might have been done
If you have enough money - the simplest way to beat the Roulette table is to bet like so.

1.Pick a colour red/black and stick to it
2.First bet - £5

- Win? repeat Step No2
- Lose? move to step No3

3.Bet £10 on the colour you originally chose(double what you originally bet)
-Win? Return to step No2
-Lose? Move to step 4

4. Bet £15 on the colour you chose (treble what you originally bet)

and so on until you win, and when you do win return back to step 1.

ok you get the pattern.

It works on the basis that the odds of one colour not coming in, for a massive succesive streak are so small that sooner or later you will win. And when you do win, you should win all the monies you should have won up until then.

Of course you would probably need about a few £hundred at hand first.
(Dan dan dan They tik urh jerbs!!!, Wed 13 May 2009, 10:02, 14 replies)

This is a well known method of gambling, there's just one problem...
it's shit.

The theory requires an unlimited pot so that you can always double up to recover your loss. If you have an unlimited supply of money why would you need to gamble?
( Colonel Dracula Two manky hookers and a racist dwarf, Wed 13 May 2009, 10:18, closed)

thing is
if you could get a table that did £1 on reds n blacks, then if you went with £100 - you could easily overcome the funds issue.
(Dan dan dan They tik urh jerbs!!!, Wed 13 May 2009, 10:29, closed)

Hate to point it out, but...
on a standard Martingale (doubling each loss) you would not be able to cover the bet on the 6th spin.

with your revised plan - which does not allow you to win back all your losses at once, but I assume you knew that flaw already - you would have 13 spins. And if you only won on that 13th spin you would have spent £91 for a return of £26... Even the FTSE 100 is better value than that.

*note - zeros are not included for simplicity.
**note - gambling is for fools
***note - that hasn't stopped me racking up alot of debt as a result.
( The Teviot Moose major 5th., Wed 13 May 2009, 10:47, closed)

Or so you might think
When (not if) the "wrong" colour comes up six times in a row, you won't have enough money to get back to parity, and if it comes up again you've lost the lot.

And trust me, it's not as unlikely as it might seem.
(Vice Admiral Sir Charles Cockbrush KCB MBE DSO, who is finding it increasingly difficult to log into b3ta.com wants to duck your aunt and kick your puppy, Wed 13 May 2009, 10:48, closed)

.
Martingale system - LOL

£1 + £2 + £4 + £8 + £16 + £32 + £64 = More than your £100

Only needs 6 reds in a row ... cos you should ALWAYS BET ON BLACK (Wesley Snipes says so)
(steh30, Wed 13 May 2009, 10:49, closed)

Oh that almost made Passenger 51 worth watching...
...almost.
( monkeybananaraffle, Wed 13 May 2009, 10:54, closed)

Passenger 57 was even better
:)
(steh30, Wed 13 May 2009, 11:00, closed)

Teh proofs
I just simulated playing the Martingale system in Excel for shits and giggles, with a starting fund of £100 and initial bet of £1.

After 30 spins I was up to £115, six losing spins in a row later I was down to £52 and couldn't afford the £64 to win my losses back, and the next spin was a loser anyway.

With a starting fund of £1000 I lasted 355 spins before I couldn't afford to win back my losses. If I'd stopped nine spins earlier I'd have spent a whole day in a casino and made £182. Hardly a get-rich quick scheme...
(Vice Admiral Sir Charles Cockbrush KCB MBE DSO, who is finding it increasingly difficult to log into b3ta.com wants to duck your aunt and kick your puppy, Wed 13 May 2009, 11:18, closed)

And then...
I tried again with £10,000.

This time I'd turned it into £22,093 after 24,178 spins. Then 15 blacks came up in a row and I lost the lot.
(Vice Admiral Sir Charles Cockbrush KCB MBE DSO, who is finding it increasingly difficult to log into b3ta.com wants to duck your aunt and kick your puppy, Wed 13 May 2009, 11:32, closed)

No
There's the (green) 0 (or 00, on American tables) which reduces your chances from 50/50. There are also table limits, which mean that after a bad loosing streak, you can't double any more - assuming you even have the money to do so by this point.

The house always wins. Always.
(Merrep, Wed 13 May 2009, 10:32, closed)

That's similar to the Martingale system
...but even worse.

In the Martingale system you double the bet every time you lose, so that, for example, LOSE £5 - LOSE £10 - LOSE £20 - WIN £40 nets £5.

With your system it would be LOSE £5 - LOSE £10 - LOSE £15 - WIN £20 for a net loss of £10.
(Vice Admiral Sir Charles Cockbrush KCB MBE DSO, who is finding it increasingly difficult to log into b3ta.com wants to duck your aunt and kick your puppy, Wed 13 May 2009, 10:51, closed)

Anyone else fancy setting up a casino and inviting dan, dan, dan, dan, dan, dan.....nahh he hasnt seen me, ...... DAAAANNN!!! to join??
3)PROFIT!
( The Teviot Moose major 5th., Wed 13 May 2009, 10:53, closed)

Tables have a minimum and maximum bet
These systems don't work:

1. You need unlimited funds to deal with streaks where you lose 4, 5, 6, ... times in a row and still need to double up.

2. Casinos impose minimum and maximum table bets, e.g. min bet $5, max bet $500. The maximum is there not because they're feeling sorry for players but precisely to stop people doubling up too often.

3. Casinos have the right to throw you out. Somebody doubling up all the time is liable to be asked to leave, probably right after they've lost 5 or 6 times in a row to maximize the pain.
(MagicMoose, Wed 13 May 2009, 11:11, closed)

The table limits are irrelevant
...since you can move to another table or casino and just carry on from the point you reached.

It's the fact that you don't have unlimited moolah that kicks the system squarely in the nadgers.
(Vice Admiral Sir Charles Cockbrush KCB MBE DSO, who is finding it increasingly difficult to log into b3ta.com wants to duck your aunt and kick your puppy, Wed 13 May 2009, 11:20, closed)