Questionable Strategy: Betting Against 1 in 2

Niti998

I'm more into studying different strategies. Today, I saw someone talking about a betting strategy, which, upon closer inspection, is essentially a 'betting against 1 in 2' approach. It looks good in theory, but in practice, it's quite risky. When you hit a losing streak, with a starting bankroll of 1000 units and a minimum bet of 10 units, you'd be broke in just 10 rounds. The example given only showed four rounds, but the concept is similar whether you use 1-2-4-8 or 1-2-3-4.

Let's take it a bit further and consider the first 11 rounds:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
If you win on the 11th round, the next round requires you to continue with 11 units. If you win again, you'll need to bet another 11 units. If you manage to win five consecutive rounds, you'll recover all your previous losses, which is a good outcome. However, if your winning streak is followed by a losing streak, your losses can quickly add up because you'll need to bet larger amounts.

Another 'betting against 1 in 2' method is:
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13... In this approach, one win erases the losses from the two preceding rounds. Regardless of the method, the key is not to stretch it for too long because it's challenging for your initial bankroll to withstand an extended losing streak.

I'm pleased to see discussions about strategies that can help players secure wins. I hope more people will engage in conversations about strategies that beat the house together.

977Iti

"The original poster is also quite experienced and enjoys researching."

Kapil334

"This gameplay also requires some learning."