Online Roulette and Baccarat Systems that work ?

[Deej]

Hello,

I was wondering if there are any online Roulette and/or Baccarat Systems that work well ? I have tried a few different Roulette Systems online that worked for a while, but then I lost all of my winnings in the long run. If there are any, please let me know the names and where I can find them.

Thank You,
Deej

 

[Vesuvio]

Deej, there aren't any. You'll always lose in the long term unless you're incredibly lucky.

Just thought I'd jump in before any scam artists get the chance to reply.

If you want to make money from on-line casinos without needing luck then playing with bonuses which give the player an edge is the only proven 'system'.

 

[Deej]

Vesuvio,

Thank you for your honesty and the heads-up. I greatly appreciate it.

Deej

 

[The Dude]

And let me jump into this thread while it's still fresh.

There are no "systems" that work. There have been a load of arguments pro and con concerning this topic in this forum. Believe me, you'd be better off playing the stock market.

 

[dominique]

The only system is a good knowledge of basic strategy for the game you are playing. Learn the rules, learn the basic strategies.

Bonuses can help or hurt depending on the wagering requirements.

I had access to a backend for a short time a couple of years ago, and I watched people play Blackjack, and I was horrified. They had no idea and were playing by hunches and losing and losing....

So, learn the odds of your available moves and play according to them. It's the only thing that will definitely help.

 

[GrandMaster]

The truth about betting systems:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[chandra8000]

I am a long time Baccarat player and I have seen almost every system imaginable.
If you are lured by what a system claims, do not look at how it wins but figure out what it loses to (they all lose to something). Once you have that then calculate how often that loss will occur and how much that loss will cost you. Then see if you still have a profit (and this does not take into account human mistakes, panic and general loss of control).

 

[XANATOS]

i am new to this forum
and i hate to be disagreeable
but there are working roulette systems
at least there is one its mine
and it is not for sell
i started working on it when i was 13
when i recievd a roulette game as a gift
it took me five years to develope my system playing
for fun
when i turned 22 i played it for money
and have every since
i have yet to try it online but that is soon to change
in fact its going to change tonight


XANATOS

 

[bokske]

Eradicating the myth of the House edge

I am convinced that all the naysayers really mean what they say, and that their answer is a well-intended advice not to rely on systems. People with this opinion have probably come to this conclusion after a long time of gambling and likely some experiments with systems of their own. Too bad that the truth is still one step beyond.

This discussion is all about two mathematical properties of whatever gambling proposition :
1. The average House edge on each single play
2. The expected average result for a specific playing algorithm on this game
Many people intuitively equate one to the other in the blink of an eye. WizardOfOdds is only one of so many websites to perpetuate this falsehood.
I contend that these two figures are quite different. Therefore, a game with a built-in disadvantage can still be played with a positive statistical expectation about the average result in the long run. I posit that a system (a.k.a. playing algorithm) can slant the House edge in either direction. But it's harder to find a specific system to sway this House edge several percents in the positive direction, than just half a percent. Therefore it's still useful to look out for games with a very small negative expectation value.

It's actually difficult to construct a system that yields exactly the same expected overall result as the House edge. I think the best way to go would be a strategy of always playing exactly 1 betting unit on some chance. Any deviations from this scheme probably cause a difference between the two said mathematical properties.

A last line of thought to win over the diehard pessimists. Do you think it's possible to construct a system with a worse expected overall result than the House edge ? As an extreme case, could you construct a system that always loses the entire initial deposit (expected overall result = -100%). I would think along the lines of "keep playing forever, no matter how much you win, until all your money is gone". But this is mathematically not watertight I guess, as there could be this one lucky streak that keeps piling money into your account and never reaches those end criteria. Still, many people must feel that it's easy to define a playing algorithm that loses twice as much money as it wins (expected overall result = -50%). Admitting that, is admitting that the two mathematical properties are NOT the same.

It's probably ill mannered to refer to a "better" forum in my very first post.
Let's just say that those who want to really delve into the mathematical details, should google for "Deep mathematical thoughts on systems".

 

[GrandMaster]

Therefore, a game with a built-in disadvantage can still be played with a positive statistical expectation about the average result in the long run. I posit that a system (a.k.a. playing algorithm) can slant the House edge in either direction.

