…TBH, I really like roulette!!!
So true…I often think about this, both when at the Vegas casinos and when at my computer screen reading this very site while we all play at the even-bigger-than-Vegas casino…
There are single-zero tables (albeit with a $100 minimum for each bet) which slightly reduces your loss % rate. Of course, more and more there are also more and more triple-zero tables appearing in Vegas. I find those truly to-be-avoided… No change in payout rates, just less favorable odds in exchange for lower minimums.
I think what I enjoy the most about roulette is that my goal is not to make money, it is to buy entertainment. Blackjack or poker requires me to think, and craps requires me to stand. Roulette is nothing more than a happy little ball that bounces around in a wheel, while I get to spend hours sitting down, enjoying those free high-and beverages, and chitchatting with the dealer and the endless stream of those who sit down, brag about their “strategy”, go up-and-down but *almost* always end up leaving the table down (or even chip-less), only to be replaced with the next person, all while my chip stack shrinks at an acceptable rate.
Comparisons always break down at some point, but roulette vs here:
* Roulette is a game with an expected loss rate over time; here is a game with an expected gain rate over time.
* Roulette allows me to suspend thinking for a while, and remember how little in the universe I can control vs pure randomness of a bouncing ball; here, a great deal of thinking goes into controlling how the pseudo-randomness of stock prices affect my portfolio.
* Both are by far the *most* interesting to me not for the game being played, but for the people-watching and conversations to be had!
The most basic Roulette strategy (the Martingale strategy) can be applied to trading.
For those few unaware, Martingale strat means you double your bet (or capital at risk) every time you lose, in order to come out ahead at the first win (on the roulette wheel or in the market).
Roulette example:
You bet $1 on black.
IF black -> you receive $2, so $1 profit.
IF red/zero -> you lose your bet of $1. You then bet $2 so IF black -> you receive $4, so $1 profit. IF red/zero, your total losses are $3. In this last case you bet $4, then $8, $16, $32 and so on.
I remember back in the day when @options_snipper (Options Sniper twitter acount, stopped a few years ago) posted live trades, I often joined him with small bets, but with a Martingale Strat.
He bought options (never sold 'em) for say $0.7, to get out at $2.0 or something, many times "doubling" the "bet". So everytime it paid off I had a profit. If not I bet double the next trade. I soon stopped doing this since it leads to trouble fast.
Just like in the casino the problem with Martingale is two-fold:
1) you need unlimited capital for it to work 100%. If not you risk running out of money due to many losses in a row and you can never recover.
2) even with enough money to "safely" play (ahum, doesn't exist), i.e. having enough to for example double your bet for twenty times in a row, you end up spending/betting huge sums of money for very little gain. The higher up you go in the strategy (3rd bet, 4th bet, etc) the less reward you'll get to more risk, so the R:R is completely out of whack.
It's better to find an edge and try and exploit it. In roulette this is impossible, because of basic maths. Selling options this seems possible, but the odds are often stacked against us so therefore a hugely important part of option plays is careful entry selection. Shoutout to
@Yoona and
@dl003 who have very different trading styles, but each are very selective in which trades to enter. This is the only reason they can be succesful in the long run.
TL;DR: before entering a trade, look at risk-reward ratio and what you will do if the trade goes against you. I try to keep reminding myself of this.
GLTA
.
