Went to the casino for the first time ever last night. After dabbling in a few things, I found roulette to be by far my favorite. First time, I lost $20 right off the bat. So I stopped and watched. An hour later I grew $60 into $220. I had never played roulette before, but this lead me to think up this unbeatable strategy . . .
Ok, say I play only on the 2:1 outside the grid spots (Black/Red, Even/Odd, 118/1936). Lets say I bet $100 and lose it,so I'm $100. Then if I bet $50 on one of these spots, I either will win and be even with where I started or be $150. If I lose, then I bet $75 and either win and get back to where I was or go $225.
If I keep employing this strategy, I will eventually will get back to even. Once I get back to even, I'll bet the $100 and and eventually I'll win and double my money, in which this becomes my new "even" and I repeat the strategy above until I'm a millionaire.
This same idea could be used in blackjack. Can anybody tell me why this isn't a good strategy?
Is this an unbeatable Roulette strategy?
Report Thread


Where will you get the money to cover this strategy?

I had some friends that did this. would only bet on red. no what happened? hit black and green 18 times in a row. three of which were actually green. its all about the odds. odds say that your theory should work but there's always outliers.

You will not "eventually get back to even." Everything in casinos is set up so that the house wins more often than not, and the longer you play, the more likely you will lose. Save your money, or at least spend it on something that's fun.

The only casino game where the odds are in the players favor is blackjack.

I screwed up my theory. If I lose $100, I need to bet $100 to make it up. Then if I go $200, I would need to bet $200 in order to make it up. Then if I go $400, then I bet $400. Eventually I get back to even and then make the original $100 bet in which i will eventually win.
How could this go wrong? I just have to have patience, right?
And by the way, I would do this on a smaller scale, the table minimum where i was at was $10. 
This is, roughly, the Martingale system. The answer is, no, it doesn't work. If you have an infinite bankroll and there is no table limit then you will win money with probability one (that's not the same as saying you can't lost, just that the probability of you losing becomes arbitrarily small), which sounds pretty good. However, you don't have an infinite bankroll and there is a table limit. Suppose you hit a run of bad luck (it can happen) and have to bet $2,000 by your system and you don't have $2,000. Or suppose the table limit is $1,000. What do you do then?
The fundamental point is that the house has an advantage of 5.26% and there is no way you can add up a bunch of negatives and get a positive. No way. Can't be done. 
Mr Martingale, go to Vegas. Look all around you. They didn't build all of those buildings in the middle of a desert by selling Wayne Newton tickets. They built it from people, like yourself, who are really bad at math.

If you have an infinite supply of money this strategy works, but if you have say, 300,000 dollars to do this with, starting at 10 dollar bets, you can cover this bet 15 times. so the chances of you losing 15 times in a row are roughly 1 in 30,000. Since you win in 10 dollar increments, in order to win say, 1000 dollars, the odds of you losing it all are about .4%. If you were to attempt to win, say, 10,000 dollars, the odds of you losing it all are roughly 3%. If someone offered me the odds that 97% they give me 10,000, and 3% I give them 300,000, I probably wouldn't take them (but that is just me)
The strategy becomes more sound with more beginning capital, the size of the initial bet controls your standard deviation (more chance to make money, more chance to lose money)
In the long run this will never work, because you only need to lose it all once and then you are done, and lost all the investment you made and the profit. 
So, I just calculated it, with the table I was at. The table had a $10 min/$5000 max. This would give me 10 rolls at a 47.37% chance to win each roll, before I could no long bet large enough to break even.
I'm not sure how to do this math, can someone tell me what the probability is that I will hit black in 10 rolls at a 47.37% chance each roll?
And by the way, I don't plan on actually doing this. I understand its not in my favor. And malmo they DON'T build it from people like me . . . in case you misread the first post, I came out AHEAD last night. Right now "people, like yourself" are people who WIN each night. Now, if I actually start doing this and lose, THEN I will be the "People, like yourself" in the sense you are talking about. But right now, I'm a winner, idiot. 
Poor trolling. A good troll wouldn't have attacked Malmo so early in the thread, nor would he have used such bad logic in his attack.

I suppose, "People, like you" could also be people who have theories on systems and take the time to enquire about them on message boards with no intent of ever doing them.
Also not something you can build casinos with. 
Even if you have infinite money, this is a losing strategy. I can't believe no one has mentioned this, but the wheel has 2 slots you're ignoring  the green ones: 0 and 00. These aren't included in the outside grid spots, so betting black/red, even/odd, or 118/1936 leaves them out. When you take these "5050" bets, the odds are more like 5053 against you. Playing endlessly with infinite money just means you'll rack up an infinite loss.

