Roulette

mayosteve99

Ok call me stupid but is this not the most easy way to make money. Say im straped for cash . Wanna make 20 euro . Put 20 euro on black either win and double or lose . Say i lose i put 40 on black , If i happen to lose again i put 80 on black . Eventually ur goin to hit black . Does ne body do this . i made 50 euro handy doin that !! suppose its how much ur willing to go without stopping

Mezcita

niallquinn999 wrote:

Ok call me stupid but is this not the most easy way to make money. Say im straped for cash . Wanna make 20 euro . Put 20 euro on black either win and double or lose . Say i lose i put 40 on black , If i happen to lose again i put 80 on black . Eventually ur goin to hit black . Does ne body do this . i made 50 euro handy doin that !! suppose its how much ur willing to go without stopping

Problem here is:

1. You are assuming that it will eventually hit black and of course it will but the problem is how many double ups could your bankroll handle? Say you lose 20 and stick 40 on. It loses. Bet 80. Loses. Bet 160. Loses. Bet 320. Loses. Bet 640. Loses. What I'm saying is that just because it hits black four times in a row that a red is therefore due to happend. With every spin its like a clean slate in terms of history.

2. You are also forgetting the 00 which is neither red or black. Gives the house an advantage.

3. Fundamentally, casinos don't lose. Keep away.

Bernard Hopkins

lol,...... yeah its a known method, called the Nightingale system !!!

crazy,... there's a long odd's chance that one day you will double up and lose enough times , unless you have an unlimited bank balance.
I mean , if you play that system often enough , that long odd's chance will come around, and you'll find yourself placing a €10,000 bet on a 50/50 , just to get your original €5 euro bet back !!!!!

its not even 50/50 with the green available .

Also,... you usually have as set limit in casinos on each table.
so if you are unlucky enough to loose €500 quid, you may not be able to place the next increment in your system.
Casino's will try to stop people playing this, as far as i know.

Bernard Hopkins

beat me to it ye bugger ye !

BrandonBlock

Ah the old martingale system, you don't even need to use roulette, any market where there's 2 even money selections. A few years ago I wrote a program to analyze Rapido results. (It's a game in the bookies where 16 numbers between 1&100 are drawn, and the overall result is either Heads, Tails or Draw) , The odds are as follows;

Heads: even money
Tails: even money
Draw: 5/2

There's about 10 games per day, (usually heads, tails, heads, tails, draw, draw, etc) and I had the results of about 20,000 consecutive draws altogether and analyzed the outcome to see if I could apply this martingale system to Rapido. So to do this I recorded the maximum amount of times Heads or Tails were drawn consecutively and in one instance heads was drawn 24 times in a row! the next result down was around 19, then 18,18,18,17,16 etc (LOADS).... now for the 24 in a row, if you started with a €1 stake on the martingale system , your 25th bet would be €16,777,216
just to get your €1 back!

So yeah, in most cases if you toss a coin 1000 times, or spin a roulette wheel 1000 times it will land 49% red 49% black and 2% green. But the major flaw with the martingale system is this is not certain. You could spin and land on red 10 times in a row. And if this happened (starting with your €1 stake) your 11th bet would be €512 just to get your €1 back. If this was a €10 starting bet (which is the most you can win btw, your starting bet) and you hit the wrong selection 10 times in a row, your 11th bet would be €5,120 to return just a €10 stake.

</Rant over>

BrandonBlock

This is a very good site if you want to start learning the basics behind "systems"

http://www.mathgoodies.com/lessons/vol6/intro_probability.html

PeakOutput

this is also a strategy my mate used on 3 euro minimum bet blackjack and it did work for him for a while but this is the reason there are table limits.

i think when he was playing the max bet was 400 so it would only take 8 losing hands in a row to get to the limit

Evangelion

I use this technique. only bet a 5, but it all adds up. made 400euro off it, not bad for a bit of craic. Though in the same casino, ive seen 9 reds ina row....lucky i was betting on red

Killme00

niallquinn999 wrote:

Ok call me stupid but is this not the most easy way to make money. Say im straped for cash . Wanna make 20 euro . Put 20 euro on black either win and double or lose . Say i lose i put 40 on black , If i happen to lose again i put 80 on black . Eventually ur goin to hit black . Does ne body do this . i made 50 euro handy doin that !! suppose its how much ur willing to go without stopping

ok you are stupid

you are assuming an unlimited bankroll and also no cap on the bet...most casinos have a cap on how much you can bet on black or red

one other thing casino pay 2:1 on whether you hit black or red when in fact the odds are 48.6% or 2.05:1 ie in the long run you lose

eirebhoy

I've a load of experience at this and it's not worth it. I made €1,200 from a free €20 bet using the doubling technique on blackjack but I wouldn't risk my own money on it, any more.

