Roulette

I turned $1,000 into just a little over $23,000 playing online roulette with a simple strategy playing dozens (2 to 1 payout). It took me 9 days, playing a few hours each day. I have kept track of every single spin and loss/gain on each one. Over 7000 spins as of now of which I won about 32%. I would say my play involves 80-90% strategy and the rest is gut-feeling. My goal is to use the data on my game-play and analyse it such that I can come up with a strategy that is 100% actual strategy and remove all gut-feeling and speculation/gambling and that improves my odds of winning in the long-term. How would I go about doing that? I was thinking about contacting mathematicians/statisticians.

You can't win long term. Variance explains your experience.

Also: proof is required.

That's what I keep hearing, that one can't win long-term. Maybe that's true.

Care to explain what "variance" means exactly?

My gameplay involves a modified Martingale strategy playing dozens. My biggest loosing streak was 19 spins in a row on which I should have lost about $17,000 but I only lost about $40 because I used the data I collected up to that point to "predict" a loosing streak and I kept my bets at a bare minimum. It was also party due to gut feeling but my goal is to remove that and make my strategy 100% strategy removing all emotion and whatnot.

What you did was gambled and won. Congrats, you got lucky and you should quit now while you are ahead.

Learn a little about statistics and the statistics of roulette and you will realize that you just got lucky. Or continue gambling with your "system" until you lose all your money and continue chasing your losses until you are broke.

Are you retarded? There is no skill or strategy involved in playing roulette.

You'll regress to the mean soon. As all temporarily lucky gamblers with a 'system' do. The mean is a net loss btw. Quit while you're ahead.

If it's a random outcome on each spin how can you predict/prepare for a losing streak?

I break up my gameplay into sections (roughly 70-130 spins per section) and keep track of my entire history since the beginning. The average win rate is 32% of spins. If I'm halfway through a "section" and I have only won 10% of spins, I can more or less "predict" in impending winning streak where I win many consecutive spins and if I lose one, I double on the next etc. and that's when I start betting big. A winning bet of $100 will give me $300. When my winning % is way above the 32% then I bet tiny amounts like $1 for a while until I reach the mean again and eventually go below the mean and bet big again. My losses don't even compare to my winnings.

you might have found some internal flaw in the online roulette wheel. That's why the good casinos have actual wheels on the roulette machines (like in the Excalibur, you all know what I'm talking about).

On a real wheel you won't win forever. If you could, roulette wheels would not exist. There's no rhyme or reason to rolls, and the odds are slightly in the house's favor (due to 0 and 00). Roulette has one of the smaller house advantages, but it still exists.

Feel free to post your method, but I doubt you have anything universal.

this

OP's attitude is how gambling addicts are born.

There is literally no way you can predict a winning streak. This does not become more or less likely based on previous spins. It's all delusion, take it from Veeky Forums. We are experts at delusion here.

I worked in a casino for 3 years. You literally cannot beat the casino statistically. Do you know what house edge is? That's what makes the casino's odds superior to yours. Casinos have hired better maths/statistics guys than you can find and afford.

tl;dr you cannot win

2 things:

1. Your first point is the gambler's fallacy. You're assuming, somehow magically, that if I flip a coin 10 times and they're all heads, that the 11 time for some pixie dust reason is more likely to be tails. Every previous game is irrelevant to the next.

2. The part about doubling after a loss is really where you're winning is coming from, but there is a flaw. You have much, much less capital than the casino, meaning the casino can keep playing chicken with you for what is effectively forever (realistically, you're going to hit some kind of betting cap), meanwhile it'll only take you a bad run to lose everything. Then your system is completely broken.

You make it sound like you can ride the fluctuations but each spin is completely random so doing so is impossible.
There is no way to predict a winning or losing spin. If you're adamant that your system works then put half your winning aside right now and do not touch them.

You'll thank us later when your 'system' transpires to be essentially just luck packaged in pretty words and flawed statistics.