Wow! This is quite a statement! Please read an introductory book on probability. It will be a very good investment as it will stop you from losing a lot more money in the casinos.

A last line of thought to win over the diehard pessimists. Do you think it's possible to construct a system with a worse expected overall result than the House edge ? As an extreme case, could you construct a system that always loses the entire initial deposit (expected overall result = -100%). I would think along the lines of "keep playing forever, no matter how much you win, until all your money is gone". But this is mathematically not watertight I guess, as there could be this one lucky streak that keeps piling money into your account and never reaches those end criteria. Still, many people must feel that it's easy to define a playing algorithm that loses twice as much money as it wins (expected overall result = -50%). Admitting that, is admitting that the two mathematical properties are NOT the same.

If you play a negative expectation game long enough, you WILL LOSE your whole bankroll, lucky streaks nothwithstanding, it is just a matter of time. (For details again see a book on probability.)

 

[nafanny29]

If a game has a mathematical edge of 5.26% then you will win 94.74% of all money bet on it over the long run. Period. Unless you either cheat, exploit a fault in software or otherwise manipulate it in your favour. Any "system" that relies on a random event will lose exactly the HA over enough time.

 

[Slotster!]

If a game has a mathematical edge of 5.26% then you will win 94.74% of all money bet on it over the long run. Period. Unless you either cheat, exploit a fault in software or otherwise manipulate it in your favour. Any "system" that relies on a random event will lose exactly the HA over enough time.

You mean I should stop clicking my heels together three times, reciting Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" backwards, keeping one eye closed and wearing a dress next time I'm playing Roulette?

Bugger.

The bloke who I paid $99 for that information said it did something special and magic to the algorithm - which meant I won more. I feel violated.

 

[Vesuvio]

It's probably ill mannered to refer to a "better" forum in my very first post.
Let's just say that those who want to really delve into the mathematical details, should google for "Deep mathematical thoughts on systems".

If you're going to try and spam something can't you at least check it works first? One hopeful google later... nothing, nada, zip.

I did find somewhere you might aspire to, though :
Old / Expired Link

 

[bokske]

If you're going to try and spam something can't you at least check it works first? One hopeful google later... nothing, nada, zip.

My sincere apologies, Vesuvio.
I blindly assumed that the title of the thread I launched elsewhere would automatically show up on Google. My bad - I should have checked.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Now that you've brought it up, another important advice to OP Deej. I strongly dissuade you to buy any "winning" system from online scammers. These are worthless repetitions and recombinations of systems that have been known publicly for ages, and that have often been proven unprofitable. Science should be discussed in public and for free - that also applies here, to the subchapter of mathematics called Game Theory. Over at the forum I just mentioned, there is a huge collection of system descriptions for your free browsing.The folks over there are big on a commercial simulation program (not a commercial system) called Roulette Extreme, and you'll find snippets of algorithm code for this package all over the place.

I'm using my own C simulation program with a standard set of 100,000 roulette spins that I believe to be fair. Many beginning system builders "discover" the Martingale progression for themselves (it has actually been described as early as the 18th century). I'm terminally stuck in that phase, and the current best result of my incessant simulations occurs with an appalling required bankroll of $20,000 for a $1 min and $500 max limit table. It uses Martingale progression on 9 pairs to be selected at will - ending criteria are 2 wins for each pair. This setup is totally out of the question for practical purposes, but at least it adds some weight to the theoretical debate. I have less favorable but still positive results for the same setup, only with a $5000 bankroll. It's a step in the good direction, but I'm still finetuning my search to have a profitable system that requires a bankroll of no more than, say $2000. From that moment on, I want to focus my efforts on an automatic computer player following this algorithm - a bot. After the astonishing adventures of PirateC21 described only here on CasinoMeister, I'd better make damn sure about the regulations for the online casino that I'll pick.

So far, I have the curious impression that the roulette at InterCasino is treating me fairer than it should. My simulations show a catastrophic loss from time to time, to be outweighed by the steady trickle of positive sessions. Yet this has not yet occurred in actual play. I've been very close to bankruptcy when a pair I was chasing did not come out for 86 times, but that is really not
the unbelievable streak one might estimate it to be (should occur 0.8% percent of the time).

