I dont get how the Gelsch/star system is better than simple martingale, or am i understanding the star system wrong. With star system/Gelsch i get this progression
2,2,3,4,5,9,14,21,32,47,70,105 <-- here i have to win the bet two times in a row to restart the progrssion, and i get 12 runs
2,4,8,16,32,64,128 <-- here with martingale i get 7 runs but only have to win one time. yet its still over half of star system even tho the star system uses more money, so it should have a better chance?
I'm new to all these systems, have i misunderstood the system?
2 wins in a row gives 3 profit
2,2,3,4,6,8,12,16,24,32,48,64
Costs 221 and gives 12 spins.
martingale a win gives 2 profit
2,4,8,16,32,64,128
costs 256 and gives 7 spins
I think martingale has a better chance. Hitting once in 7 spins is hard enough consistently, but twice in a row every 12 spins? I don't think so.
Here's why I think the Star system is better than a Martingale.
The following is the progression line I use for the Star: 1-1-1-2-2 | 5-10-15-25-35. Ten losses in a row costs you 97 units. Pretty rare but does happen else this could be the HG which it's not.
The 1st 5 bets (1-1-1-2-2) are a parlay so you must win two bets in a row or move to the right one step. Two wins in a row on these 5 bets nets you a profit.
The second set of bets are not parlays. You must still win 2 times in a row, but you stay alive if you win the 1st bet and lose the 2nd bet because you break even and can play that level again. As long as you don't lose the 1st attempt you don't have to move to the right. This means you can have, technically, an infinite number of bets as long as they are WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLW etc... This gives a little more of an advantage to the Star system over a martingale. Maybe not much, but more than you're allowing in your posts.
Think about it.
GLC
progressions don't defeat roulette period
I don't know about "defeating" roulette but yes actually progressions are the only way to consistently win in the game. That doesn't mean a martingale or standard labby, etc, but no one and I mean no one can win long term by simply flat betting. That implies there is a bet selection that can beat the house edge which in all the history of roulette has never been shown to be true though has never stopped anyone from trying.
Really its pretty easy to be successful in this game by simply playing probabilities and combining it with patience. It is a poor idea to throw a huge chunk of money on a progression where you can lose 256 units by only losing 7 games in a row. If you can be patient and let a bad series pass by and play for the next high probability or even the next few good odds you can be very successful with a very mild progression.
Point being this...if you want to be ahead long term with roulette the ONLY way to do it is by using a smart progression. Its the BET SELECTION that can't "defeat" roulette not the other way around. If your flat betting you are literally saying that you can predict a better way of knowing which of the 37 or 38 numbers will come out that can defeat the already set in house edge. If you can do this you certainly will have no use being on a roulette forum ever again. You'd be you know...being very busy in the casino. Withdrawing of course and not depositing ;)
to go on with your logical thinking there is no life for one who can defeat roulette. He won't go on forums, he won't read newspapers, he won't talk to anyone, just spend all his life in casinos withdrawing money.
Well. Even if someone is sure as hell man never has walked on a Moon or traveled in space, there is no point in arguing. It's OK. There are different people with different ideas.