In martingale, how about going back to square one after three straight losses? (red or black) You lose three straight bets, chalk it up as a loss. So starting out with $10 a bet you lose three straight bets your down $70. Go back to try to win just $10 again and you would have to win seven series to break even with that three set loss. With a bankroll of $500 and a goal to win $500 do you think this would work? You would need to win 50 three game sets over the losses that would make you -7. Six straight series losses would put you down $490. thoughts ideas.. might be going to ac in a week going to take a crack at it.
A -EV bet is a -EV bet no matter what silly system you use. Martingale might be the worst system because yo Tu are risking so much to gain so little. It probably would work though if you had a bankroll the size of Bill Gates´, and a casino with no max bet limit. This martingale spin off wont work unless you run well.
An unmodified Martingale never works out because of the table limits. You will easily hit the limit with almost any initial bet after a streak of losses... going red/black you should expect to hit a 6-round losing streak once during 100 spins, and a 10-round losing streak once during 1000 spins. A bankroll of $500 would not be sufficient for a $10 initial bet.
Your idea is to cut off a losing streak at 3, and return to the original bet of $10? I would caution you, because a streak of 3 losses is pretty common... on the average during 14 spins, you will have lost 3 in a row once, and by not following the normal martingale, you do not recover from that loss.
You said you would need a streak of 7 to recover from each loss of 3, which means in the remaining 11 spins, you need to win 9 (9 wins and 2 losses for the net of 7 wins), which is asking for 21% above the actual expectation value of Roulette red/black JUST TO BREAK EVEN... In other words, for this to work you would need to be very very lucky indeed.
SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks
Martingale Roulette idea thoughts......
Reply With Quote