 

[nafanny29]

You mean I should stop clicking my heels together three times, reciting Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" backwards, keeping one eye closed and wearing a dress next time I'm playing Roulette?

Bugger.

That will actually defy all the laws of proberbility, especially if you have Pink Floyd pumping out the speakers at 90db+. Class act

 

[Mugwump]

A last line of thought to win over the diehard pessimists. Do you think it's possible to construct a system with a worse expected overall result than the House edge ? As an extreme case, could you construct a system that always loses the entire initial deposit (expected overall result = -100%).

Ummm....Yeah.

Try this 'system'.
-------
Put a bet on every single number of the roulette wheel, including 0 and 00.

Its cool because you are guaranteed to win on every single spin!

Repeat until broke.
-------

This 'system' actually has a -5.25% expectation each time its played, and has the added benefit of removing the volatility of the roulette wheel from the equation.

In american roulette, every bet I place has a -5.25% expectation. This means that if I bet $10, I lose on average .52 cents each time I make a bet. In the short run, I can win with a bet and increase my bankroll. However, my chances of coming out ahead over the long term decrease with the number of bets that I make.

In actuality, I think the best system you have of beating the house edge in an even money game is to take your entire bankroll and place it down once and walk away, win or lose. By doing so, you give the casino less of a chance to grind out its inevitable long term win.

You don't get to play very long when you do this though, thus we have devised systems to help us manage our money and extend our time at the tables. They don't work over the long haul, but its fun when they work, and unless we're using that Martingale mess, don't cost us much when we lose.

The only people that make money with systems are those that author books on them and the casinos that welcome those that read them.

 

[Vesuvio]

I blindly assumed that the title of the thread I launched elsewhere would automatically show up on Google. My bad - I should have checked.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

It's like an asylum for 21st-Century alchemists! Bokse, you actually seem sincere, if slightly delusional. I couldn't quite work out how others use that forum, maybe a split between those who see it as:

1) An intellectual challenge - either to create an 'interesting' system, or to be the quickest to find the inevitable 'flaw' in each cunning new plan

2) A source of lots of moderately plausible systems to rip off gulllible and/or desperate gamblers (nice to see our old friend Andruchi making an appearance there!)

3) A genuine quest, akin to finding a perpetual motion machine or turning base metals into gold. Unfortunately I suspect there comes a point in the 'career' of genuine 'questers' when they realise the only way to actually make money is to sell systems they've proved to themselves don't work...

How about just playing with casino bonuses and making money without defying the laws of physics or mathematics!? Or else - just accept you can't beat a fair negative expectation game and concentrate on on-line casinos which may well not be fair, and should therefore be exploitable. At least it might work - and everyone on here would be interested in your results. The same doesn't go for any brainstorms you may have related to unrigged games...

 

[Slotster!]

That will actually defy all the laws of proberbility, especially if you have Pink Floyd pumping out the speakers at 90db+. Class act

I still get to wear the dress too, right?... Only because it's a very important part of the system you understand, no other reason. Ahem.

 

[bokske]

It's like an asylum for 21st-Century alchemists!

No wonder I feel right at home there.

Bokske, you actually seem sincere, if slightly delusional.

My friends would describe me that way, yes.

1) An intellectual challenge (...)
2) A source of lots of moderately plausible systems to rip off gullible and/or desperate gamblers

I want to stress that the whole Systems Library over there is free to browse, albeit in the somewhat clumsy shape of a forum discussion.

3) A genuine quest, akin to finding a perpetual motion machine or turning base metals into gold.

Put me down for that third category. I'm not terribly keen on ruining an online casino, and I definitely don't want to peddle any systems to hapless readers. I just have the humble intention of changing the way the world thinks about roulette forever.

How about just playing with casino bonuses (...)

Now where's the mathematical challenge in that ??

(...) concentrate on on-line casinos which may well not be fair, and should therefore be exploitable.

Yawn. Your interests are just very different from mine. Isn't it infinitely more stimulating to demonstrate that a fair casino can be beaten ?

At least it might work - and everyone on here would be interested in your results. The same doesn't go for any brainstorms you may have related to unrigged games...

