Roulette Martingale alternative (Carsch)

You really are a special and sick individual.

You didn't stop at numerous death threats towards me and now attempt to associate my reference to published works of math with the grooming performed by child sex predators and Nazism on top of that. Thats really quite inappropriate.

You reached a new low, you have no basis to make those statements and should be kicked off the forum for good but the admins are too weak and this forum is a sess pit where animals like you rule supreme.

Keep shilling your garbage, I will not waste my time contributing to this lousy forum. It can rot.

 

Cancel, cancel, cancel... Math sucks because you represent it.

 

Nope. It's not the opinions of people that have written papers. I associate you with liars that prey on children in order to change the world into what they want it to be. One day the math world will know that I'm 100% correct that probability beliefs must change because conditional awareness must include temporary states of opportunity that redefines large number theories and assumptions. " Absolutism" is only half the argument in the probability world. You know this. Or, at least you should know that much. You can protest, rant & rave, all you want. You are not God's gift to reason. In fact you refuse to listen. LOL

 

twoUp made ND personal ignore list a long time ago.

 

Two people from the holier than thou baccarat pit have also made ND personal Ignore list..

They are system vultures and if not fed they become nasty .


Even Al Relax identified one by name as a Know it all .

 

Someone tossed his toys out of the cot today. Have a loss on your craps strategy at star casinoverse?

 

Thanks Brother. That makes sense now.

And yes, great idea, with a Carsch / modified D'Alambert, profiting on LWLW. I'll work on it!

 

george I have an idea. use this dozens.
sample
1-1-3-3-9-9-27-27

1-1 L
1-1 L
two lose
3-3 L
3-3 W
3-3 L
3-3 W
3-3 W
done go back to 1-1

 

or 3 missing not sure

1-1-1-3-3-3-9-9-9-27-27-27

 

or something else
1L
1L
1L
1L
1W
2W
3W
4W
1W
2L
1W
2W
3L
1L
1W
2
....
up to 4 positive... progress is key to this game

 

Two up
Page 1 nice read. Not read anymore.
But, here 1st 60 spins from 209. 5/1/24

Rng end 30/30

Hmm, ends 30/30.
RNG or live.

 

This guetting progression outperforms flat betting by quite a bit.

I ran a simulation of 1000 games of 1000 rounds - so 1 million rounds.

pWin = 5/36 or 13.8%
pLose = 1/6 or 16.6%

A win pays 1.16:1

Below are the mean of the results of the highest and lowet bankrolls of each game.

1000 rounds / game:

Flat betting
mean(max_bankroll_flat_bet)= 23.89666666666668, mean(min_bankroll_flat_bet)= -35.60499999999998

Guetting betting
mean(max_bankroll_guetting)= 37.451333333333345, mean(min_bankroll_guetting)=-14.036499999999975

and just for fun 100 rounds/ game (10,000 games now):

Flat betting
mean(max_bankroll_flat_betting)= 8.158600000000002, mean(min_bankroll_flat_betting)= -8.893399999999998

Guetting
mean(max_bankroll_guetting)= 12.121216666666669, mean(min_bankroll_guetting)= -1.090216666666663

Higher highs and lower lows using this progression.

I'm pondering the remaining piece you mentioned. Considering, over 1M rounds we get an average gain of either $37 or $12 depending on the length of the session that seems like a good place to take profits. That's a very basic starting point and I'd love to hear any input on the subject, if you don't mind sharing.

Any studies or papers you could point me to, opinions, etc..

 

I need to correct my previous data.

I found a small error in my code. The min bankroll using the guetting was actually the mean of the ending bankroll of all the sessions.

The lowest across 1000 games 1000 rounds is:
mean(min_bankroll_guetting)= -45.53416666666665

10000 games 100 rounds
mean(min_bankroll_guetting)= -10.356066666666665

Sorry. The lows are lower than with flatbetting which makes a lot more sense now.

 

Number 1 biggest mistake people do is class martingale as a strategy, it should be classed as a helper to your main strategy.

Also, insurance bets if placed well can pretty much eliminate martingale progressions, if i'm hunting a high 19/36 and i sit on highs and all i get is lows then i'll be in trouble, if i place 2chips on highs and 1chip on 1st dozen as the insurance then i will do way way waaaaay better pretty much eliminating the deadly progression.

Argument: "yea but what if you get 10 losses in a row?" ... gimma a call when that 13-18 double street hits 10 times in a row and we'll continue the talk.

already tested 1000000 times and some, even simulated how many times a double street will hit in a row.


Roulette is easy when you know how.

 

Wow why didn't I ever think of that?

How are you ever going to recover without tripling your bet once the uncovered numbers hit? You're covering 30 numbers. You don't need to lose 10x in a row on the 13 - 18 double street. You'll get a bunch of pushes on the first dozen, lose on the double street, have to triple the bet, lose again, triple, push, lose - triple, push. It's not complicated. If you're not tripling your bet then you need to win 3 times to recoup. The # of spins needed to recover fully can be considered the # of losses.

So 10 times in a row in terms of losing streaks for the double street doesn't need to happen, only 3 and that'll get you 9 consecutive losses.

Everything is relative and proportional, and hedging bets is silly. This is a silly strategy and the reckless behaviour of a gambling addict.

Don't listen to this person.

 

ha ha ha !!!

Yet another fool dissing me without even testing it ..... I knew there was one on this forum somewhere.

"and hedging bets is silly" the dumbest thing I've ever heard buddy sorry to say, I've just been playing on my home table, no magnets no etg stuff just me and a random wheel with zero dealer sig winning with ease.


We could talk but you seem to have ended it, you must be a hoot at parties lol


Guys, don't listen to this person, he's clearly a loser at roulette sad to say

 

You're joe croupier. You were chased out of here years ago because you're a scammer trying to sell shitty roulette tools and strategies that don't work.

You haven't provided a staking plan to test with.

I have no respect for con men. Anyway, fuck off.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_ruin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_conceit

 

Gamblers fallacy is for fools that understand simple maths laws