This isn't a betting system!
Quote: CloudStrife1212So, I have a theory, and I was wondering if there was any mathematical reason to it. When I gamble I take my initial buy in and play until I lose it, no matter what. Anything over my buy in that I win I set aside, and when my initial buy in is gone I leave the table with whatever I've set aside. This way I'm strictly limiting my losses but not restricting my wins at all. I haven't recorded my records of it but I'm definitely up over the casino I patronize. Any thoughts? Love the site!
I was waiting to see if anyone else would respond, I don't have much to add except this sounds interesting as a way to manage your money. Couldn't make you win more, but I don't think you are saying that.
I have a trip to Mohegan Sun coming up, and I'll have to tell you how I plan to manage my money maybe.
I put $100 down at roulette and played a few minutes keeping the winnings aside. When the $100 was gone, I chiped in and found that I walked away with $139. Sweet!
Except the next two times I tried it, I walked away with less than $80 each time, resulting in a net loss for that 'system'.
But I agree - it's not a betting system. It's a money management system.
Perhaps combined with a betting system it could work....
Think of it like this: You have 100 $20 bills. For each one, you put it in a 25’ video poker machine, play it 16 times, and cash out. When you're done you've played 1600 games, and you have 100 tickets. Some of the tickets will be for more than $20, some will be for less, but the average ticket value will probably be between $18.50 and $19.50 (depending on the machine's return). You might get lucky and hit a big win, but even then, those big wins probably won't come often enough to boost your lifetime average.
That said, given the tendency for most people to play a twenty into the ground, it's better to walk away with a bunch of smaller tickets than none at all. :^)
I remember reading similar advice in the local newspaper sometime after the Hollywood Casino in Aurora, IL opened up: if you have, say, $100 for two hours of gambling, break it up into $25 chunks. Play the $25 each half-hour, and when you've played through it (whether it's into the ground or cash your winnings), you're done until the next half-hour. Yeah, it's boring, but it does help pace you, and might keep you from burning a bill quickly and hitting the ATM for more.
Quote: CloudStrife1212So, I have a theory, and I was wondering if there was any mathematical reason to it. When I gamble I take my initial buy in and play until I lose it, no matter what. Anything over my buy in that I win I set aside, and when my initial buy in is gone I leave the table with whatever I've set aside. This way I'm strictly limiting my losses but not restricting my wins at all. I haven't recorded my records of it but I'm definitely up over the casino I patronize. Any thoughts? Love the site!
There is nothing to this. The only thing that will 'limit your losses' on average is to expose less money to the house edge (ie. play less). 'Money management' that causes you to stop play or bet less will achieve a smaller average loss than no 'management', but other than that its meaningleses. By stopping play you are limiting a loss but also giving up the chance at a win (or winning more). There's no smoking gun here that will beat the casinos. Anything that claims to be IS a (useless) betting system.
Note that when you come back to the casino you are mearly carrying on where you left off, whether with a fresh stack of 20s or chips you held on to or whatever. Breaking up into smaller sessions vs. playing one long one will not change EV if the overall playing time is equal.
For the +EV advantage gambler, a form of money (bankroll) management is meaningful so that a bankroll is not overbet, where a large loss would result in no further ability to play the advantage game.
im wondering if the wizard could run a simulation using the martingale system for roulette betting on both red and black at the same time thus limiting the lose to a zero, double zero or getting 6 loses in a row on 1 colour. I've made a few thousand so far and im wondering if someone was to play with such a strategy for a long time if/how often the wins would or could out do the loses bringing your winnings upto doubling your money like i have every time i've tried this idea.
Quote: zFaded2how do i post my own post on the forum?
im wondering if the wizard could run a simulation using the martingale system for roulette betting on both red and black at the same time thus limiting the lose to a zero, double zero or getting 6 loses in a row on 1 colour. I've made a few thousand so far and im wondering if someone was to play with such a strategy for a long time if/how often the wins would or could out do the loses bringing your winnings upto doubling your money like i have every time i've tried this idea.
I am guessing what you are saying is bet one unit red and one black. red hits replay 1 on red and then 2 on black?
Sounds to me like you might as well just bet red or black all night and hope for streaks to hit.
Each bet is individual and subject to the same house edge. Anyone reading who is a better math-head than I am feel free to correct me, but I think Roulette is a game where no matter how you bet the house edge is the same. Red or black, place a number, place 2, etc.
Quote: zFaded2how do i post my own post on the forum?
im wondering if the wizard could run a simulation using the martingale system for roulette betting on both red and black at the same time thus limiting the lose to a zero, double zero or getting 6 loses in a row on 1 colour. I've made a few thousand so far and im wondering if someone was to play with such a strategy for a long time if/how often the wins would or could out do the loses bringing your winnings upto doubling your money like i have every time i've tried this idea.
Personally, I would discourage you from playing this way for long periods of time. The longer you play, the more likely your losses from hitting 6 in a row will be greater than your wins. This is due to the house edge in roulette (as you know, it's because of the zeros).
The Wizard will not likely agree to run a simulation of this for you, as it has already been done many times in the past and always fails in the long run.
You can read more about this here.
Also, I may be wrong, but if you insist on trying this I think you will be better off to place no bets when your bets are equal on both sides. When the bet on one side is higher than the other, than play the difference between the bets on that side (for example: if the next bet would be 15 on red, and 5 on black - just play 10 on red).
This will save you the money you are losing on the zeros when your bets are even, and when your bets are not even, it'll still save you 1 unit per side when the zero comes up.