At first I was paranoid. I thought the software was rigged. That was until I went into the Fitz casino. I lost all my money after doubling up my initial balance. You're guaranteed to go 5, 6, 7 times without hitting. That's guaranteed if you're playing for long enough. That's all it takes.

reframe

I agree, was just talkin on other thread about "systems" i.e martingale etc, am relatively new to this forum but have a lot of gambling experience(unfortunately)...hey, I'm honest.

It's amazing how people think betting systems can win, they may for a time, but it's only luck that keeps you on the winning side, and as mentioned the house always has the edge!!!

Just been looking at some of the "systems" for sale from €1 up to €30...ridiculous!!!

There's even a guy on ebay.ie proporting to have a roulette computer prediction device for sale....IN DUBLIN!!!....oh yeah if you have a handy €4500 that is!!!!

Takes all sorts.

Time for bed too much poker.

masterK

I'm amazed at the amount of people that start threads like this by using variations of the martingale system for Roulette, football, horse racing etc. In theory people think they cannot lose, but in reality they do.

My advice for anybody considering such a system, if such a basic system was such a money earner why isn't everybody at it?

johnnysmurfman

niallquinn999 wrote: »

Ok call me stupid but is this not the most easy way to make money. Say im straped for cash . Wanna make 20 euro . Put 20 euro on black either win and double or lose . Say i lose i put 40 on black , If i happen to lose again i put 80 on black . Eventually ur goin to hit black . Does ne body do this . i made 50 euro handy doin that !! suppose its how much ur willing to go without stopping

Great idea. You should trademark it or something.

chalkitdown

Obviously the martingale and half martingale systems do work. That's why casinos have a table limit.

pele10

I do a bit of gambling on sports so have Boylesports, Paddypower and Betfair accounts. I would never lose more than a 100 a month over the last few years, make a few here, loss a few.

anyway I got a mail from Boylesports before xmas saying that put a free 20 quid in my casino account. (I had been to vegas in October, so heard about systems for roulette). Anyway using the double up system I won 500 quid in less than two hours.

Anyway the following week I lost 300, so I though I would try Paddypower as they gave me a free 10 to bet on the their games. I turned than into 350 using the system.

So I decided to try on Betfair, within two hours they have me 85 euro bonus I was up over 400.

After three weeks of playing about every second night I decided to work out how much I had won. I was up 1350 euro in three weeks, playing for about 2 hours a night, 3 times a week.

I thought I was on easy street. So I started not only red/black, but odd/even and 1-18 19/36 to try and confuse the system in case they had it rigged. I would throw in the odd dummy single bet or 0 bet as well. I was still winning but betting bigger amount at the start, 10 or 20.

Last weekend I quit as my profits were down to 200. The amount of times it went to 8 odds or whatever is in a row is unreal. I was constantly betting bigger to win back what I lost. Surely it can't be another odd.
:mad::mad:

I am convinced the online ones are rigged to let you win at the start and the clean you out once you are addicted. I turned 20 quid and 5 quid free bets into nearly 800 quid, but once I started with my own money, I lost loads. I for one will be staying away from now on.

lolkelly

pele10 wrote: »

I do a bit of gambling on sports so have Boylesports, Paddypower and Betfair accounts. I would never lose more than a 100 a month over the last few years, make a few here, loss a few.

anyway I got a mail from Boylesports before xmas saying that put a free 20 quid in my casino account. (I had been to vegas in October, so heard about systems for roulette). Anyway using the double up system I won 500 quid in less than two hours.

Anyway the following week I lost 300, so I though I would try Paddypower as they gave me a free 10 to bet on the their games. I turned than into 350 using the system.

So I decided to try on Betfair, within two hours they have me 85 euro bonus I was up over 400.

After three weeks of playing about every second night I decided to work out how much I had won. I was up 1350 euro in three weeks, playing for about 2 hours a night, 3 times a week.

I thought I was on easy street. So I started not only red/black, but odd/even and 1-18 19/36 to try and confuse the system in case they had it rigged. I would throw in the odd dummy single bet or 0 bet as well. I was still winning but betting bigger amount at the start, 10 or 20.

