The wheel doesnt remember. Its still hugely flawed unless you have unlimited bankroll and no table limit. And if you have unlimited bankroll - why do you need to gamble exactly?
Hi... I heard about the Martingale System from a friend that swore to me that it works so I did some research. I played for free at roulette-games.com and kept track of every bet... Everything was going great until I hit 9 blacks in a row and didn't have enough money to continue playing... Boy was I glad this was just pretend money!
But just as I was about to throw away all the data I'd consumed, I decided to go back through it, looking at what would of happened if I had bet red then black then red then black etc etc instead of just red every time... And at no point in any of my data was there a loss of more than 5 times in a row. 1st bet would be 1. 2nd bet - 2. 3rd bet - 4. 4th bet - 8. 5th bet 16. so you would need 32 to make that 6th bet to get back your money and make that all important 1 back.
What I'm really trying to ask is, what is the maximum amount of times, realistically speaking, that the balls will come out against you in a row if you are alternating between colors? If this can be figured out, then we can know how much we need in our bankroll before we start playing...
I know it's gambling at the end of the day and there's no guarantees, but I'd like to know the odds before I decide not to try it...
Thanks for reading,
Trevor
The wheel doesnt remember. Its still hugely flawed unless you have unlimited bankroll and no table limit. And if you have unlimited bankroll - why do you need to gamble exactly?
Originally Posted by TomPich
Of course I am aware that the wheel has no memory and that every spin is new and has no connection to the past... but still, I find it hard to believe that there has ever been a case where say 20 or more blacks have ever came out in a row... even though it is possible, I'm talking about realistic likeliness. How much money would you need to have to beat the realistic likeliness of hitting bad luck?
I would personally say if your initial bet was 1 then you would need a bank roll of no less than 1024. this would cover you for 10 losses in a row (most I've ever encountered is 5 losses in a row with the alternating colors System).
Do you think this is possible?
No. Because over a long enough timeline it doesnt return enough on the investment. Its a losing game. The tables have limits. If you find a table that will let you bet 1 and 1024 respectively then thats great. But what if the 10th one DOES lose. Even if you had 2048 the taable my not allow that limit. Then what if you lose THAT one.
Its a stupid argument and I dont even know why im bothering to reply cos Roulette is a stupid game that should be played in a similar way to blackjack. "I cant consistently win at this but Ill bet a small amount that i can afford to lose and if I find myself £50 ahead then I will stop there and go get a round of drinks."
Originally Posted by TomPich
I see your point completely and for many reasons, I will probably never act out on this but I am still interested in it...
What is the most losses in a row on a 50/50 bet of any kind that you or anyone else has ever encountered?
do a net search......
...I spent 5 seconds, and : "During several months our members tested this principle and the longest red/black consecutive sequence was based on 17 consecutive black’s.". I am sure others have encountered longer consecutive runs.
And obviously the chance of 17 consecutive blacks is the same as 17 reds, or red-black-red-black 17 times.
Today, I have mostly been : .....recovering from a couple of days at Edinburg fringe !
Np. Youre probably the first person who has seen the light and not continued playing a broken game.Rfph wins the point though.
Originally Posted by TomPich
Hi Zombie
Just so you know it can happen, I've seen 23 blacks spunconsecutive twice at a live casino and five zeros within eight spins. That's the problem with roulette - anything is POSSIBLE!
Cheers
Steve