Roulette In Defense of the Martingale

Almost every mathematician and serious gambler will tell you that the Martingale progression is a big time loser and should never, ever be used as a betting progression. And the main reason for that determination is because of the way it has been analyzed over the years to draw that conclusion. The Martingale progression in most roulette betting instances is used on EC bets; Black/Red, Odd/Even, Hi/Lo. A person who uses a Martingale progression determines how many steps he is willing to take. Of course, the more steps taken, the better the odds but also the higher the loss. Let’s just assume a person is using a 7 step Martingale betting on one of the EC selections. The odds of losing 7 times in a row are 1 chance in 128 and that is incredibly good odds. There is no other betting progression that comes close to offering that kind of odds. However, if you lose a one unit bet doubled 6 times in a row, you lose a total of 128 units. Admittedly, that is a huge loss.


The argument here is based on the assumption that a person will choose an EC selection and stay with it and continue to double up the bet until win or lose. An other argument is that it is possible to win a bunch of small wins but eventually the big loss will wipe out the small winnings and put you into a sizable negative loss.


All of that reasoning is correct if that is the only way the Martingale is being used. Because of the fact the odds of losing 7 steps in a row is 1 in 128, let’s take advantage of those odds. First of all, the biggest problem with those who use the Martingale do not allow themselves to win a large enough number of units per session. They quit each session with just a small amount of winnings, and that is why the idea of winning a bunch of small sessions and then eventually losing a big one becomes a good argument. No, no, no. The object should be to take advantage of the odds and win bigger amounts per session that can quickly make up for the big loss. Also just as important is the way an EC strategy is applied. To pick an EC such as Black or Red and continuing to bet just that one choice until win or lose is sure death. We have all seen the score board lit up with 10 or more of the same color in a row, back to back many times.


A winning strategy for EC needs to be developed and tested that when using a 7 step Martingale it averages a win of at least 3 times to every 1 loss. Once you have that, then the amount you must win per session is calculated so that it recoups a 7 step loss with 2 additional winning sessions. Example: If the 7 step loss incurs a 128 unit loss, then each session must be played to a 64 unit win.

The total operating bankroll required is 3 times the total Martingale loss. Example: 128 units lost in a 7 step Martingale X 3 = 384 units required for operating capital.


I will not accept any negative comments regarding this post unless you have done everything exactly as I have stated above and can prove otherwise. If you cannot develop or already have an EC strategy that wins at least 3 to every 1 loss, what can I say, because I have just that. Actually I have 3 strategies that average 4 wins to every 1 loss.

 

You can apply Reading Randomness to it. I like that you require to win 64 wins in the aggregate per session. That could take around 200 to 300 spins or more if you use virtual bets. So ten hours for $64 is dismal at best. Your method is up against minimum and maximum table limits. If you use a $5 chip as your base bet on one of the Even Chance outside bets then your top bet is $320 or there about. You then need $635 total for a single session loss bankroll. Nobody allows a $1 bet on Red or Odd. You can say that this is not constructive. But that would expose you as controlling. This is my opinion.

I'd rather get 3 times $90 for $270 in no more than three hours using the same Reading Randomness. You won't find a better way to exploit when trends mach up with win streaks. $64 is just too minimal.

 

I use a 10.00 base unit for every session, and only double to 640.00. I believe that is well within maximum on a 10.00 min table. And besides, it is so freaking easy to overcome the max table limit. However, like I stated above, I will not accept and will ignore any criticism on this thread unless my theory can be proven otherwise.

 

Haha. That was a quick test that lost at the first try.
That is bad omen!
If you wait for triggers to make 64 units in a live casino that would take forever.

I would rather take gizmos's approach any day.
I won over 40 units in a few hours play time flat only without ever risking more than 1 units.