View Single Post
xxChrisxx
#22
Feb25-12, 04:18 PM
P: 2,048
In before you go busto.

There must be some kind of logic to this 'system' and I am sure it is undeniably better than just going into a casino and placing 50 on red.
It's not actually. The EV of the spin is the same but risk of ruin is higher.

The fact is your system is actually worse than a standard martingale.
By playing both red and black until you get 4 in row, you are making a play where no possible outcome can earn you a profit.

You bet 1 on RED and BLACK.
RED WINS: +1 - 1 = 0
BLACK WINS: -1 +1 = 0
GREEN: -2

Odds on a single 0 table.
Green = 1/37
Black = 13/37
Red = 13/37

So you are getting
0*(13/37)+0*(13/37)+ (-2)*(1/37) =
-2/37 = -0.054
This is your expectation per feeler bet.


By betting normally. You bet 1 on Red only.
RED = +1
BLACK = -1
GREEN = -1

EV = 1*(13/37)+(-1)*(13/37)+(-1)*(1/37)
= -1/37 = -0.027.

So for each spin you are actually doubling the house edge for the 4 spins you are playing 2 chips.


Quote Quote by kyleball View Post
There must be some way to explain it; rather than only focussing on the independence of the spins; causing the gamblers fallacy - since you know that long strings is rare - that is what you can focus your bet on.
What you are saying is the very definition of gamblers fallacy.

Quote Quote by kyleball View Post
I tried this with 50, and within 2 hours I had 2000. I know that some will not believe that, and I only use it as an example of the system in use, not to brag (since I do not know anyone here).
Standard. Small sample size.