the post where this took place - but I can certainly show what would work, probably a 5 step "let it ride" approach". I haven't gone over the above results to see how it would do though.
(If I can assume for example that a W is Red and a L is Black)
I know that you mean them to be wins and losses.

 

Try whatever you feel can help. One can reverse engineer one of my sessions but not all 3 with the same approach. This could be a nice brain teaser. Every bet gets harsh moments even with the best safeguards possible. Unless you are well equipped to handle them with the least damage, you are supposed to be a loser always, at last.

 

HORROR SESSION 4: ( 112 LOSSES VS 72 WINS)

L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W

 

I do not think step martingale done after 37 or 50 or any amount of spins will help till we get lucky enough to get cluster of wins, out of proportion, that too where we start to increase our bets. Reverse engineer the game and not a particular session because other, not-so-similar lock will unlock your hollowness. Expecting corrective wins at the time when we need it most, is a fallacy. It may happen, it may not. If it doesn't, bets will go sky high like regular martingale, only difference will be, it will be 37x slower than martingale done in each step of failure.

Lesson: Martingale is the most foolish idea, in all the forms possible.

 

I'd say that using it as a positive progression is a great idea in some cases.
Lets say first spin I bet $10.00 on "RED". It wins.
I let it stay, the bet is now $20.00 and it wins.
I let it stay, the bet is now $40.00 and it wins.
I let it stay, the bet is now $80.00 and it wins.
(what the hell, go for 5 in a row because that happens often) and POW
I let it stay, the bet is now $160.00 and it wins.

So this is a reverse martingale basically - using it on wins instead of after a loss.

IF this process wins, I won $320.00 using only $10.00
IF it fails, I only lost $10.00 over the course of 5 spins (considerably less than the min table limits in most cases when you factor in how many spins can be played with the min. initial investment on the first spin. - I lost $2.00 per spin average when the table minimum was $10.00.

Does it change the math ? No. But it's amazingly better than doubling the bet after a loss and
never getting out of that hole.

 

Parlay betting or reverse martingale just appear good but isn't. In a long simulation of a 5 step normal martingale and a 5 step reverse, both will yield similar amount of losses. Same goes with flat bet too. My question is not about martingale but how to handle the worst variance with any MM.

 

Well,
Albalaha,
what you think,
about BA,
progression strategy,
of betting 37spins cycle,
with marthy. till profit?

BA think, that ec will smoothen, after around say. 10cycles of 37.

 

Haha,
He is over expecting from the game and looking for a reasonable streak of wins at a correct stage to help him win. Pretty unrealistic. I saw a few one saying that it is the betselection that matters. As if they can avoid bad session by any manner. lol. Since he could win none without "inserting" too many wins when he needs in a session(he might get them, he might not), he has nothing left to talk about.
His way to play can easily be coded into an excel sheet and a large simulation can be done very easily. It fails and it will fail, very badly, nevertheless.
By the way, you can refer to horror session 5 for 385 spins of play: (228 losses vs 157 wins)
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W

 

Hi Al,
If i would play this EC bet(but i don t like ECs) will be like this(you already know my stile) :

W virtual then bet 3 or 4 times, now win or
L4 stop and bet again after W virtual.
Progression rise one or two units after
win, down two or 3 units after L4, never
rise bets after L4. Reset to 1 unit when
bankrol in plus, or reset when recovered half or more from the DD.
Not sure if can win that sessions but
that is how i would play.

 

Dear Kattila,
You are one of the very few sensible persons on any gambling forum that I admire. Your style is 90% that of mine. We even chatted about them way back. ECs are indeed very admirable bet of roulette and hold good for other gambling too, so I started to focus here. Doing a stepladder progression may work or it may not and can not be hence taken as a panacea.
Try to do any of the sessions, you will know it better.
Goodluck.

 

Virtual bets are nonsense.

Regarding Variance: Whenever you see this word, replace it with the words "luck" or "bad luck". Claiming that variance is a bigger factor than the the house edge on your bankroll, over time, is ludicrous. And it's easily proven.

Variance crude example = Roughly 3 x (square root of Number of spins played x amount bet)

House Edge = 5.26% x (Number of spins played x amount bet)

When you input small spin samples (50,100,500 spins) into the crude formulas above, you will see that variance/"luck" has a bigger effect on your bankroll.
However, once you've been gambling off and on over several weeks, over several sessions, (5k, 10k, 20k spins) then you will see that the house edge consumes the largest portion of your bankroll.

 

I just explained that one can lose practically even without any House edge due to variance alone while without variance, even a house edge of 10% won't harm.
If you think you can win if there is no house edge, it is again a fallacy and wishful thinking. To be sure of winning, without application of mind and flat bet, you actually need to have an edge, instead of the house. Even no house edge won't help you win, for sure.

 

I saw lots of hue and cry over the progression suggested by Blue Angel which I like to call "Delayed Martingale". i have created a tracker for the same for everyone to see. Anybody is free to post/attach the tracker to all relevant forums as I do not write in other forums. It tanks so badly that eventually, it will need infinite chips and unlimited table limits like regular martingale. I have attached a regular session and an RNG page where anybody can see infinite 10k spins sessions with this way.
I do not have any enmity with either Blue Angel or Nickmsi as both have been my friends and they have every right to suggest methods as I or anybody do. I just want to show all that just delaying the martingale by playing in spans of 37 spins, doesn't make a winner by itself.

I could not attach excel directly here so uploaded it on file upload site: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=00136778777113954514

 

Now, when his progression has failed in almost every 10k session without betting a few thousands, he says his betselection is better and hence immune from such drawdowns which is the worst joke I have ever heard.
No way of picking bet is better than all other bets, in long run or multiple small run tests. Every bet gets momentarily good or bad and in long run, close to its mathematical expectancy.
To showcase what I said about betselections, I did entire zumma baccarat having nearly 115k hands without Tie bet in 5 types of betselection. Each go almost identical as a whole. No advantage or disadvantage in anyone.
http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/11...et-selections-perform-zumma-1600#.VteMU3197Mw