I get your point, and I'll withdraw to the "asylum".

 

[aye-nay]

a bit off the topic

I know most of you guys don't like it, but at luckycance casino the baccarat appeared quite recently and I win more ften than loose - making small bets, I always make small bets. maybe it's just due to the fact that they've just started the game and try to "advertise" it. and "ties" happan unusually often.

 

[Vesuvio]

Yawn. Your interests are just very different from mine. Isn't it infinitely more stimulating to demonstrate that a fair casino can be beaten ?

Fair enough. I agree bonus hunting isn't interesting and won't advance the boundaries of intellectual knowledge, but at least it's an easy way to make some money. Demonstrating a fair game of roulette or baccarat can be beaten would be much more stimulating - it's just a shame it's impossible, whatever complicated reasoning you come up with to try and convince yourself of the opposite. Still, good luck!

 

[KasinoKing]

For what its worth, I believe there are ways to beat Roulette. I have had little dabbles with some good successes, but all the time there is easy money to be had from bonuses, I can not be bothered to try to develop my theory further. This might sound crazy, but with any Roulette system there is the risk of losing $100s before you start winning and I cant stomach that. (Too chicken!).
All the pessimists say that if you keep going with any system, you will lose in the end. This is undeniably true. But in any given session, you will nearly always be ahead at some point the trick is to quit at this point, before the maths takes your winnings away!
The basis of my (and many others!) theory: There is no way to win if you bet on every spin, but some casinos (e.g. Cryptologic) allow you to spin the wheel with no bets on it. After say 20 spins, at least 17 of the numbers will not have come up at all. If you start betting on these numbers, the chance of any one hitting on any given spin is still always 1/37, but the longer it doesnt hit the greater the probability that it will come in sooner than those that have already hit. In this respect, the maths says you MUST win!
This is very roughly the basis of my theory, and presumably, those of others.
When I finally get down to fine tuning my system to a foolproof winning method I will immediately tell no-one and not try to sell it. What - are you kidding???

 

[pstnpstn]

For what its worth, I believe there are ways to beat Roulette. I have had little dabbles with some good successes, but all the time there is easy money to be had from bonuses, I can not be bothered to try to develop my theory further. This might sound crazy, but with any Roulette system there is the risk of losing $100s before you start winning and I cant stomach that. (Too chicken!).
All the pessimists say that if you keep going with any system, you will lose in the end. This is undeniably true. But in any given session, you will nearly always be ahead at some point the trick is to quit at this point, before the maths takes your winnings away!
The basis of my (and many others!) theory: There is no way to win if you bet on every spin, but some casinos (e.g. Cryptologic) allow you to spin the wheel with no bets on it. After say 20 spins, at least 17 of the numbers will not have come up at all. If you start betting on these numbers, the chance of any one hitting on any given spin is still always 1/37, but the longer it doesnt hit the greater the probability that it will soon come. In this respect, the maths says you MUST win!
This is very roughly the basis of my theory, and presumably, those of others.
When I finally get down to fine tuning my system to a foolproof winning method I will immediately tell no-one and not try to sell it. What - are you kidding???

I use system for roulette.
I do not use complicated system.
I am playing two simple system.


one is martingale (1,2,4,8) - black/red , odd/even
example :
wait black come out successively four or more.
after all red will come out.
after then red come out, now bet black 1, if lose again bet 2 on black ,again lose again bet 4 on black, again lose last bet 8 on black.
If I lose bet 8 on black, then it's game over.
total lost unit is 15 (1,2,4,8)


another is dozen or column bet
example :
wait one dozen or column come out 4 times successively.
and then bet other dozens or other colums each one unit.
If i lose then bet 3 each, again lose again bet 9 each.
If i lose bet 9 each , then it's game over.
total lost unit is 26 (1-1,3-3,9-9)

sorry for my english.
anyway many roulette player are playing with their own systems.

 

[nafanny29]

Until roulette balls acquire a memory I will stick to crossing my fingers.

If you record all your bets over 5000 spins you will find your return will equal about what the mathematics say it should be im afraid.

