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

DELETED

 

spikes method as I understand makes him a long term winner provided he maintains his discipline .

 

This way he must know 3 or 26 have a greater chance be hit...
You understand, that such is a much harder task than for VB player to say which half of the wheel will be hit...?

 

Excuse me, First of all, my comment above was not directed to you. I am waiting for Nathan to answer it. Anyway, You have no proof of your winnings and I have no proof of my winnings, that makes us even. I am trying to figure out a way I can show some real proof. I asked you a question 2 times now that you have not answered. I'll ask it a 3rd time. What is your flat betting unit value? BTW, the reason why I show I have won 7,967 units using the Marty is because that is exactly what I won. Like you say, you do not have to prove anything to anybody. Neither do I. But I will some how.

 

Let`s get one thing perfectly clear . My very first bet in an EC game is either 3 or 2 . Never 1 unit

as the first bet.


Frank Barstow principle of diminishing probabilities is on my mind.

 

And I will keep repeating that anybody who talks about the specific dollar amount of how much they bet or win and lose on a public forum is a fool and a moron. It will always always always come back to haunt you in one way or another. That you do not seem to understand this speaks volumes about who you are.

Is because you've never played it for real you only play it on your kitchen table in simulations and somewhere in there you either have a cheat that you know about or have not found yet. You have to remember everybody on this forum has played the Martingale and we know exactly what it takes to win with it and we know it does not work for very long. Even the author of The 1910 gambling book Monte Carlo Anecdotes says the Martingale is a scam and a fraud. So keep on talking, nobody takes you seriously.

 

Cat ain't need much disciplines when he got the 88% strikes rate, hey hey!

 

Boy, little do you know. I am in the testing mode, only an idiot would test a strategy in real play. You act as though I am trying to sell a fool-proof, betting strategy book or something. Show me any post I have made claiming I have a strategy that can't lose. I have nothing to gain by stating I have played 253 sessions for a win of 7,967 units, only ridicule, being called a liar, being called a moron for using the Martingale progression. When I played those sessions, the Marty has failed a bunch of times as expected, but I have a method of recoup. I have to admit I am quite impressed with the results so far. I will keep testing until I lose the initial bankroll I started with. And here is one thing for sure, not you or anybody else can say for a fact that I have not found the best way to use a Marty progression with a proper bet selection. Evidentially no one on the forum has played the Martingale like I do as of yet to get those kind of results. It is possible that I could be a first just like Thorpe. No more ridicule from you until I find a way to prove what I have won so far.

 

Your statement: "And I will keep repeating that anybody who talks about the specific dollar amount of how much they bet or win and lose on a public forum is a fool and a moron.

Do you realize with that statement, you just called a whole lot of people on this forum and every other forum for that matter, a fool and a moron. Many, many have discussed specifically what dollar unit they use.

You also stated: "It will always, always come back to haunt you in one way or the other." That is a true statement in regards to you. I'll tell you why. If you told us you play to a 1 unit 1.00 win per session, sure, we would all laugh at you. If you told us that you played for higher stakes like a 100.00 1 unit win per session, We would all say it won't be long before you go completely bankrupt. It happens all the time, losing 12 sessions in a row flat betting. there is no way to recoup. And don't even tell me you have a way to make a proper bet selection so that could never happen. If you are relying on what happened in the past as a trigger for bet placement that is voodoo, you are as stupid as all the other losers. Past results have nothing to do what so ever with what is going to happen next. Random is random, no one other than God can know what will happen next. And that is how I know for a fact that your strategy will eventually crash and burn like every other, mine included. However, I will say, enjoy it while it's working. I will do the same.

 

Soxfan,

What I think about Spikes MO is based on the information as I see it .


The same way I have come to the conclusion that you are a good baccarat player .

 

And fools they are. Show me somebody who discusses the dollar amount they bet and I'll show you somebody nobody has any respect for here. And they're probably lying about it. The serious players never mention dollar amounts of bets, they always talk in units. They might give you a dollar amount of how much they won, but even that is rare.

And that is how I know for a fact that your strategy will eventually crash and burn [/QUOTE]

If you know for a fact that my strategy will fail please tell me what my strategy is. I guarantee you won't do that because you have no idea. You just assume it is some loser method that you had and everybody is just like you. You cannot tell me what my strategy is because you do not have the slightest idea of how I arrive at my bet selection.