Doubling indeed does not work. If at all, you will only win the amount you started with.
>tfw 8 red spins in a row, must be black now
>black still has a 18/37 (or 18/38 for inferior roulette) chance of rolling, nothing more, nothing less.

So what could happen is the following:
$100 bet - lose ($100 total)
$200 bet - lose ($300 total)
$400 bet - lose ($700 total)
$800 bet - lose ($1500 total)
$1600 bet - lose ($3100 total)
$3200 bet - lose ($6300 total)
$6400 bet - oh shit $5k bet limit (number does not matter much) - you lose your game altogether.

On the other hand if you do win the doubling game, you will only win the amount you started with:
$100 bet - lose ($100 total)
$200 bet - lose ($300 total)
$400 bet - lose ($700 total)
$800 bet - lose ($1500 total)
$1600 bet - win $3200 ($3100 total bet) = $100 won

I have already cashed out much more than half of my winnings yesterday. I will keep playing with the rest to see where it goes.

Downhill, only downhill. Cash out now and don't touch roulette again for a month.

Like I said in a previous post, my biggest losing streak was 19 spins in a row! I bet the absolute minimum on each spin and barely lost anything at all. Lost about $40. Over the next 5 or so spins I made about $2,300.

Also, I play dozen, meaning 2 to 1 payout. So using your example it would be more like this:

$100 bet - lose ($100 total)
$200 bet - lose ($300 total)
$400 bet - lose ($700 total)
$800 bet - lose ($1500 total)
$1600 bet - win $4800
= $3,300 won

The point is the first case is the situation that breaks the doubling, and not that hard to come across. The second situation allows the gambler to retain any winnings they've gotten up to that point and continue to bet. You're essentially betting against a losing streak.

The problem is that its not actually that hard to hit one (especially betting on 1 in 3), and you're going to run out of money FAST. It's a system that looks like it works until it doesn't, then it sucks.

The amount of money you've won up to this point will ultimately be irrelevant when that happens.

roulette is a foul temptress. Trust me, there's been thousands of guys in your shoes. reality will hit you eventually. Just don't be tempted to put more in and enjoy what luck has given you thus far.

>playing dozens
>12/37 chance of winning
>32,43% for 3/1 payout

Play single game bro
>18/37 chance of winning
>48,65% for 2/1 payout

Cont.

hurrdurr it all comes down to 97,3% ultimate payout
Playing single game eliminates part of the gut-feeling as you only have 2 options

>37

what kind of weird wheel are you playing with?

12/38 = 31.5% for 3:1 payout
18/38 = 47.3% for 2:1 payout

House favor is about 5.5%

Exactly this. Both the player's cash stack and the bet limit are finite, meaning it is only a matter of time until the casino wins using this "strategy".

In Holland we have tables with only a single zero. Double zero tables are inferior and you're cheating yourself if you play on such tables.

Of course doubling does not work, even if there was no cap. The world record for most consecutive reds in a row stands in vegas at 52 or so. Imagine those wins and losses.

14+ in a row is not at all unheard of and would utterly bankrupt virtually anyone if you start with 100.

>1 = 100
>2 = 200
>3 = 400
>4 = 800
>5 = 1600
>6 = 3200
>7 = 6400
>8 = 12800
>9 = 25600
>10 = 51200
>11 = 102.400
>12 = 204.800
>13 = 409.600
>14 = 819.200
Now you're in for almost a million $ to cover your $100 bet.
Just a few more rolls and you've reached amounts where no sane person with that kind of money would bother doing this for $100. They could make more than that faster than that without doing this retarded shit.

>Martingale

Into the trash

Dude stats are useless, roulette spins are COMPLETELY separate from one another, it's not like cards where the deck changes and thus the chances change too.

1 spin = 1 spin

It blows my mind that someone old enough to play Roulette doesn't know basic probability math based games wtf

>Double zero tables are inferior
Yeah, but so are Dutch people, so it evens out.

this

No "strategy" or "gut feeling" can ever change the odds of the game. It was a losing proposition each and every spin, you just got lucky.