 

[KasinoKing]

I use system for roulette.
I do not use complicated system.
I am playing two simple system.

one is martingale (1,2,4,8) - black/red , odd/even
example :
wait black come out successively four or more.
after all red will come out.
after then red come out, now bet black 1, if lose again bet 2 on black ,again lose again bet 4 on black, again lose last bet 8 on black.
If I lose bet 8 on black, then it's game over.
total lost unit is 15 (1,2,4,8)


another is dozen or column bet
example :
wait one dozen or column come out 4 times successively.
and then bet other dozens or other colums each one unit.
If i lose then bet 3 each, again lose again bet 9 each.
If i lose bet 9 each , then it's game over.
total lost unit is 26 (1-1,3-3,9-9)

sorry for my english.
anyway many roulette player are playing with their own systems.

Those systems can only have one outcome.

Please let me know when you are completely broke, so I can say 'I told you so!'

I urge you to give up this crazy notion now - before it is too late!

 

[bpb]

All the pessimists say that if you keep going with any system, you will lose in the end. This is undeniably true. But in any given session, you will nearly always be ahead at some point the trick is to quit at this point, before the maths takes your winnings away!

Its tough to tell if you're joking or not. My sarcasm detector isn't that great.

If you aren't joking, I'd suggest that you head down to your local Borders or B&N, find a copy of David Sklansky's "Getting the Best of It", get a cup of coffee and a slice of cheesecake, sit down, and read this book for half an hour. Theres a section near the back of the book that discusses the fallacy of "money mangement" in gambling.

In general, this is one of the best gambling texts I've ever read. I'd strongly recommend it to anyone interested in gambling for profit vs gambling for recreation. Hopefully, your local bookstore will carry a copy. It's probably located in the gambling section between "How to win at craps ... guaranteed!" and "What the casinos don't want you to know!". Truly a diamond in the rough.

 

[KasinoKing]

Its tough to tell if you're joking or not. My sarcasm detector isn't that great.

I am absolutely not joking. Most of my profit in the last 3-4 years has been made by quitting when I am ahead and switching to a different game. It's not rocket science, just will power.
However, I do admit that sarcasm is my forte, whereas reading books is not. Why would I need to read a book anyway, when I am happy with my systems which already work?
Enjoy your coffee & cheesecake - I'll stick to English tea & crumpet!

 

[bpb]

I am absolutely not joking. Most of my profit in the last 3-4 years has been made by quitting when I am ahead and switching to a different game. It's not rocket science, just will power.

"Money Management" helped build Las Vegas.

It really is a very very good book.

Here's a little problem to ponder from one of Sklansky's other books.

4 brothers each play craps every day. They each religiously follow their own betting system.

Brother A - Bets $1 on the pass line 3 times, then quits.
Brother B - Bets $1 on the pass line 3 times. If he wins all three, he makes a 4th $1 bet then quits, regardless of the outcome of the 4th bet.
Brother C - Bets $1 on the pass line 3 times. If he wins all three, he makes a 4th $2 bet, then quits, regardless of the outcome of the 4th bet.
Brother D - Bets $1 on the pass line 3 times. If he wins all three, he makes a 4th $2 bet. If he wins that one, he makes a 5th $3 bet. If he wins that one, he makes a 6th $4 bet. So on and so forth. He continues to up his bet by $1 until he loses once, then quits.


10 years go by. The brothers get together to compare their results. Which brother should have performed the best? Next best? 3rd Best? Which brother will have done the worst?

What is the significance of this question?

 

[nafanny29]

A,B,C then D?

But they would all be down overall

Enlighten us please :notworthy

 

[KasinoKing]

A,B,C then D?
But they would all be down overall
Enlighten us please :notworthy

Interesting! My guess would be the exact opposite D C B then A.

This is because that's how I play most games - increase my bets when I win. It works for me!

I await the answer with interest....

 

[Vesuvio]

A,B,C then D?

But they would all be down overall

Enlighten us please :notworthy

Agreed. A does the least badly because he bets the least, and so on. They all lose the amount the house edge predicts overall. Whoever bets the most loses the most.

No-one should ever gamble at a casino

p.s. but who knows what their results will be on-line - this is one for the corrupt programmers among us to answer

 

[bpb]

Agreed. A does the least badly because he bets the least, and so on. They all lose the amount the house edge predicts overall. Whoever bets the most loses the most.

