Wouldn't this strategy be a sure winner at roulette?

Question

bet 1 dollar on red. if you hit bet another dollar. if you win bet another dollar.

If you lose, bet 3 on red. if you win bet 1 again. but you have back your loss plus 1.

if you lose 3, bet 9, if you lose 9 bet 27, if you lose 27 bet 71, each time betting 3 times what you did before with the understanding that on a 50/50 wager you HAVE TO hit again soon. I understand you might have to take 5,000 in there and yes if you get on a bad bad streak you could lose it all but if you have enough money isn't this a sure winner?

Answer 1

I assumed you would be asking something like that.  It is not a sure winner.  Occasionally you will lose, for example, all of the money in the world.

If we are talking about a non-finite pile of cash, then I think you have a break even strategy there if it weren't for the green zero.  (or the two green zeroes, if you are talking American roulette.)

(oh, and 27 times 3 is 81)

Answer 2

I have used that method and similar ones many times.  I usually win.  I usually win slowly. I have learned that when I do those methods that you must be strict and never deviate.  But occasionally i will lose.  And when I have lost i have lost BIG because I have hit the max on the table.  TEST YOUR THEORYS ON A FREE WEBSIGHT BEFORE YOU GO TO A CASINO.

I usually bet $1, $3, $7,$15, $31, $63, $127 etc

That nets $1 per spin and allows me to calculate my estimated winnings over any given time.  Then you start back at $1 every time you win.

Answer 3

There's no such thing as a sure winner. That's why the Casinos are rich off of people who had a sure system.

Answer 4

in a sense, yes, a higher than normal percentage of your session will end with you winning a small sum of money, however a very small portion of your sessions will end with you losing astronomically huge amounts of money, most likely all of the money you have on you.

***The sum of all wins and losses will still favor the house.

***It is inevitable that you will see a losing session of magnitude

***Eventually you will go broke,   And no when you do lose 20 times in a row, they arnt cheating.

Answer 5

sounds good to me.   when would you decide to get up from the table/ i would set a limit and try it out.  as long as you realize that you could possibly lose and not to be so broken hearted when you did,     heck yeah give it a try

Answer 6

I hate roulette...I only play cards :)

Have fun and hope you win...

Answer 7

That system is called a "Grand Martingale." It's well known among gambling experts, and is as bad as it's predecessor, the Martingale.

The problem with this system is that it takes a very short losing streak to get creamed. If you found a $1 table somewhere, it would not likely have a maximum bet of more than $500. At that table, it would only take SIX losses before you hit the table limit. (Even if you found a friendly table here in Vegas with a $5 minimum and $10,000 max, you'd still only get 7 bets in) Have you ever played roulette before? Because it you had, you'd know that six straight losses happens ALL THE TIME. If you don't believe me, go get a roulette video game and try it out. You probably won't go an hour without hitting 6 losses in a row, and you will almost never make $500 before losing big.

This system is older than you, or I, or anyone else I know (and I know some really old people). If it actually worked, the rules of roulette would have been changed 50 years ago to prevent it, or there would be no roulette in casinos.

Answer 8

Nope. You will not win in the long run.

First, it is not a 50/50 wager. It is 18/38 (American double zero) or 18/37 (European single zero), or roughly 47.4% and 48.7% respectively. When that zero hits, you lose!

Second in this system five losses would put you at the table limits. A table with a minimum bet will have a maximum of $200 or $300 at the most.

Third, each spin of the roulette wheel is an independent action, prior results have NO effect on the next spin. It is the Ganblers Fallacy that past events predict future results, that something is "due" to hit.  

Fourth, your system is a triple up Martingale, and considered the riskiest of all the Martingale progressions.

Fifth, if it were that easy then the casinos would long ago have changed the rules to prevent it.

Sorry, this one won't fly, don't waste your money on it.

Answer 9

It's neither a sure winner or a sure loser. You're betting a place bet were the odds are always 50/50. You only have a 50/50 chance of winning or losing. And in actuality it's not truly 50/50 because of the 0 and 00. It's actually  less than a 50/50 chance of winning. On paper your "system" is a sure winner only if you're winning of course. But casinos have thought of it already. They bank on systems like yours. they hope that people come up with a system because they know in the long run, because the odds in roulette are so bad and the house edge is so high, the know the money will always come their way. Sorry... that's just how it is.