Roulette Win a prize!

I thought I'd better start a new thread for this...

Suppose I am confident that I can win at least x spins in y spins. How do I bet to keep each bet at a minimum?
That's the simplest way I can put it. Now..
Number of spins left is easy to calculate. So is number of spins expected to win, and target.
Oscar's grind means if we win half our bets, we win x.
Labby means if we win a third of our bets +1, we win at least 1 unit.
But how about a more general formula to solve my question? Can it be done?
I'm even thinking of offering a small prize for a solution. What would be appropriate? Bear in mind that I'm not a millionaire!
I reckon that someone very good at maths could do this.

 

The optimum staking method is Kelly betting (look up the Kelly Criterion on google), but it's worthless if you don't have an edge. If you don't have an edge a positive progression would be safest. Something like John Patrick's "Up and Pull" progression would be ok I guess.

 

Yes thanks for this. I'm going to look into it and see if I can apply Kelly's to it. I know I don't have an edge. A labby, for example, guarantees a win under certain conditions even without an edge.

 

Are roulette EC your bet selections ?

 

Yes Nathan, roulette EC.
I guess if I ever do find the formula it could be applied to Baccarat too...

 

RC are 100 % luck. When the selected trigger shows this short positive regression is recommended :

3- 2 - 1 . .

EC diminishing probabilities can not hurt you with this regression method .


Play at your own risk.

 

Well Nathan I guess you're right it is 100% luck. And yes it makes sense not to raise your stakes too high... then you can stay in the game longer and quit when ahead.

 

Joe, the thing about Kelly's is that it doesn't factor in how many bets/spins we will play.

Take 100 spins for example.
For 50 wins I think Oscars is most efficient.
For 34 wins, labby .
What about any other number?

 

Okay, after some testing and experimenting, I've come to some conclusions.

I used random numbers, and after a few trials of 100 spins, one trial came up with only 36 reds in 100 spins.
I'm pretty sure there is nothing wrong with the random number generator, so my conclusion is that variance can be
much wider than people realise. Yes I know that we can calculate this probability, but the point is that variance, (or luck as
we could call it) unfortunately means that surprising results can and do happen.
The implications are that we cannot overcome this variance without risking far too much.
This would apply whether we bet on ECs, dozens, hot,cold or whatever.
So although we know the average for certain values (eg 12 repeats in 37 spins,) we have to be prepared for large swings in
the mean value.
I suspect that players who claim they are winning are using progressions, which will allow them to win most of the time.
And anyway, if we did have a system that would grind out a win most of the time, do we really want to play roulette for hours
every day?

 

If you mean system players, I agree. The only thing that progressions do is increase the variance. So if you don't have terrible luck you could keep going for quite a while before the bust, because the progression artificially extends the "natural" variance. But of course when the really bad run comes you're in the hole much deeper. With a progression on just a few numbers you could be in the black for a hundred thousand bets. But you haven't beaten the game, and you're living on borrowed time.

 

I'm still wondering if there is an answer to my original question...
Okay so let's simplify and say "how can we aim for 5 wins in 20 spins by betting with the minimum risk?"
We could flat bet until the ratio can be won by a labby, for example, but there must be a more definitive, mathematical solution?

 

If one gets a streak of 3 including the trigger it`s great .

A streak or pattern has it`s limits .