No-one should ever gamble at a casino

p.s. but who knows what their results will be on-line - this is one for the corrupt programmers among us to answer

Bingo

Imagine that A,B,C,D are all playing at the same table, and that the chance of winning the pass line bet is 49% (its a little lower).

When they lose one of the first 3 rolls, all brothers walk away with the same total. But when they win the first 3 rolls,

Brother A quits with $3 won
Brother B plays one more $1 bet, and walks away with $2 51% of the time, and $4 49% of the time .... therefore, he on average will lose more than A
Brother C plays one more $2 bet, and walks away with $1 51% of the time, and $5 49% of the time .... therefore, he on average will lose more than B
Brother D plays one more $2 bet, loses and walks away with $1 51% of the time
The other 49%, he plays $2 again, loses and walks away with $2 51% of the time
The other 49% he plays $2 again, loses and walks away with $3 51% of the time
The other 49% he plays $2 again, loses and walks away with $4 51% of the time.
etc etc etc


Its a little harder to see in the case of Brother D, but his expectation is worse than brother C, which is worse than B, which is worse than A.

As Vesuvio pointed out, your expectation is solely a result of the house advantage, and the amount that you wager. And the next wager you place, is the next wager you place. Doesn't matter if its today, tomorrow, next week, or next year. If you don't have the best of it, adjusting your betting won't do anything. You are going to lose in proportion to the amount of your total wagering.


What does this all mean? When you don't have the best of it, gamble for fun ... not profit. Online, bonus whoring is about the only way to have the best of it.

 

[Dreamer]

Just thought I would add my 2 cents here... I can't verify any of this onfo, nor am I suggesting anyone use it.

This evening on the Travel Channel, there was a repeat of a show I had previously seen called "Sucker Bets". One thing that was mentioned was to always bet on the banker when playing baccarat. It did not say why, only mentioned that the banker has a slight edge. I tried the strategy for play money at InterCasino and it seemed that the player was always winning. Not to mention that when the banker wins, you need to pay a commission... Of course, I only played a few games, so that is not a fair trial. I suppose this would be good to use with casino bonuses, however, all the bonuses I have seen exclude baccarat.

Another system I have seen on the net, I forget where, is to play the same one number. If it does not win in 37 plays, double your bet until it comes in. This is probably similar to the Martingale system, which is proven to be less profitable than even bet amounts. I am not really interested in it myself, just passing along the info... I am a red, black, even, odd type... LOL!

 

[dickens1298]

Just thought I would add my 2 cents here... I can't verify any of this onfo, nor am I suggesting anyone use it.

This evening on the Travel Channel, there was a repeat of a show I had previously seen called "Sucker Bets". One thing that was mentioned was to always bet on the banker when playing baccarat. It did not say why, only mentioned that the banker has a slight edge. I tried the strategy for play money at InterCasino and it seemed that the player was always winning. Not to mention that when the banker wins, you need to pay a commission... Of course, I only played a few games, so that is not a fair trial. I suppose this would be good to use with casino bonuses, however, all the bonuses I have seen exclude baccarat.

Another system I have seen on the net, I forget where, is to play the same one number. If it does not win in 37 plays, double your bet until it comes in. This is probably similar to the Martingale system, which is proven to be less profitable than even bet amounts. I am not really interested in it myself, just passing along the info... I am a red, black, even, odd type... LOL!

Because of the structure of the game - where the determination of whether the Banker has to draw a card is dependent upon the Player's cards - Banker has a slight edge. Even with the 5% vig on wins, the house edge with Banker is still lower than that of Player, so it's still an ideal bet.

Keep in mind that a "sucker bet" is really determined by how closely the house pays you true odds. According to the program, for example, tie bets are sucker bets - simply because the true odds of a tie is something like 12 to 1, whereas the payoff is 9 to 1. But I've seen tie bets pay off big, although the house edge WILL grind you over time.

The Martingale system is simply flawed because of a gambler's fallacy. Put another way - you and your friend flip a quarter, and it lands head for 2 straight times. You wager that it will land tails on the next toss, because for it to land heads three times in a row, you've calculated that the odds are 12.5% that it would do that, so you assume you have a 87.5% advantage. But what are the odds of it landing hands on the next - the third - toss? 50%.

