Marginale Method

[GARNabby]

If you arent first beating roulette with flat betting, you cant do it with progression.

Do it once in your life starting at $!00 on black after 20 reds, and you won't get caught.

[Bask]

Yeah I know. No method is lose proof. That would be impossible. You method seems like it would work well because it minimizes the losses. Also, it incorporates when you should stop and when you should cash out. I do like it a lot.

[Steve]

Do it once in your life starting at $!00 on black after 20 reds, and you won't get caught.

If you mean bet once after 20 reds, and it will increase your chances of winning, no it wont. Because the odds dont change. You still have 50/50 chance (besides the 0). You could wait for 100 reds in a row, and the odds are still the same.

[nottophammer]

have you seen a hundred reds in a row?

[Bask]

Yes he's right.

Whatever method you try, whatever math you do, it all doesn't matter. Each event is independent from each other. You will always have the same chance every time you spin.

[Tamino]

I leave you with your 50 or 100 spins of one  particular EC. But the reality   as observed  at   the scoreboards looks entirely different.( An dYOU KNOW it)

I know  but   one of my   EC  methods is rather succesful.  Lately  many of  our well known US gambling gurus  favor  that approach: Betting for  THE CHANGE  ( mandates  a very short term MoP.)  NO  MARTINGALE  !!!

.Reason " higher table limits   and therefore less exposure  to  the frequency of spins. But one cannot SIT at the tabl while not playing every spin..


Tamino

[Steve]

have you seen a hundred reds in a row?

No of course not, but I said it to make my point clearer: if 2 reds spin in a row, or if 100 reds spin in a row, the odds of black/red spinning next are still 50/50 (excluding green zero). Believing otherwise is a very common gambler's fallacy.

How many systems are based around the concept of "wait for some rare occurrence, then bet"? It doesnt work.

You need to increase the accuracy of predictions. I say it many times and there is no way around it.

Looking at what has happened in previous spins will only help if you correlate physical variables to outcomes, then model the relationship between them to predict future spins. I've never found another way of beating roulette that works and I've spent nearly 20 years on it.

[Proofreaders2000]

Martingale is tricky.  It seems you will get ahead with it because of the notion an even-chance is 'due'.  Nothing is due.

Moreover the time involving waiting for 30 or
40 reds or blacks (or some event--You could wait all day for a trigger and not get one!)

[luckyfella]

No of course not, but I said it to make my point clearer: if 2 reds spin in a row, or if 100 reds spin in a row, the odds of black/red spinning next are still 50/50 (excluding green zero). Believing otherwise is a very common gambler's fallacy.

How many systems are based around the concept of "wait for some rare occurrence, then bet"? It doesnt work.

You need to increase the accuracy of predictions. I say it many times and there is no way around it.

Looking at what has happened in previous spins will only help if you correlate physical variables to outcomes, then model the relationship between them to predict future spins. I've never found another way of beating roulette that works and I've spent nearly 20 years on it.

Hmmm.....agree up to a point. Most if not all of what's shared online will not work. Just test it at a brick n mortar casino n u'll find out soon enuf - post2