Most people may pass this off as another newbie thinking that the Martingale system is going to win them a fortune (and may possibly be the case). I've put at least a little thought into this so please
have read before making up ur mind...
What we know:
- European Roulette:
- Red ~ (18/37) Black ~ (18/37) Green ~ (1/37)
- Martingale (and Variations) / even-money progression betting strategy ~ Bad??
Oh lets hold up a little on that last one, you guys know better than me that the martingale system and others like it fail because of two main reasons:
- No gambler never has infinite wealth.
- Betting increases exponentially.
- Betting in very short term may win, but in the long term, U gunna Lose!
Also doubling the stake each time one looses only returns 1 unit of betting (plus covering the losses in betting string) seems like a poor investment of time / money. Not to mention table limits messing up the system.
Lets tweak this a bit. If I choose a multiplier of 3 (or more?) the profit returned goes BUT also does the exponential betting, so the amount bet on every loss gets bigger. Anyway lets consider the progression:
1,3,9,27,81, etc. ... More profit on a win, but much higher stakes.
Still progression betting and when betting on even-money bets, such as black/red/even/odd etc., in the long run gamblers will loose. But why?
- Not enough money to cover the next stake in progression, due to a streak of wrong answers (eg. streak of blacks when betting on red).
- Hit the Casino's upper limit?
- Other reason?
But if we start off with a bankroll of $121 (to cover 5 bets) and minimum stake at table on even money bets is $1, as it is possible that triple martingale wins in the very short term, what are the chances of doubling up or alternatively going broke...ie. start with 121, bet 1,3,9,27,81... what are the chances of hitting $242 and stopping, getting out with a profit of $121 before hitting $0.
From computer simulations (Java Code available) I have ran...it seems that you will more often than not the gambler hit the $242. On one simulation of this game I played it 10000 times and the results were :
[Win 7470 / L 2530] so 74.7%
of the time you walk away from the table with $242 and 25.3% of the time you walk away with $0. The exact percentage chance of winning does fluctuate, but is almost always in the region of 70% to 80%.
Tapering off the exponential betting as the streak of loses gets higher will decrease profits but may also increase the chances of covering another loss and as a result increase this 74.5% chance of winning.
Can this be correct?
Its very possible I have made an error somewhere in theory or in implementing this in code but I've checked and I can't see it (any decent programmers out there want the code, or have the time to knock it up themselves to double check it please let me know, and what answers you find)...
If I placate myself and consider that this might be realistic:
Gamblers lose their entire bankroll because they continue past say the 5th, 6th or 7th bet and continue to increase betting exponentially. Compounding the winnings they have made into the next bet and a streak or say 10 "wrong answers" is going to break almost everyone.
If the gambler has for example $2000, and breaks that up into small chunks of $121 and runs the game until he either doubles up or loses the $121 repeatedly, and approximately 74.5% or the time he wins, can he can consistently make money?
Reason being he only can lose a max of $121 in one sitting and overall he should make approx 1.5 times what he invested. This maximises the chances of progressive betting winning in the short term and minimises the loss over the long term. Given this is a slow return, but is it a realistic approach to overall winning at roulette?
Note: Changing the table from single zero to double zero will have a very slight negative effect on the percentage chance but as long as this percentage chance stays up near the 70% mark (or even about 50.0%) are you making money, albeit slowly....