Small samples have a lot of "variance" or variability from the expected (long term) results. Without fail, however, the more you play the closer your results will come to the theoretical results. Those theoretical results are pretty horrible too. For single-0 roulette you will lose $2.70 for every $100 wagered ((18/37)*200-100), for double-0 roulette you will lose $5.26 for every $100 wagered ((18/38)*200-100).

You are better off (financially) literally lighting a $5 bill on fire than you are placing a $100 bet on double-0 roulette.

All "roulette strategies" rely on the Gambler's Fallacy. This is the FALSE belief that past results affect future results. In reality, each and every spin is an independent event, meaning you are just as likely to see red after 10 blacks as you are to see an 11th black.

The biggest losers in gambling are always those who think they've "figured it out". The more you bet, the more you lose. Those who bet large and frequently with a false sense of confidence inevitably lose the most.

Leave while you're ahead. Poker is the ONLY casino game you can possibly profit from in the long run.

source: made $10K USD gambling as "the house" in RuneScape years ago (sold the gold), I know how gambling works in the long run

Oh boy you sure got us there.

>us
What is this, the Dutch thread?

Ja

The roulette wheel has no memory and no skill. It doesn't remember its previous results, and doesn't adapt its behavioural patterns to trick you. Each spin is random. There is no strategy and no martingale to win, especially online. You will lose all your money in the long-term because the game is designed this way.

Good luck.

...

Ja, en nou opkankeren.

Okay, but you first, klerelijer.

these are statistical anomalies. yes over a long enough timeline the house wins these systems are meant for recreational gamblers like me who hit vegas once every few years. its not a gaurantee but it increases my odds. thats all i really want

>but it increases my odds
Naw.

it literally does tho?

Naw.

No. The odds are the same at each spin.

>but it increases my odds
Remember the man who told you this "secret"?

He works for the casino.

im not talking about the odds of a single spin. im not yoloing my whole wad on one spin i dont think many people do that. im talking about the probability of encountering a net loss over a small series of spins using a martingale system. the odds of losing 8 spins in a row is very small

>win a little money with low risk of losing your whole bankroll
The odds are the same no matter what betting system you use. Martingale just makes it so you can use your entire bankroll as leverage. Its just not a great idea because eventually you will lose it all. You might even lose it all the very next time you bet.

EVERY SINGLE SPIN ANYONE EVER MADE AT A ROULETTE WHEEL WAS A NEGATIVE EXPECTED VALUE ACTION.

A martingale system merely exchanges a large probability of a small loss, with a small probability of a big loss.

You're just shifting the risk vs. reward. Green pays out more because the probability is lower. Martingale pays out less but the probability is higher. Technically you increase the odds, but the expected value of the game remains constant.

In the end you still only recoup 94.7% of everything you put on the table - it doesn't matter how you structure the bets.

People who use martingale usually think they've found a loop hole, they'll say things like "this is why there are table limits". In reality, casinos would bring in A LOT more money with no-limit tables. The reason they have limits is because it prevents those soul-crushing defeats which turn people off gambling for life and creates negative PR. Casinos are simply playing the long game.

There are no "series of spins". The wheel has no memory. Your odds on each spin are not modified in any way by the previous spins.

Thus, it is impossible to say if the "series" will last for 2, 5, 8, 14, 29, 51, or even more tries. (Doubling down 30 times with an initial bet of $100 requires $53.6 billion.)

Meanwhile, your only certitude is that the odds are in the house's favour.

If there were a way to martingale the shit out of the game, it wouldn't have been a successful cash cow for casinos in the last 150 years. Read Dostoevsky's Gambler.

>Dostoevsky's Gambler
Was that the one where Polly Walker gets bent over the roulette table?
That was fucking hot.

You cannot change the odds of each spin, obviously.

