column betting idea

[bleep24]

Why is no one saying stop after a loss.  That will stop 2 3 4 5 etc. losses in a row.  Wait a VW.  Looking at those numbers there was a string of wins both before and after that 5.

Good idea not to try and win back losses in one go.

BLeep

[RouletteGhost]

Bingo

[Thunder Pants]

....
Isn't it kind of stupid to get a loss and expect a win? When losses are happening?
More likely (if I can use that word) that wins will follow each other.

Yes & no. We do expect a more than 50% winrate from double dozen/columns so wins should happen more often than losses .. in theory. Most progression/betting patterns takes origin in lengthy experiences at the wheel soaken by sweat, blood & tears. Thus the ususally 1, 3, 9 progression is safely mentioned as betting the least at any time makes sense. And just to be extra safe lets chop it down to just 1,3 so we really cant go wrong.

However if we dare to think "out of the box" for a second and try to look at the data anew with the twist that we assume losses come in a row.   According to data (mainly page 1 & 6) most wins are on the first bet & a fair bit on the second bet & the rest few on 3rd bet. If asking someone who have never played roulette he/she would tell you to bet the highest on the first bet, right?. So perhaps the progression should be reversed. Just for kicks i did 3, 1 progression instead of the usual 1, 3 & was surprised that the winning units was pretty much the same. Then again afterwards remembering we are betting 2:1 and it roughly (and should naturally) correspond to the 2:1 winrate between 1st & 2nd bet it maked sense.

Crazy as it sounds doing a reverse progression like 9, 3, 1 or more streached out 9, 7, 5, 3, 1 or similar makes the highest overall return .. that is with a extreme warning of only being tested on paper & remember the wheel might produce something different as usual.

/Crazy rant over.

[mogul397]

Thunder, what you say is true. Since there is that sneeky method
that would have you bet $5 then 4,3,2,1 after wins. It is the same as
what the D'alenbert does. but starting in the middle.

The point of looking at what I said is only to potentially get you on
wins and stay off losses.  The idea of 66% win chance helps that.

And no, I mis spoke about the other side. The losses. But I still keep looking
to that side for 2-1 ops.

[mogul397]

Why is no one saying stop after a loss.  That will stop 2 3 4 5 etc. losses in a row.  Wait a VW.  Looking at those numbers there was a string of wins both before and after that 5.

Good idea not to try and win back losses in one go.

BLeep

I thought I kind of said it recently.

[mogul397]

1 3 9 27

Let me and everyone know when you go and test it.

Of course on a $5 table. Not 50 cents.

link:s://i.ytimg.com/vi/npsQJVKx3Ss/hqdefault.jpg

[RouletteGhost]

my casino minimums on airball are $10....so when i play, its a lot

[mogul397]

Ouch. (But not ouch).

Though for months through stupidity that mine was $5, and saw a woman next
to me play $2. The thing SAYS "50 cent min"........ on the inside.  So I ASSUMED
2 years ago, that it was $5.  It is $2.  And if I try that, like any creature of habit,
my inclination is "let's not waste time" and do $

On the other end, twin rivers has real tables, and their roulette is often $25.
Tom goes there, and plays that.  I just have to repeat. I haven't gone there in a
while since plainridge is 15 min a way. But when I did I walked up to the RNG
after the real table. 15 min later only 4 numbers came in. What a killer. One
dealer did everything, so it took forever.

But $10 min get you thinking about if/when you're going to jump in a little more.