Roulette

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.