Last weekend I quit as my profits were down to 200. The amount of times it went to 8 odds or whatever is in a row is unreal. I was constantly betting bigger to win back what I lost. Surely it can't be another odd.
:mad::mad:

I am convinced the online ones are rigged to let you win at the start and the clean you out once you are addicted. I turned 20 quid and 5 quid free bets into nearly 800 quid, but once I started with my own money, I lost loads. I for one will be staying away from now on.

Why would any of those big name companies have rigged casino games, when the advantage is in their favour when the games are straight!

All these companies need to have licenses and the games are obviously reviewed/tested rigorously by other independent companies!

Any body who understands basic probability will know that with these 'systems', they will be a loser in the long term! Short term is the only way to win on these games....

pele10

lolkelly wrote: »

Why would any of those big name companies have rigged casino games, when the advantage is in their favour when the games are straight!

All these companies need to have licenses and the games are obviously reviewed/tested rigorously by other independent companies!

Any body who understands basic probability will know that with these 'systems', they will be a loser in the long term! Short term is the only way to win on these games....

Thats fair enough, but in my experience once you get a free bet you win win win, as soon as you start putting in your own money, its lose lose lose. Surely it would be hard for them to put in logic that is someone breaks a threshold, they will make sure the person has a few losses. Maybe its just me. I would be interested to hear if similar thing happened to other people.

anyway I am not bitter, I'd say I was up over the whole thing, its just less strongwilled people could easily get sucked in.

5starpool

Killme00 wrote: »

ok you are stupid

you are assuming an unlimited bankroll and also no cap on the bet...most casinos have a cap on how much you can bet on black or red

one other thing casino pay 2:1 on whether you hit black or red when in fact the odds are 48.6% or 2.05:1 ie in the long run you lose

OK, I'm guessing your context was not abusive, but please be somewhat mindful of posting something before you press the Submit button. Calling someone stupid is not allowed, and this is a warning.

I know from the poker forum that you are not generally an abusive poster, so please try to be a bit more mindful in the future.

Cheers.

reframe

o.k. online roulette is deffinitely to be avoided.

The reason being is that yes, they use random number generators (apparently)..now, the problem is, on a live roulette table (european) the casino has an edge of 2.7% over the player.

If online casinos use random no. gens then this should be the same.HOWEVER, if they use programmes which according to them are a fair representation of the correct odds, could it be that in 1 spin you have a 94.6 % chance of winning, and in the next spin you actually have a 100% chance of losing????(2.7% against player avereged over 2 spins).....Stay with me here...The casino still enjoys an overall edge of 2.7% over the player, but it may vary from spin to spin, which,can be fatal..especially if you are chasing a loss.

Thats just my hunch, and when the regulators are not experienced gamblers I would imagine its easy to present this as a correct representation.

There's also the possibility that 47.3% of people(by people i mean bets) win overall, and 52.7% will lose...Computer programmes can be stupid, maybe if you fall into the (52.7%) majority..then your screwed...regardless of how you bet.


This is more theoretical than anything else but it does hold some water.

I only play LIVE roulette. And I play it well.

jameshayes

5starpool wrote: »

OK, I'm guessing your context was not abusive, but please be somewhat mindful of posting something before you press the Submit button. Calling someone stupid is not allowed, and this is a warning.

I know from the poker forum that you are not generally an abusive poster, so please try to be a bit more mindful in the future.

Cheers.

That was last year, this thread is months old, it's almost growing mould around the edges

reframe

seems like it's back up and running.good.

reframe

seems like it's back up and running.good stuff.

5starpool

jameshayes wrote: »

That was last year, this thread is months old, it's almost growing mould around the edges

Ah well. There is no statute of limitations on this. That should cover it

Random

chalkitdown wrote: »

Obviously the martingale and half martingale systems do work. That's why casinos have a table limit.

They don't work because of the table limit and therefore don't work. There's no "they work except for the table limit" ...

reframe

LOL. You certainly are a stickler for details random.

Had to read your post twice.

they work dont work there's no they work because they don't work.yep.

Just buzzin.:)

your right though.

Random

reframe wrote: »

LOL. You certainly are a stickler for details random.

Had to read your post twice.

they work dont work there's no they work because they don't work.yep.

Just buzzin.:)

your right though.

I am a stickler for details.

And of course I'm right. Haven't you read my signature?

chalkitdown

I wonder is that astute logic or a sophistic conclusion!

The Martingale systems do work, as will any reasonable multiplication strategy if applied with ruthless discipline. I mean this in relation to Roulette (which the thread was about) and a few other near chance even money bets. There will always be sequences in particular outcomes (runs of red/ black ect.) and the Martingale system is capable of maximizing returns.