 

Good grief, I thought you were claiming to play this on a real roulette table. Of course you're a kitchen table player the Martingale always works at home. The results you get at home are usually meaningless in real play with real money. There is nobody in the world making a living regularly playing the Martingale.

My favorite Marty story that I've told many times is when I was in Vegas years ago 10 red numbers were showing on the tote board. Some guy comes running up dragging his suitcase behind him checking into the hotel and plunks down money on black. Using a Martingale he does this 7 times in a row and loses 7 times in a row. He looked like a balloon that somebody let the air out of. He said this never happens at home in the simulations. And I said that's because you're using an RNG and not real numbers from a real roulette wheel. Things are always different when you get to a real casino playing for real money. Anything can happen and it usually does. And even if you're using actuals at home from real roulette games it is still going to be different when you get to the casino. Mark my words. Casinos love kitchen table warriors..

 

The seven step martingale will fail far more regularly than 1/127.

But it is interesting to analyse nonetheless rather than having religious wars. I agree with using flat betting to understand weakness in bet selection and the win patterns vs the loss patterns. That said progressions both positive and negative combined get the job the done.

The binomial calculation tells us that even with a perfect 50/50 chance to win or lose at each step (in reality each bet is worse than 50% playing roulette or craps), the expectations of profiting 127 times and thus matching your expected loss has a failure probability of 63%. Yes worse than 1/127.

Said another way you will only net 127 units 37% of the time and lose up to 127u less any accrued winnings 63% of the time.

Why would you even contemplate this?

Well there is a reason..

Now not every martingale failure is a 127u loss as you will on average have some winnings to offset. The math says 88 wins is a 50/50 chance with a 1/127 probability of failure (binomial distribution calculation).

So we see that 50% of the time you can win up to 88 units and 50% of the time you can lose up to128 units but almost always the net loss will be less than 128 due to previous wins.

There is a probability curve here, you may make more than 88u before failing and you may make less than 88u units before failing. Any wins under your belt will compensate for the times you lose so that overall we have a net zero sum expectation (ignoring corrosion due to house edge).

So we understand that a martingale is a zero sum game and increases our house edge So therefore is useless right?

Well not exactly. In simplistic terms yes but it has a useful effect.

Perhaps if you were to increase your wager by 1/4 after making 32 units, and then increase by another 1/4 after 26 wins, and another 1/4 after 16 wins you can make a compound return within the 88 win target.

So using compounding we get the following return (32×1u + 26×1.25 + 16×1.5u + 14×0.75u = 32u + 32.5u + 24u + 24.5u = 113u. That boosts the expected win by 38% but also puts some profits at risk between bets 32-88. After win 88, you start over at 1u again to lock in the 113u accumulated profit.

So analysing the effect of the martingale, mathematically it effectively stretches out the interval between loss events, less frequent but more costly and is net zero sum ignoring house edge.

But using a growth approach we can win more up to the 88 bet mark which is where the binomal calculation tells us is a 50% probability of success and this is no longer zero sum.

The idea is analogous to insurance premiums that roughly equal what insurance companies pay in claims when multipled by the risk. In the meantime on average they get time in the market between the funds coming in and the funds going out due to those loss events, zero sum game, but they get to compound the premiums before having to pay out the loss. In effect the loses are paid for from compounded returns.

Now consider what happens when we consider probability of winning two series back to back vs the payout expectations.

We will totally ignore the accumulation of profit that is never at risk between attempts 1-32 so the loss figures are actually worse than reality.

1st series win expectation: 113u×0.5 = 56.5u
1st series loss expectation: 127u×0.5 = -63.5u

Doesn't look great when we just consider 1 series.

So we calculate the probability of winning the first series and a second series, conditional that we only get to play the second series after series 1 wins.

This means we only play the second series half the time, and that we can only win or lose the second series 1/4 of the time. When we do lose the second series we have the first series profit of 113u to offset the loss).

1st & 2nd series win expectation:

0.5 × (113u + 0.5 × 113u) = 84.75u​

1st & 2nd series loss expectation:

0.5 × (-127u + 0.5 × (113u -127u)) = -60u​

As we see the compounding effect more than offsets the expected losses, it is no longer negative expectation as you are paying the expected losses out of compounded returns. The martingale (or any negative progression) stretches the loss events which permits growth.

