I agree with Dooglus; and it is important that players remember that each and every roll is independent in and of itself. Just because you rolled 20 Reds/Losses on 2X - makes it no more or less likely that the 21st roll will win. Past rolls have no effect on the current roll.
I'm with you so far. Pre-rolling is a useless strategy except for the fact that it keeps you betting small so you don't waste your money by betting big.
However; there is something to be said for the statistical odds of a given loss streak within a series of rolls.
Long losing streaks happen less often than short ones. This is unquestionably true.
Thus; and I am sure Dooglus would agree - that with a Payout Multiplier of 2X - 100 Reds/Losses (Consecutive) would be astronimically unlikely even over a series of millions, or billions of rolls. (I don't think it's ever occurred nor anywhere near that number).
I do agree. Losses of 100 in a row at 50% chance don't happen.
So a player could set up an initial wager amount - for the first 10 rolls; then increase his wager (say triple) on the 11th, and martingale moving forward.
I don't even disagree with that. Players *do* pre-roll. I've seen it.
If a player is playing within a legitamate provably fair environment - this would allow longer loss streaks given a specific bankroll. But again; it does not reduce or eliminate house odds or the -EV playing field.
If you skip the first 10 losing bets of every losing streak by betting very small, you will be able to survive streaks up to 10 steps longer than if you didn't. But you will be playing about 1024 times less often, waiting for these streaks of 10 to show up. And when they do, the streaks you actually get to play will be of length 0, 1, 2, etc. and will occur with the same frequency as the streaks you would have been facing had you not pre-rolled.
It's a nothing strategy. It slows down your play and saves you money in the same way that turning off your computer for 59 minutes each hour would.
