Roulette - Gambler's Fallacy VS Streak Odds.

I know the outside even money bets on a roulette table are -5.26% expected value. I know that each spin is an independent event and every spin has a 52.6% chance of losing. I also know that the chance of a 52.6% event happening 7 times in a row in a set of 50 spins is 21.8% (I'm not doing this math but getting it from a couple of different streak calculators online) . What I would like help understanding is if I have a betting methodology that produces at least a 60% profit in a 50 spin set and will only lose if 7 loses occur in a row, how is this not profitable in the long run? Is the 21.8% streak calculator incorrect?

Rounding the 22% loss rate up to 25% for simplicity would imply that in 4 sets of 50 spins, I would average 1 complete loss of X (could be less depending on when the streak started) and 3 wins of .6X yielding a profit of 80% over 4 sets.

I KNOW this has to be wrong or else people smarter than me would have figured it out by now. Please correct me.

You're going to have to explain to us where you get the "produces at least 60% profit" from.

You make it sound like, in a set of 50 spins, either you will lose your entire bankroll at some point, or make a profit of at least 60% of your bankroll.

That's exactly what happens. I will either profit 60% of my bankroll (for the set) or I will lose my bankroll. I'm not asking for validation for that part. I know that part works. I'm really close to even (< 1% so far), but I just had two loosing sets in a row which scared me a little. I created this thread in the hopes of validating the logic in my original post before I commit any more funds to it.

Welcome to the forum.

Without a specific method to scrutinize, I think it boils down to this:

On every turn, you are more likely to lose than win.
There is no way to combine a series of losing turns to make a win.

Best of luck.

Quote: LADanny

That's exactly what happens. I will either profit 60% of my bankroll (for the set) or I will lose my bankroll. I'm not asking for validation for that part. I know that part works. I'm really close to even (< 1% so far), but I just had two loosing sets in a row which scared me a little. I created this thread in the hopes of validating the logic in my original post before I commit any more funds to it.
link to original post

Well, if you have some system where you are guaranteed to profit by at least 60% of your bankroll after 50 spins if there is not a run of 7 consecutive losing spins, then your logic is correct.
The key word is, "if".
Pardon me, if not others here, for being skeptical about this.
The fact that you mention that you only lose with seven losing spins in a row sounds like it's a Martingale - but a 7-step Martingale requires a bankroll of 127, where either you lose all 127 with 7 losing bets in a row, or win 1 with each winning bet. Even if all 50 bets win, you only profit 50/127, or about 39.37%, of your bankroll.

Quote: Dieter

Welcome to the forum.

Without a specific method to scrutinize, I think it boils down to this:

On every turn, you are more likely to lose than win.
There is no way to combine a series of losing turns to make a win.

Best of luck.
link to original post

More encompassing would be “on every win, you’ll be paid less than fair…”

When you make lay bets in craps, for example, you are more likely to win than lose. But you’re still a guaranteed loser given enough time

random rotor speed ... you have been fooled sorry to say... by your mind and by a machine

Quote: Ace2

Quote: Dieter

Welcome to the forum.

Without a specific method to scrutinize, I think it boils down to this:

On every turn, you are more likely to lose than win.
There is no way to combine a series of losing turns to make a win.

Best of luck.
link to original post

More encompassing would be “on every win, you’ll be paid less than fair…”

When you make lay bets in craps, for example, you are more likely to win than lose. But you’re still a guaranteed loser given enough time
link to original post

I think banking the game has been shown to be reliably profitable over the last few centuries, unless the croupier wasn't looking.

I’ll assume you like the craps term “free odds” even less

Speaking of semantics, I’ve always found the term “odds” to be rather odd. What’s the connection between probability and odd ?

Quote: Ace2

I’ll assume you like the craps term “free odds” even less

Speaking of semantics, I’ve always found the term “odds” to be rather odd. What’s the connection between probability and odd ?
link to original post

Shucks if I know. Best I can manage is to speculate it's not an even money payout.

Quote: LADanny

I also know that the chance of a 52.6% event happening 7 times in a row in a set of 50 spins is 21.8% (I'm not doing this math but getting it from a couple of different streak calculators online) .

I KNOW this has to be wrong or else people smarter than me would have figured it out by now. Please correct me.

The reason you are wrong is that you are not betting on "7 times in a row" you are betting on "once in a row 7 times."

Each spin has that same chance of losing. The ball does not know red hit 5 times in a row nor does it care. After 5 red in a row it might as well be the table just opening for the day.

You could martingale 6 bets in a row, except you can't.

"Someone smarter" might have had the idea for a prop bet of X times in a row on roulette. Call it "Roulette Fire" maybe. But it has not happened and I do not see it happening for a couple reasons.

Quote: AZDuffman

["Someone smarter" might have had the idea for a prop bet of X times in a row on roulette. Call it "Roulette Fire" maybe. But it has not happened and I do not see it happening for a couple reasons.
link to original post

I don’t claim to be someone smarter, (or even smart for that matter), but before I created Poker For Roulette, I created Hit It Again. It pays when a number repeats. One of the reasons it failed is because casinos don’t like to let go of a lot of cash all at once, no matter what the math says.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Quote: AZDuffman

["Someone smarter" might have had the idea for a prop bet of X times in a row on roulette. Call it "Roulette Fire" maybe. But it has not happened and I do not see it happening for a couple reasons.
link to original post

I don’t claim to be someone smarter, (or even smart for that matter), but before I created Poker For Roulette, I created Hit It Again. It pays when a number repeats. One of the reasons it failed is because casinos don’t like to let go of a lot of cash all at once, no matter what the math says.
link to original post

I seem to remember us discussing that here.

I see 2 issues on Roulette. One is there is so much going on, so many numbers that there is little room left for a side bet. Second is Roulette players like a simple bet and game. They like to spread a ton of bets around. Some just are not going to get "No red 6 times" as a bet. We have the Fire Bet, we do not need a 2nd one.

It is imperative to acknowledge that the possibility of enduring seven or more consecutive losses within a 50-spin sequence is irrelevant to the wagering approach employed. While the likelihood of an event with a 52.6% probability transpiring seven times in a row throughout 50 spins is roughly 21.8%, this doesn't imply that failure is exclusively determined by this outcome.

Supposing that the betting system solely suffers losses when confronted with a losing streak of seven or more spins, it's plausible that a player could experience a profitable winning streak for several sequences; however, the hazard of losing all of one's assets due to an unfortunate, catastrophic chain of events still exists. Across a vast collection of sets, it becomes increasingly probable to encounter a losing streak of seven or more spins at some point, resulting in a complete depletion of one's betting funds.

Put differently, a betting approach that garners a minimum of 60% earnings throughout 50 spins isn't an automatic long-term success because there's still a threat of encountering a losing streak that surpasses the betting assets. When engaging in any gambling activity, it's critical to examine the overall probability and risks involved, as well as the potential ramifications of losing.

I figured out my folly. In order to win 1 unit per spin, I was using all 3 outside bets, so 1 spin was actually 3 events. This mean that my streak calculator needed an input of 150 events and not 50. Once I do the math with a 55% probably of a 7 streak, the profitability is about -5% which is close to the house edge built into the payouts and explains why I slowed down because I seeing a 7 streak way too often. So much for an early retirement.

I appreciate everyone's input.