The factors that expose the limitations of the system are the usual suspects of timing, luck, greed, stake/ratio and game limits, it doesn't mean that the system doesn't work.

Therefore I will continue to stand by my assertion.

Casinos are more worried about players with a regimented approach than those with a random nature of betting.

In relation to the OP's post which described applying a rule to recover losses I agree with you entirely, the Martingale system doesn't suggest doing this.

chalkitdown

reframe wrote: »

o.k. online roulette is deffinitely to be avoided.

The reason being is that yes, they use random number generators (apparently)..now, the problem is, on a live roulette table (european) the casino has an edge of 2.7% over the player.

If online casinos use random no. gens then this should be the same.HOWEVER, if they use programmes which according to them are a fair representation of the correct odds, could it be that in 1 spin you have a 94.6 % chance of winning, and in the next spin you actually have a 100% chance of losing????(2.7% against player avereged over 2 spins).....Stay with me here...The casino still enjoys an overall edge of 2.7% over the player, but it may vary from spin to spin, which,can be fatal..especially if you are chasing a loss.

Thats just my hunch, and when the regulators are not experienced gamblers I would imagine its easy to present this as a correct representation.

There's also the possibility that 47.3% of people(by people i mean bets) win overall, and 52.7% will lose...Computer programmes can be stupid, maybe if you fall into the (52.7%) majority..then your screwed...regardless of how you bet.


This is more theoretical than anything else but it does hold some water.

I only play LIVE roulette. And I play it well.

I think that you may have a point, I felt that the .rng was weighted in the Craps game with Paddypower.
It has since disappeared, maybe someone managed to get a big/regular win?
Or maybe nobody was playing? They offered the best odds on point rolls, allowing three times initial stake, the typical casino odds (outside vegas) are double initial stake.
It is only an opinion but having played at a different casino, at double stakes on point rolls, the number of sevens appeared to come up at more regular rate on Pp.

Reg'stoy

chalkitdown wrote: »

It is only an opinion but having played at a different casino, at double stakes on point rolls, the number of sevens appeared to come up at more regular rate on Pp.

It's like the bad beats we suffer so 'regularly' in poker and complain about, we tend to remember what we mean to remember, by that I mean if you mean (hmmm a lot of means but Im nice really ) to look at all the sevens coming out, you remember all of them and then think "wow there was a lot of sevens".
In the same way we remember how often our Aces get done over, we tend also to forget how often we beat Aces with muck or how often the dice rolled other than seven.

hotspur

chalkitdown wrote: »

The Martingale systems do work, as will any reasonable multiplication strategy if applied with ruthless discipline.

Fixed bet sizing leads to smaller losses over time than the martingale system, just look at the computer simulations that have been run, this doesn't have to be a thought experiment. Ignoring the idiocy of assuming infinite bankroll then the possible gains versus the possible losses makes it a terrible system of betting

chalkitdown wrote: »

There will always be sequences in particular outcomes (runs of red/ black ect.) and the Martingale system is capable of maximizing returns.

No, the Martingale as commonly understood relates to doubling up when you lose, not when you win. It does nothing to maximise possible returns. To be clear, we are talking about doubling your bet when you lose. Doubling up a bet when you win does of course give a better chance of maximising returns from a good run. But only in the sense that betting 1k once is better than betting €1 a thousand times in a -EV game if you want to win money.

chalkitdown wrote: »

The factors that expose the limitations of the system are the usual suspects of timing, luck, greed, stake/ratio and game limits, it doesn't mean that the system doesn't work.

No the suspect is probability.

chalkitdown wrote: »

Casinos are more worried about players with a regimented approach than those with a random nature of betting.

Casinos don't "worry" about anything of the sort, all their games are -EV for the punter, it's really that simple. The more money a punter is willing to bet the better for them if they are going to stick around. The *only* thing they don't like is someone betting a huge amount once, or for a very short amount of time.

chalkitdown wrote: »

In relation to the OP's post which described applying a rule to recover losses I agree with you entirely, the Martingale system doesn't suggest doing this.

This is exactly what the Martingale is. Doubling up after winning is an anti-Martingale.

Mellor

chalkitdown wrote: »

Obviously the martingale and half martingale systems do work. That's why casinos have a table limit.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Mellor

random wrote: »

They don't work because of the table limit and therefore don't work. There's no "they work except for the table limit" ...

Afraid not, even if there was no table limit it wouldn't work.
If you take out the upper limit, take out the green 0 and 00, and go play with an infinate bankroll its still not going to work.