You CAN change the odds of "the bet" which, in the case of martingale, is comprised of a succession of spins.

In martingale "the bet" changes from "i think it will be red this spin" to "i think it will be red at least once in the next X spins". In the first scenario you are putting up $1 to win $2, in the second you are putting up $2^x-1 to win $1.

The EV (expected value) of the game remains exactly the same and that is the important part, not the odds.

>You CAN change the odds of "the bet"
Naw.

What is the probability of the next spin being red?

The same as the probability of this spin and the spin after it.

Give me a %.

Let's assume we're playing in Las Vegas, double-0 roulette.

>eventually
yes on an infinite timeline the house wins. again thats not what im talking about. im talking about a recreational gambler playing one night for maybe an hour or two
again im not talking about single spins. please read the words im typing
>Technically you increase the odds
exactly. that was my entire point. thank you
>In the end you still only recoup 94.7% of everything you put on the table
o shit nigger you were so close. no that is true on an infinite timeline. thats not what im talking about. just a small series of spins
>There are no "series of spins"
i dont even know how to argue against this. im not living in vegas. im playing maybe an hour or two. how is that not a small series?
>The EV (expected value) of the game remains exactly the same and that is the important part, not the odds.
exactly. you can shift the odds slightly. idk why this is so hard for people to comprehend

No.

Always the same.

18/38

Correct.

What is the probability of at least 1 red in the next 3 spins?

you guys are so dumb it painful
>hurr durr roullette is impossible to win!!!
if that were true then nobody would play. You can win a little here and there. Yes the house has the odds in their favor but probability isnt certainty. If i bet on red and my buddy bets on black and another dude bets on green one of us will win. Its not impossible to win roulette IN THE SHORT TERM

It has nothing to do with an infintite timeline. It has to do with the odds of each spin being independant of the next no matter what the previous results were.

>you can shift the odds slightly
Naw.

but im not talking about the probability of a single spin. Are you seriously this retarded?

Play roulette games(there's one on Android phones called Double Down Casino that I like) and see if you can craft your own strategy of winning that way.

Lol im done. This is basic math and you guys cant comprehend it. Have fun being retarded

>call people out for not knowing basic math
>thinks he can somehow shift the odd (which is 47.5%) of doubling your money.
nice m8

Let me make it easier for you to understand. Le's assume there are no betting limits. Using martingale you have a slightly less than 1% chance of winning 1% of your bankroll. You have a slightly greater than 1% chance of losing your entire bankroll. You also have a slightly less than 10% chance of winning 10% of your bankroll and a slightly greater than 10% chance of losing your entire bankroll trying to win that 10%.

ok hawking. what are the odds of a wheel landing black or green 9 times in a row?

This is absolutely not how math works.

Every spin is "a single spin". There are no series.

>I'm playing two hours!!!
Two hours of individual spins, which all carry the exact same probability of being black, red, or 0/00.

As you have negative edge, the more you play, the more your chances to lose everything are high. In reality, two hours (100 spins) are more than enough to lose it all. We're not talking about some "infinite timeline".

When someone talks about series and martingale, it's not "short term" anymore.

>If i bet on red and my buddy bets on black and another dude bets on green one of us will win

If each one of you played $1, you collectively had $3 before playing, and now you only have $2 (in most cases). So you lost 1/3 of your money in one single spin. You are a literal retard.

(Not no to your "naw", I quoted the wrong post.)

>Let me make it easier for you to understand. Let's assume there are no betting limits. Using martingale you have a slightly less than 99% chance of winning 1% of your bankroll. You have a slightly greater than 1% chance of losing your entire bankroll. You also have a slightly less than 90% chance of winning 10% of your bankroll and a slightly greater than 10% chance of losing your entire bankroll trying to win that 10%.
Fixed. I typed it too fast.

So?

