### Author Topic: "The Dopey Experiment"  (Read 1917 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Jake007

##### "The Dopey Experiment"
« on: January 11, 2016, 03:36:09 AM »

Heres a plan as listed in the wiki...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roulette

"While not a strategy to win money, former Los Angeles Times editor AndrĂ©s Martinez described a betting method in his book on Las Vegas titled "24/7". He called it the "dopey experiment". The idea is to divide one's roulette session bankroll into 35 units. This unit is bet on a particular number for 35 consecutive spins. Thus, if the number hits in that time, the gambler wins back the original bankroll and can play subsequent spins with house money. However, there is only a 1 - (37/38)^{35} = 60.68% probability of winning within 35 spins (assuming a double-zero wheel with 38 pockets)."

I tested it... It works nice more often than you think. But then eventually luck runs out.

But this could be the thought of a new idea?!

#### Reyth

##### Re: "The Dopey Experiment"
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2016, 03:54:26 AM »
Here is Turbo Genius' version:

https://www.roulettelife.com/index.php/topic,422.msg4694.html#msg4694

And of course I have my own version:

https://www.roulettelife.com/index.php/topic,648.msg8589.html#msg8589

So far I haven't had luck run out in either version.

: )

I think for experienced roulette players there is something horrific about betting a single number repeatedly because we all know it can go for HUNDREDS of spins with no hit (455 according to my simulations) but what I have discovered is that even if it should go that long, a proper progression can handle it.  The truth is, a very good majority of the time, it hits long before the 100th spin, which in my version (up to the 92nd spin) is an instant profit.

I have actually found that betting a single number is statistically the best performing using the D'Alembert progression approach (you can't beat the efficiency of 35-1).  Even though it appears on the surface that it would be a nightmare to play, it actually is more reliable than playing 3, 6 or even 9 numbers and when you divide the spins into sections of 8, its really a breeze.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2016, 09:59:31 PM by kav »