Without the compounding, the situation is classic loss/negative expectation:

1st & 2nd series win expectation: 0.5 × (88u + 0.5 × 88u) = 66u
2nd series loss expectation: 0.5 × (-127u + 0.5 × (88u -127u)) = -73.25u

The reason that is not zero sum above is because we are ignoring the accumulated profit from bets 1-32 which if the martingale failed there would not result in a full -127u loss.

Apply this same concept at another level through bankroll management. The interval between session loss events can allow growing bankrolls by first having enough session wins to first double a bankroll and then doubling again in half the time using double the unit size. At this point you have 3 bankrolls to split and establish primary and reserve bankrolls and at a higher unit size than you first started. Rinse and repeat. Inevitable session bankroll losses are paid from compound interest whilst your session bankroll and your session losses become a smaller and smaller percentage of the overall bankroll.

A famous quote often attributed to Einstien...

Compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe.​

 

If you look into it you'll see that like most quotes attributed to Einstein, he never said it.

 

Yes, agree, hence my weasel word "attributed".

But doesn't diminish the power of geometric returns.

 

I also miss quoted the probability above. I said 1/127 but my math correctly calculated using 1/128 as the probability. 127 refers to how much you lose. So you are expected to lose 127u with probability 1/128.

 

Why not just post your system here and members can test for themselves?

 

The martingale is for me a non topic .

 

Ok conditional probabilities are always treacherous and I made a mistake as they don't add up to 1.

We have to look at every possible path as a distinct outcome:

• 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 0.25x(113u-127u) = -3.5
• L is 0.5. EV is 0.5×-127u = -63.5u

Clearly all the probabilities sum to 1. Sanity check for conditional probabilities is met this time.

The overall EV is the sum of those individual EV's and is now negative 56.5 -3.5 -63.5 = -10.5u

But we also need to adjust for the accumulated profit that is not at risk on the first 32 bets of each series. That is important profit we have not factored into the above calculation which I purposely left out in my prior post to avoid over complicating the calculations.

Well now we need to see just how much it affects the results. Which is not that easy to work out..

The binomial distribution calculation shows that in those 32 attempts we are only 22.2% likely to fail (and therfore 77.8% likely to succeed) whilst by bet 88 we are 50% likely to succeed or fail.

That makes the average loss during that phase 0.222 × -127 = -28.19u whilst the average loss during the remaining 50-22=28% is -127u × 0.28 = -35.56u.

Our average loss on the martingale is therfore the sum of those two phases or 63.75 which is the exact same simple result we had before as 127u × 0.5 = 63.5u. Again a math sanity check shows the losses from both phases combined has not changed the overall loss expectation.

But now we can attempt to account for the accumulated profit in the first 32 games phase which we previously ignored. The average accumulation is 32u × 0.778 = 24.89u. The 77.8% is the probablity of succeeding during that first phase, hence 24.89u is the average accumulation that is never at risk during that phase and has the effect of offsetting losses during that phase.

This brings the average loss EV based on 50% probabilty of losing the series to
(127-24) × 0.222 + 127 × 0.28 = 58.22u

We normalise back to 100% so 58.22×2 = 116.5u and this is the average loss amount, which is less than 127u.and accounts for the effect of accumulated profit within the first 32 games in the series.

The alternative calculation is 127-24 = 103u but that doesn't account for the weighting the losses appropriately where beyond bet 32 it's always a total 127u loss vs where our accumulated wins offset the loss.

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- 0.5×58.22u = -0.875u
• L is 0.5. EV is 0.5×-116.5u = -55.22u

Add it all up and we get 0.405 which is basically rounding error. So we see that it is zero sum in the long game if ignoring the house edge.

The math is easy to get wrong so apologies if I have made any other errors. Happy for anyone to point out any mistakes.

 

If you know for a fact that my strategy will fail please tell me what my strategy is. I guarantee you won't do that because you have no idea. You just assume it is some loser method that you had and everybody is just like you. You cannot tell me what my strategy is because you do not have the slightest idea of how I arrive at my bet selection.[/QUOTE]

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