Very small incremental roulette strategy.

by Christopher Fox in Hemel Hempstead, England, United Kingdom

Very small incremental roulette strategy.
Not quite
Unfortunately this project was not successful.

To use my own strategy, playing Roulette, to provide a 10% return to those who fund it.

by Christopher Fox in Hemel Hempstead, England, United Kingdom

At the very outset, I want to state that this project should be regarded as one where you stand to lose all your (contributed) money. That isn't my aim, obviously, and is certainly not my expectation. But it is a risk and I would request that you consider any contribution that you make as being one that you make with money that you can afford to lose and where you have no expectation of seeing any return from. 

That said....

The 'idea' is to achieve a gradual, modest, return playing Roulette using a Martingale (i.e. progressive staking) strategy. The strategy was designed, by me, to avoid the two main shortcomings of Martingale strategies: that the longest losing sequence will lead to either; 1. the player reaching the table limit and will be unable to continue playing or 2. the player's funds being exhausted and, similarly, will be unable to continue playing.

The strategy I have developed uses an extremely conservative (and small stake) approach, over a very, very, large number of Roulette wheel spins, in order to mitigate these shortcomings. As such, extremely long losing sequences can be absorbed.

To explain the principle of the strategy, imagine that you were to stake 1 unit on one number, for example the number 12, of a European Roulette wheel. There are 37 possible outcomes (0 to 36) and you would have a 1 in 37 chance of being correct with your choice of number 12. Theoretically, if you were to repeat this over a very long period of time, you would be correct once in every 37 spins, on average.

However, in practice, you would see some variations from your number occurring once in every 37 spins as expected. The gaps, between occurrences of the number 12 being where the number where ball 'lands', can be much lower or much higher than once in every 37 spins (although it will be that on average). What we're really interested in aren't the cases where it lands with this frequency, it is the worst, the longest, cases where it doesn't. It is these situations where the player risks meeting the failure scenarios.

You might be surprised at how extremely long these sequences can be. They can be very extreme indeed. My own modelling, using random numbers simulating millions of spins, revealed worst cases of gaps with over 500 spins where no specific number occurred at all. That's approximately fifteen times higher than the expected average.

My strategy accounts for this and can withstand not only the longest losing sequences obtained, from some very conservative modelling, but also some considerable margin on top of this.

What do I want?


What will you get?

For whatever you put in you will receive one of two possible outcomes: 1. If I lose, so do you (in that your contribution will have been lost at the tables where I have played). 2. If I win, you get 10% returned on top of your original contribution. 'Winning' is defined as being when the account size has gone from the starting amount of £100,000 to the target amount of £200,000.

How will the project unfold?

Once I have raised the total funds, I will commence play and will provide a daily, or weekly, update of the status of the account. The aim is to get to £200,000 and once that is achieved, you will be paid your 10%. The rest will be used to pay fees and for me to continue playing privately.

Will there be any opportunity to repeat this should it be successful?

Possibly. I will seriously consider this but it isn't my plan.

What are the risks?

The risk is that you lose everything that you contribute. For that reason, my advice is that you only send what you really, easily, would not notice if it were lost. I would like to suggest a small maximum amount, for your protection, but I also appreciate that waiting some considerable length of time for a £1 return on, say, a modest £10 investment might not be very exciting. That said, however, I would be very unhappy to receive larger amounts from those who cannot afford it and who would miss that money. But, if you can afford it, then that's fine and I'll be extremely diligent with the execution. It is, after all, my personal aim to win, not to lose. 

What testing have I done?

I modelled my strategy using random numbers, both from computer generated random numbers and from a reputable source of true random numbers. In both cases they produced similar results when modelled over 6,000 spins: an account increase from £100 to £327. That might sound small but it was by playing penny roulette and was automated so actually took about half a day. In addition, I modelled, using two million numbers, the number generation to capture the worst outcome experienced so as to determine the maximum drawdown (which was managed). I have also executed this strategy live, many times, and observed an account change from £927 to £951 in a single session. 

You might reasonable wonder why I did not just continue with my own funding. Put simply, I know that the longest losing sequence can appear anytime and that this account size will not be able to absorb it. It will take a larger account size to comfortably withstand the longest of losing sequences. 

How long will it take?

My initial estimate is that it could take approximately one year. I plan to play on live tables once the account has reached £110,000 as I have less suspicion of algorithmic and outcome manipulation in live situations than in entirely automated ones. These, correspondingly, take longer to execute.  

Got an idea like this?

Our crowd has raised over £70 million for bright ideas and good causes.