Ok, so let's look at one thing at a time:
If a method can double the initial bankroll and then re-doubles it without losing it, then that method must be considered winning method.
1. Say I start with $200, and this happens:
a. I bet $100 on red and win. Bankroll = $300.
b. I bet $100 on red and lose. Bankroll = $200
c. I double my bet to $200 and bet on red. I win, and bankroll is $400.
So I just doubled my bankroll. Now if the same thing happened over the next three spins, I can double the bankroll again.
And this is your definition of a "winning system".You've just showed me you have even less experience than I thought. You said you had a physics degree, right?
Kav, first you were all confident that your system would pass a 1m spin test. Now you have backed right off saying you only need to double your bankroll. And we saw above how easily it is done from luck.
The only objective and valid criterion is the risk of ruin test.
Yeah ok, so let's do a proper test then. The martingale is like a gambling addict making a bet with his friend. He keeps losing, so makes a new bet with higher stakes. He thinks eventually he'll win back all his losses. And if he had unlimited money to bet with, and the friend accepted any bet size, then yeah eventually the gambling addict will win. But the problem is the gambling addict doesnt have unlimited money, and the friend wont accept any sized bet.
The martingale with roulette is no different, except the payouts and odds are unfair. Unless the player has an edge with more accurate bet selection, the player is guaranteed to eventually reach the maximum bet and blow the bankroll.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Any person with half a brain here would understand the logic. Do you want to do a proper challenge, or not?
If you want to proceed with your potentially 6 spin challenge, then ok. But I get to replicate your test with a red/black martingale to show the results are no different. And if I replicate your results, then I win the challenge. If I cant replicate it, then you win. And what happens in each case is explained in my earlier post. Basically you apologize to me etc, or I pay you $100k and close all my roulette sites.
But if you are going to persist with your suggestion of short term test, then anyone with a brain here can see you backed right off, because you know what will happen with any proper test.
Achieving two times +100% before one time -100% is valid regardless of the amount of units a bankroll may be.
Whether it's 100 or 1000 units the +/- 100% applies equally to every bankroll.
Now you are really wasting my time. I think you now know your mistake but I dont think I'm getting my apology.
Next time...