Its called progressive betting, and yes, with infinite money you will eventually go up. Think about it. If I bet $10 and lose, then I bet $20, if I lose again I bet $40, if I lose again I bet $80.... If you have a large enough bankroll to handle the losses you will win. That is, if you have a large enough bankroll.
Many casinos look for this and as you keep upping your bet with each subsequent loss they will politely tell you that you can no longer play roulette. 
Yes. Malmo, Wizardstaff, etc. have it right.
Martingale, or Progressive, betting is the name. You are in effect dispersing your risk over many small gains or a big loss.
In the long run, you still have an expected loss.
Gambler's ruin. 
Gambling Master wrote:
So, I just calculated it, with the table I was at. The table had a $10 min/$5000 max. This would give me 10 rolls at a 47.37% chance to win each roll, before I could no long bet large enough to break even.
I'm not sure how to do this math, can someone tell me what the probability is that I will hit black in 10 rolls at a 47.37% chance each roll?
And by the way, I don't plan on actually doing this. I understand its not in my favor. And malmo they DON'T build it from people like me . . . in case you misread the first post, I came out AHEAD last night. Right now "people, like yourself" are people who WIN each night. Now, if I actually start doing this and lose, THEN I will be the "People, like yourself" in the sense you are talking about. But right now, I'm a winner, idiot.
Actually, people like you are EXACTLY who casinos make money off of. If you had gone in and lost money your first time, you probably would have thought "man casinos suck/are rigged/waste of money". But because you won, you are going to keep talking about it to people you know, influencing them to gamble, and you're much more likely to continue gambling yourself. And when you do, you'll probably lose a good amount of money because you don't understand statistics.
If the Martingale system worked, the casinos would have banned it like they did counting cards. The fact that it isn't banned should tell you something. 
wizardstaff wrote:
Its called progressive betting, and yes, with infinite money you will eventually go up.
That's true, but you'll only win if you quit while you're ahead. As I pointed out, if you play endlessly you will rack up an infinite loss. The best way to keep from losing at Roulette is to NOT play Roulette. 
I thought more about what you posted. As long as you go back to your original small bet after a win, you can't have an infinite loss because you're starting over (I think theoretically you still could if you never won again). If you start by betting $2 and win you get $2 profit. If you start with $2 and lose 20 times in a row, you have to bet more than $1,000,000 to get back to even. Seems like an awfully risky way to make $2.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:
Even if you have infinite money, this is a losing strategy. I can't believe no one has mentioned this, but the wheel has 2 slots you're ignoring  the green ones: 0 and 00. These aren't included in the outside grid spots, so betting black/red, even/odd, or 118/1936 leaves them out. When you take these "5050" bets, the odds are more like 5053 against you. Playing endlessly with infinite money just means you'll rack up an infinite loss.
No, I have not ignored those spots and neither have a lot of people. No one here ever said these are 5050 bets, in fact its been acknowledged by me and others that its NOT a 50% chance, but rather a 47.37%. How can you say no one has mentioned this? Have you not read the thread? Additionally, rolling a 0 or 00 is the same as rolling a red . . . I still lose and could still employ my method.
gamblin Eddy wrote:
Actually, people like you are EXACTLY who casinos make money off of. If you had gone in and lost money your first time, you probably would have thought "man casinos suck/are rigged/waste of money". But because you won, you are going to keep talking about it to people you know, influencing them to gamble, and you're much more likely to continue gambling yourself. And when you do, you'll probably lose a good amount of money because you don't understand statistics.
If the Martingale system worked, the casinos would have banned it like they did counting cards. The fact that it isn't banned should tell you something.
Wrong, wrong wrong. You guys keep labeling me through your assumptions or things I HAVE NOT DONE YET. What makes you think I have talked to anyone but those of you on here yet? What makes you think I'm so influential that I would cause others to gamble? What makes you think I even have a POSITIVE view of casinos? Perhaps I am more likely to gamble, BUT I HAVEN'T YET. At this point, I have done NOTHING but TAKE money from the casino. Whether or not I do anything in the future or am more likely to do anything in the future because of this that would allow the casino to build because of "People, like yourself" does not matter at this point, because I HAVEN'T. This was my first time ever (It was my bachelor party) and I have no intent of going back. The point of this thread was to ask about this system, acknowledging I was ignorant, to see what peoples thoughts were on this. I had no idea about this Martingale system until now, I believe it doesn't work, and I have no intent to ever implement. I am just appealing to smarter people for the reason it won't work . . . I just want to understand.
So for now, I'm a winner and becuase of people like me, casinos have to shut down. 
Blowing.Rock Master wrote:
I thought more about what you posted. As long as you go back to your original small bet after a win, you can't have an infinite loss because you're starting over (I think theoretically you still could if you never won again). If you start by betting $2 and win you get $2 profit. If you start with $2 and lose 20 times in a row, you have to bet more than $1,000,000 to get back to even. Seems like an awfully risky way to make $2.
Right, but once winning the roll when I'm at even, Instead of considering it a profit, I make it my new even.
So once again, I figured out with the table that I was playing at, I could roll 10 times (and lose) at a 47.37% chance before I could no longer bet high enough to make up for my loss if I won.
Can anyone calculate what the odds are of losing 10 rolls in a row at a 47.37% chance each roll?