For example, say you have a bankroll thats infinate, and you find a roulette table with no upper limit, and no green 0 or 00

If you start with betting $1,
The usual doubling when you lose, returning when you win etc.
What are the chances of losing 10 straight bets, its 1 in 1024

So in the long run, after say 1,024 spins sets (a spin set the a single run doubling up until you) you should lose one set of ten. You will have won 1023 sets, for a net of +$1023. The single set of ten that you lost would of cost exactly €1023, for a loss of €-1023 (you will be betting 1024 on the 11th spin)
Total net €0

Increses to the chances of losing 20 in a row, its 1 in 1,048,576,
The one time in 1,048,576 spins you lose will cost you 1048575, (equal to the remaining sets were you each win €1.


This holds true for an streak you want to use. Its purely a simple binary sequence.
So, with no upper limit, no green 0 or 00, and an unlimited bankroll, the martingale system (and roulette) has no expected value, its break even for the player and the house.

But as soon as the green is introduced it becomes a loser.

The upper limit doesn't increase you chances of losing, the EV of each bet is the same, it only keeps it easier to run. No upper limit is better for the house.

and your bankroll only reflects the required streak need to bust you, in the end the EV is the same.

twerg_85

You're forgetting that the player has the choice when to stop playing. With an infinite bankroll, there's no chance of going bust, so there is zero probability (note : this is not the same as being impossible) that the player will not earn exactly €1.

As stated, you add in finite bankrolls, unfair odds and table limits and it's clear this is a losing proposition.

Mellor

twerg_85 wrote: »

You're forgetting that the player has the choice when to stop playing. With an infinite bankroll, there's no chance of going bust, so there is zero probability (note : this is not the same as being impossible) that the player will not earn exactly €1.

I assure you that I wasn't forgetting that
With an infinite BR you could keeping playing until you hit and are up then leave with $1. The EV of the bet is zero. The average profit and loss at anypoint is $0, you will eventually be up quite a few dollars, but when you are in the hole you will lose all profit. The total EV is 0.

It makes no difference. the infinate BR was just to highlight that even without table limits, a bankroll or green spots that the martingale system has 0 EV for roulette. The reality is that they do not exist, there is no infinate BR in the world. With huge bankrolls you could play for a while to make your $1 and leave. Or a $1 again and again. But you might also lose it all. Making a small amount is more likely, but due to the fact that the loss is greater than the (more likely) small win, the average is zero profit (this is still no green spots, or table limit)

To highlight the issue, Bill Gates (current richest man in the world), if he brought his entire net worth to a casino, and played martingale roulette, it would take only 35 bad spins to bust him. If Warren buffet (who has only slightly less money) played with him, he could last a single spin extra, maybe two.
once again, the average profit they would make after a billion spins, is zero.

twerg_85

Yeah, I understand all that. Wasn't saying that EV is positive. If you add a load of zero EV bets together, it's still zero EV.

But, it is still true to say that there is 100% probability that the player will earn $1, so in that sense, the system 'works' in the theoretical case of infinite bankroll.

As was stated before, it takes almost no time to setup and run simulations to show to anyone that all these systems are flawed and busto is a very likely outcome.

Mellor

With an infinite BR, you will swing between profit an loss. The average is zero.
You "could" in theory walk away at a point when you are up, but human nature is not like that.
In fact if you did have an infinite BR, every spin set would eventually become a winner, so you would actually win alot in theory, but the flaw to this is your profit is going to rise and fall, making EV zero for a non infinate br,

in reality, nobody has an infinate BR, no casino can spread it,
Everybody knos that streaks of 4 or 5 are common, 10 being likely enough if you were to watch alot of spins. And the severity of the martingale system is shown by the fact that 35 bad spins will bust the richest man in the world (and thats if he started at a dollar, started at $50 he lasts 30 spins etc).

Verbal_Kint

I just gave the paddy power blackjack game a go and i know every odd and trick not that there is many with blackjack.

For a fact the paddy power blackjack game is rigged!

What really annoys me is that there is nothing I can do about it. They can put up this dodgy software and get away scott free. Sometimes I think the American unlawful gaming act is not such a bad thing when this muck is happening.

mudakala

I have seen black coming up 11 times straight and the same day red came up 13 times on the other table. I started betting when there was 5 colors straight, and I lost all my money.

wb

Don't even think about it. I once hit ten reds in a row (betting on black). Unless your bank is endless, you'll hit bust sometime. If you have an endless bank, why would you be risking it for a few euro?

OK, if you're lucky, you'll get in and out and pocket a few quid now and that's fine if it's just a bit of fun. But long term, those consecutive losing bets will come - it's pretty much inevitable.