>>In the end you still only recoup 94.7% of everything you put on the table
>o shit nigger you were so close. no that is true on an infinite timeline. thats not what im talking about. just a small series of spins

"In the end" refers to an infinite timeline/projected results. Variance exists, especially in the short term, and it's entirely possible to walk away ahead. Just realize you did so because of DUMB LUCK, that these results are statistical oddities, and that attempts to repeat said results for long term profits will end in certain failure.

0.6%, more or less.
now tell me, if you start with 10k and you use your smart strategy with doubling your money after you lose, how many rolls do you need to get 20k?

What a waste of quads.

654 to 1.

So, statistically, it will just take a few hours of online play to reach that situation.

See you in 650+ spins, m8.

Wrong.

The odds of 9 non-reds is (20/38)^9 = ~0.3%

But you've missed the entire point:

The odds of red (single spin) is ~47.3%

The odds of at least 1 red in 9 spins = ~99.7%

47.3 =/= 99.7

Using martingale allows you to bet on the second proposition. You are changing the odds.

>You are changing the odds.
Naw. The odds of it hitting red are 18/38 regardless of how many times it has hit red before. I don't think you believe us when we say that each spin is independant of the last one but it is a mathematical certainty.

it's still 47.3 if you want to double your whole stake
99.7% is the chance of increasing your total stake by less than 0.6% and it's pretty dumb to bet on that

Hey, I just played an online roulette game, playing $100 on red at every spin, and doubling down when I lose.

Took me exactly three minutes before black came 5 times in a row and swallowed my $3,000 :^)

Thank you for being the only person with common sense in this thread

The odds of missing red 9 times in a row are not 18/38. That is just blatantly wrong. Please ctrl t and find a calculator

Waste of quads. Anyway why do speak of short term? If you play short term you should never gamble again from the moment you win any amount.

again im not talking about gambling as an investment. Ive conceded several times the house maintains favorable odds in the long run. this is for entertainment and mitigating your loss for an hour or two of recreational betting. assuming you can afford 8 consecutive losses you have a 90% of winning your initial bet 35 times. (.997^35=~.9) that would take way more than the amount of spins im speaking of. again catastrophic loss is possible just unlikely in a limited timeframe. im talking an hour or two of gambling. yes gambling not investing. this is probability not certainty
i speak of short term because some people just hit a casino once every couple years and want to have fun. this system allows them to shift the odds in their favor

i don't even care anymore, i'm out. reread this thread if you lose it all.

if i lose it all in an hour ill consider myself very unlucky

> I don't think you believe us when we say that each spin is independant of the last one but it is a mathematical certainty.

No shit. When the hell did I ever disagree with that?

Your reading comprehension is awful.

You're also dead wrong, if you actually read my replies you'd realize that.

>assuming you can afford 8 consecutive losses

Need a $25,600 bankroll as "protection" for every $100 you're betting, with a 0.3% chance of losing your whole bankroll anyway (i.e. it has to happen in a few hours)?

Sweet.

When I first turned 18 I went to a casino. I was a pretty smart kid and thought I would try martingale system (back then I didn't know it had a name). So I'm sitting at a blackjack table and I bet. As soon as the dealer saw that I was using martingale he let out a literal groan (I shit you not). Not to be deterred and thinking that I knew better than him, I continued with my betting and lost a little over $1k in 15 min. I left feeling defeated but thought that I just got unlucky and that it was a fluke.

Years later, after getting my degree in physics, I thought I would try my luck again, this time at roulette. I would wait until the table had spun red 5 times in a row then start my martingale. I had pretty good early success but had to be patient and wait for the reds to come out before betting black. After winning 10% of my bankroll, I would leave. I did this about 3 more times over the course of a year and bragged to everyone that I had found a foolproof system. On the 4th time, something weird happened. My black never came. 14 fucking spins later I lost my entire bankroll which was about $10 grand.