Blackjack players are notorious Martingale users. They assume they're due, so they up their wager. But they are simply exposing increasing amounts of money to a negative expectation game.

 

[bpb]

This is probably similar to the Martingale system, which is proven to be less profitable than even bet amounts.

After wagering X dollars, your expected result using a martingale system is exactly the same as flat betting. It is not less profitable, but rather as profitable as any other betting strategy.

 

[Mugwump]

While your expected loss per $$$ is the same with Martingale as it is with flat betting, I believe that the martingale system does change the volatility of the game, and I imagine it changes it for the worse by exposing you to the very likely possibility of catastrophic losses.

This can occur either by blowing your bankroll and being unable to make the final bet in the series, or by running into the table limit, which effectively does the same thing.

 

[big_mac]

Blackjack players are notorious Martingale users. They assume they're due, so they up their wager. But they are simply exposing increasing amounts of money to a negative expectation game.

I propose that it can actually be a sensible thing to do!

Not because the cards will turn in your favour, but by increasing the bets you actually end up putting less money across the table, and so reducing the average amount that the house takes.

 

[jpsartre]

by increasing the bets you actually end up putting less money across the table, and so reducing the average amount that the house takes.

How is that? I would have thought that bigger bets meant bigger turnover and thus a bigger average loss...

 

[big_mac]

It would do if you were going to play the same number of hands, but people don't usually play that way - I certainly don't.

When I deposit, I do so knowing that I will either lose it or make a profit. If I have lost money, I am not likely to withdraw less than my original deposit, so I will keep playing.

If, say, I am not going to withdraw until I have increased my balance by $100, then to do this at $1 a hand will probably take over 1000 hands. Doing this at $50 a hand will be quick, and will involve a much lower overall amount staked.

My exposure to loss is the same, because I was only every risking the same amount.

This doesn't mean that I think it's a good idea, but gambling at all isn't really a good idea in the first place!

 

[bokske]

...exposing you to the very likely possibility of catastrophic losses.

This can occur either by blowing your bankroll and being unable to make the final bet in the series, or by running into the table limit, which effectively does the same thing.

Totally true.
Everyone who plays Martingale on even bets must have gone through this experience. The fundamental solution to this problem is to reduce the coverage of the wager - going from an even bet to double streets, squares, single streets, pairs, or even single-number bets. A Martingale progression is essentially an exponential curve (of the form f(x) = a^x), slightly disrupted by the effect of the rounding to integer betting units. It's about the same mathematical behavior as the world population, also headed for a catastrophic encounter of the "house limit". You want to reduce the slope of this curve as much as possible, so as to put this encounter with the bankroll or table limit as far away in the progression as possible. Obviously, by betting on smaller chances, the waiting time before the wager wins gets longer too.

My computer can only do 25 billion simulated roulette spins a day, but its temporary best result leads me to believe that the optimal choice is pairs or triples. I'm not sure yet what the best initial coverage of the table should be - in manual play, I'm starting with 50% now (9 pairs or 6 triples). All those wagers run as individual, independent progressions. I think the key might be in not chasing every single wager until it finally wants to hit at the end of times (... and definitely at the end of my bankroll) ; just let it slide and count on the gains that have built up in the meantime, with wagers that were more successful.

An unexpected advantage came from a little thought I had when I launched these simulations. Instead of making all the progressions strictly independent, I built in a "discount" feature where the accumulated loss of due wagers is alleviated by the gains of other wagers that have already hit. Instead of the typical exponential curves, I now get a "plateau" characteristic during each session, where the stakes rise to a certain level while wagers remain due; then as some wagers pay out, the other hopeless ones profit from this "discount" figure and they linger on with very small stakes, not hurting the bankroll too much.

The subtleties of probability theory are always hard to "feel intuitively". It's difficult to accept that when a coin-toss has come up Heads ten times in a row, the chances for Heads in the eleventh toss are still 50%. It might be more clear with roulette. Imagine that some numbers have come up plenty, and some are long due. Now think about that little ball, bouncing along the metal studs and then over the frets between the numbers. How would it possibly "know" that it shouldn't land in the undesirable spaces ?