Probability Question

[Let Me Win]

What is the probabilty to win AT LEAST 3 spins out of 7 spins?

Betting either red or black on a single zero wheel.

[Let Me Win]

I think the answer to the above question is 75%

If that figure is correct then the below could be considered an improvement over the Masianello system?

Here we risk 99 units to win 29 units.
The Masianello System risks 100 units to win 20 units.

It's a very old algorithm used for betting(horses,football....)
Now is available for roulette.
Here the bets, in units:

15  20  24  24  16
10  16  24  32  32
  4    8  16  32  64

Start from the first figure up on the left(15).
In case of W you go below,in case of L you go right.
Starting from 15,if W,next bet 10 or 20 if L and so on:the figure below if W,the figure at the right if L.
3 wins in a row(it happens):15 + 10 + 4= +29


3 wins at least in 7 spins :  + 29 units.
If you lose 5 spins in a row or 5 L and 2 W ,in 7 spins at the most: -99 units

Is it clear?

[Let Me Win]

Interesting little anecdote....

I know also some old and wise men who are convinced that playing in a given way they have an advantage.

For instance (and I confess that I studied a lot about it) an old player in Montecarlo Casino plays all the time the even chance looking for "SINGLE"

RRRBRRRRRBRBRRR: here we have three SINGLES at Black an one at Red.
His theory is the following:

Singles are the same as the sum of patterns of 2 + patterns of 3+ patterns of 4 +………patterns of 150 (just an example) …. + patterns of 270 (just an example) ….. and so on.

Because he'll never see a streak of 150 or 270 or more in B or R he's convinced that SINGLES take a small advantage vs higher patterns.

SINGLES must hit more often in order to offset the higher patterns that he'll never see in his life but must hit too sooner or later (very later….) mathematically.

Test with RX extreme confirms, this theory but not enough to offset - 1,35% house advantage,that now becomes around -1%

[Herby]

I think the answer to the above question is 75%

Binomial Distribution: probability to win exactly 3,4,5,6,7 times
{3, 0.280213}, {4, 0.265465}, {5, 0.150896}, {6, 0.0476513}, {7, 0.00644905}

Sum:  0.750674 ~ 75.07%

[Let Me Win]

Excellent thanks 

[Let Me Win]

A better money management (ratio yield/bkr related to % of W or L) probably doesn't exist.

This money management is very interesting because if you lose - 99 units but if you win + 29 units almost 30% of bankroll.

Very easy and fast recovery.

[Blood Angel]

Is it clear?

Very, thanks.

[Still]

Interesting little anecdote....

I know also some old and wise men who are convinced that playing in a given way they have an advantage.

For instance (and I confess that I studied a lot about it) an old player in Montecarlo Casino plays all the time the even chance looking for "SINGLE"

RRRBRRRRRBRBRRR: here we have three SINGLES at Black an one at Red.
His theory is the following:

Singles are the same as the sum of patterns of 2 + patterns of 3+ patterns of 4 +………patterns of 150 (just an example) …. + patterns of 270 (just an example) ….. and so on.

Because he'll never see a streak of 150 or 270 or more in B or R he's convinced that SINGLES take a small advantage vs higher patterns.

SINGLES must hit more often in order to offset the higher patterns that he'll never see in his life but must hit too sooner or later (very later….) mathematically.

Test with RX extreme confirms, this theory but not enough to offset - 1,35% house advantage,that now becomes around -1%

Didn't quite understand how it works. But if it can get .35% then it may be able to overcome the Don't Pass line, when laying about 5x odds.

[Let Me Win]

I am interested in this idea 💡

If you use singles vs series on even chances, then if you observe them, then you moved to another dimension, because while probability of seeing 10 singles in a row is same as the probability of seeing ten reds in a row, you will play more spins on average before this happens, because series last always longer than one spin.

That's why I will look into bet selections even if there is no reason for them to work.
There must be some way to do something...

[Still]

I am interested in this idea 💡

If you use singles vs series on even chances, then if you observe them, then you moved to another dimension, because while probability of seeing 10 singles in a row is same as the probability of seeing ten reds in a row, you will play more spins on average before this happens, because series last always longer than one spin.

That's why I will look into bet selections even if there is no reason for them to work.
There must be some way to do something...

I'm still a little unclear how this would be tested. Would you just always bet on singles? That's it?  TIA

[Let Me Win]

Yes

R R R B    now would bet R so that B made a single.