I was pissed. I was a decent programmer and a math wizard so I decided to program an advanced algorithm in Basic to simulate roulette spins. I was fucking flabbergasted. No matter how many times I did the martingale the odds were always less than 50% of me doubling my bankroll. I tried to wait for 6 reds, 8 reds, 10 FUCKING REDS and no matter how many times a red came out the odds of string of blacks coming out on the next spins were exactly the same. I really didn't believe it and I couldn't wrap my head around it but the numbers were there in front of me. I tried a ton of different betting strategies and none of them worked either.

The whole point of this long story is that gamblers fallacy is a real thing. Some cant understand it until they see it for themselves. If you need help, wizardsofodds is a good place to start. Don't lose any money on this.

That would be an interesting formula to have:

% of X "streak" in Y spins

I'm usually good with probability but unsure how you'd calculate something like that. Hmm.

Or a meager 2560 roll for ten dollar bets? Thats not much and my life wouldnt be over on the fractional percent chace it happened.
>it has to happen in a few hours
ya. cuz if it doesnt im getting up and leaving. did you even read the thread?

>50% of me doubling my bankroll
But who says you have to double it? Im just trying to have fun at the smallest risk possible

sorry this was for lol he has a degee in physics and he cant comprehend basic probability

>My black never came
This happened to me when I called "Rent-A-Bull".

Seriously though, I taught Martingale to a friend years back, when I thought it was legit. He tried to use it, got ruined on a 7 spin stretch, and never forgave me.

Let me just restate my thesis in meme form for you retards because apparently a lot of you are just skimming through these posts.
>If you try to use martingale to make money you will probably (from the root word probability) lose.
>If you use it over a short period of time for fun you will probably (from the root word probability) win.
pick 2

Less than 50%. Even if you are only trying to win %10 of your bankroll you still have more than a 10% chance of total loss of your entire bankroll. Is it fun? Yeah, I gamble sometimes for fun too, but you are not increasing your odds of winning. Lets say you have $1000 bankoll. If you bet $1000 on a flat bet then you have about a 47% chance of winning $1000. You can gamble smaller increments using a martingale strategy, it comes out to the same thing. Lets say you bet $10. You need to win 100 times in order to make that $1000. Over those 100 times, your odds of losing 7 times in a row and losing your initial $1000 increases to about 47%. It's the same thing either way. Can you stop if you win 10% of your bankroll without losing and never go back to playing roulette ever again? Of course. That would be the smart thing to do. Most people don't do that though because they think they have found a system. They keep going back until they lose. Which they will. The longer you play the more of a gaurantee it is.

>rent a bull
Haha nice.

Let me ask you something. Would you play a game where you had a 89% chance of winning $10 bucks and an 11% chance of losing $100? Do you think thats a good bet, even in the short run?

oh boy, I really didn't think people like OP existed. I though only people who didn't know about the house edge gambled to make money.

this is probably the best short summary of OP's "strategy"

the problem is, it's still completely random what happens. you bet on red appearing in the next X spins and you figure you have a 95% chance it happens, which means 5% odds of a catastrophic bankruptcy. now you *think* you have an edge. but you don't. because there is no way to know whether you're entering the game on the 95% or the 5%. the first session you do could very well be within the 5% of outcomes and break you right away. this is what the thread is trying to tell you. it's random. the wheel doesn't care about statistics or probabilities. you sit down and the wheel produces a random series of results. since your over-all expected value of the game of roulette never changes, your "short-term profit" is nothing more than dumb luck. and despite what you may think, there is no way to guarantee any (even short term) profit.

you cannot know "where" you are in the grand scheme of things. there's no way to only play the 95% of games where everything works out. and due to the randomness, the inevitable streak that breaks you could be the first, tenth or it could never come in your lifetime. but the odds are always against you overall.

it is impossible to figure out a "100% strategy" in the game of roulette.

>a "100% strategy" in the game of roulette

Own the casino.

>Martingale
>at best 50-50 odds if you pick red/black
>OP's claiming 2 to 1 payout (much different than the typical high-probability 0-3% gains and low-probability 100% losses)

Drink bleach.