My Roulette System

Thanks Doc,but it is also obvious you need some rethinking about your roulette play.
First of all what you said about winning 50 dollars on 4 sessions(200 dollars profit) or 5 sessions(250 profit)then losing it all back in the 5th or 6th session of 300 dollars lost=50 to 100 dollars down....is not a winning strategy,no way!
All this proves is that you have a loss limit that is way,way too high!Never lose 300 dollars at the roulette table....NEVER!Unless you are one of those rich guys that start your session at 1000 dollars or more,(which I doubt).
If I start with a 200 dollar buy in(common...either 200 or 300 is a common buy in)and this is generally the minimum amount buy in to effectively play roulette due to the ups and downs,especially on a choppy table.Then if you start with 200 dollars,have a loss limit of no more than say 80 dollars.And less than that with the action # system I described here in this forum.3 losses in a row or say 33 dollars max,then leave that table!Go to another table or quit for the night!Never bleed that amount of loss into your profits.Place a seperate pile of chips for your profits and bet placement chips.See,I would never lose 300 dollars at my 5th session...and thats why my profits will exist and other gamblers will lose.Most professional gamblers know that if you win 10% profit on your initial bankroll,you have done WELL for that session!Not much profit on 300 dollars,but thats because pro's gamble with thousands,not hundreds.So if i'm up 80 dollars and i started with 150 dollars...well time to quit!!!!!!An excellent night!
Now see the way I think as opposed to others here?And thats the difference in my "psyche"as compared to others who are not disciplined.

Good luck!

This is not a very good forum for trying to distort the mathematics. I'll let some masochist trudge through explaining the expected loss from the specific approach you described and just leave it with this summary:

On a single zero roulette table, one can expect to get back $36 out of every $37 wagered, on average. Changing your wagers around to different numbers and different amounts does not affect this expectation. By increasing the portion of the 37 numbers that are covered on each roll, the variance in the outcome can be reduced. In fact, in the extreme it can be reduced enough that it is impossible to win. If you allow the variance to remain high enough, then it is possible that you can win on a single roll, for multiple rolls, and perhaps even over an extended period, but it is more likely that you will lose money on a single roll, for multiple rolls, and over an extended period. The more wagers that are placed, the more likely you are to approach the average of getting $36 back out of every $37 wagered.

But if you are having fun with the game and your wins and losses are in a range that you can afford, then keep at it. If you are not having fun, it seems like an awful way to be spending your time.

By the way, I don't play roulette any more. I decided that it is a mindless game that no longer provides me any entertainment. I acknowledge that craps is very similar in that it involves making (perhaps random) wagers on random numbers, but that game still entertains me.

edit: Perhaps I would still play roulette if they just let me spin the wheel and ball every once in a while.

Quote: corvette888

Its obvious that when you are playing 22 numbers out of 38 numbers for every spin,your chances are very good,but the pay off is small and a grind.

Quote: corvette888

In addition,I am playing on a single zero green table,not a double green 00 table!

There are 37 spaces on a single 0 wheel. Are you playing a wheel with one 0, or a wheel with 38 spaces?

Quote: corvette888

That house edge you speak of is true(its called the vigor),but the house edge is reduced with this system substancially,especially since the edge is NOT 5.26 on the table at Harrahs in Alantic City which has a single zero green....its about one half that.But even on 00 tables this system is fairly good.On a roll if you combine the action number system with a double dozen bet,you can rack up some profit pretty quickly,as long as you quit after 9 or 10 spins!So not only is your math all screwed up rdw4...its obvious you need roulette/systems training...but i'm expensive...you couldn't afford it!

The vigor on a single 0 wheel is exactly half of the vigor on a double zero wheel. 1 green space is half of 2 green spaces.

The value of every win is lessened by, and directly proportional to, the number of green spaces on the wheel. Any dozen will pay 2:1, but the odds of winning are 12 in 37. Any inside bet will pay 35:1, but the odds of winning are 1 in 37. Since every individual bet on the board has a negative expectation, there is no way that a combination of negative expectation bets can increase the likelihood that you will win overall.

I do like the idea of walking away after a small win. Setting a low win threshold is a great way to go. But what do you do when you're losing? It seems like it wouldn't take very many losses before you'd undo several of those little wins.

I'm not distorting any math at all.I just illustrated accuratly what the payoff would be in a spin using the action # system and explained about 300 dollars being a poor judgement in money management.This goes for roulette,craps or any other game in the casino.Its the other guys trying to "distort"John Patricks system payoff,and I corrected THEIR DISTORTION.
As to what you said about averaging 36 back out of every 37 wagered on roulette?Thats ludicrous!Maybe the way you play or have played over 20 sessions or so,but there must be something wrong with the total disipline,style,sytems(if any)and money management ways you play.36 from 37?Wow.Unbelievable,this makes me sick...and time to leave this forum for now,i'm ready to throw up with unbelievably actually reading this?Where did you get that?Off a bathroom stall?
Sorry,but you are talking to a true pro in roulette and Craps and if I was to lose everthing back by the end of the year with that 36:37 formula you speak of,there is no way I would waste my gas in the Corvette to drive to Alantic City,NJ or the Sands in Bethlehem,Pa.!
Bye bye!

No,the losses are controlled,Rdw4.Like I said 3 losses in a row,then I quit for the night or move to another table.Sometimes I leave the table after 2 losses in a row...extreme disipline,but only if there are a few open tables at 5am!Loss limit is critical in small profit systems.So is win limit!
Bye,bye!

Quote: corvette888

No,the losses are controlled,Rdw4.Like I said 3 losses in a row,then I quit for the night or move to another table.Sometimes I leave the table after 2 losses in a row...extreme disipline,but only if there are a few open tables at 5am!Loss limit is critical in small profit systems.So is win limit!
Bye,bye!

I fail to see how leaving the table for a finite amount of time and returning later increases your chance of winning over staying at the table. Did the ball see you leave? Does it know when you left that it made you lose 2x in a row and when you come back it owes you a couple? Will it let the ball at the other table know?

Sorry to butt in with a meaningless post, but I truly hope that corvette isn't gone from this thread for good. This is way too entertaining.

Quote: RPToro

Sorry to butt in with a meaningless post, but I truly hope that corvette isn't gone from this thread for good. This is way too entertaining.

I hate to get snarky, but sometimes you can't resist. Plus I always look at it as we are obliged to defend the math, not for the dissenting poster, but for all of the new gamblers that might be finding this forum and thinking that something looks too good to be true.

If you are new to gaming, Corvette DID say the most honest thing in this thread so far, regarding this system:

"...I'm expensive...you couldn't afford it."

Quote: corvette888

As to what you said about averaging 36 back out of every 37 wagered on roulette?Thats ludicrous!

Are you joking now? Name one Roulette bet that has a positive expectation. You can't. There aren't any. Add two negative numbers together in your head (use paper if necessary). Did you get an even bigger negative number? How in the world can you possibly think you have a strategy to actually beat a fair roulette game?

It's one thing to shamelessly shill for a worthless-but-entertaining gambling book. It's another to actually believe the crap "strategy" in the book. If this strategy was NOT mathematically guaranteed to fail, do you really think that casinos would continue to offer the game?

One more thing...if you really think your strategy works, you should talk to the Wizard or JB about their system testing challenge. If you're up after 1 billion (?) simulated spins, JB will give you $1,000,000 (?). And you don't have to front any money at all to participate in the trial(?). I can't find the details of the challenge right now, but if you're interested I'm sure someone can point you in the right direction...