Comparing Roulette Systems in Video Poker: A Look at Expected Returns

[Admalu]

Hey all, been digging into how some classic roulette systems might translate into video poker lately, and I thought I’d share some findings. I know we’re usually focused on paytables and optimal strategies here, but bear with me—this is more of a thought experiment about expected returns and variance.
I started with the Martingale, the old double-after-a-loss trick. In roulette, it’s simple: bet red, lose, double up, repeat until you win. On paper, it’s got a logic to it—eventually you hit and recover. But video poker’s a different beast. There’s no 50/50 red-or-black split; you’re dealing with a deck and probabilities tied to hand rankings. So I modeled it by treating a “win” as hitting at least a pair of jacks or better on a Jacks or Better machine, full pay 9/6 table. Roughly 45% chance per deal, not far off roulette’s 48.6% on a single-zero wheel. I ran 1,000 simulated hands, doubling bets after every non-qualifying hand. Results? It crashed hard. Bankroll got wiped out in under 50 hands most runs—variance is brutal when you’re doubling into a 55% loss rate. Expected return stayed negative, around -0.05 per unit wagered, because the house edge doesn’t care about your progression.
Next, I tried adapting the D’Alembert, which is less aggressive. Increase by one unit after a loss, decrease after a win. Same setup: jacks or better as the target. This one lasted longer—hundreds of hands before the inevitable downward trend kicked in. The slower ramp-up keeps you in the game, but the math still leans against you. Over 5,000 hands, the return hovered at -0.02 per unit, better than Martingale but still bleeding. The issue’s the same: video poker payouts don’t scale with your bet progression enough to offset the edge.
Then I flipped it and tested a positive progression, like the Paroli. Bet one unit, double after a win, reset after three wins or a loss. Idea is to ride hot streaks. This felt more at home in video poker, where a royal flush or four-of-a-kind can spike your return. Ran it 2,000 hands, and it held up better—positive swings were bigger, but losses still chipped away. Net return was near breakeven, maybe -0.01, depending on how lucky those streaks got. It’s less punishing, but you’re still fighting the 0.46% house edge on a 9/6 machine.
What’s clear is none of these roulette systems “solve” video poker. Roulette’s binary outcomes don’t map cleanly to a game with multiple payout tiers. Martingale’s a disaster with video poker’s variance, D’Alembert delays the pain, and Paroli’s your best shot but still no golden ticket. Stick to optimal strategy—chasing progression systems just muddies the math. Curious if anyone’s tried tweaking these differently or has data to share.

 

[mauk]

Hey all, been digging into how some classic roulette systems might translate into video poker lately, and I thought I’d share some findings. I know we’re usually focused on paytables and optimal strategies here, but bear with me—this is more of a thought experiment about expected returns and variance.
I started with the Martingale, the old double-after-a-loss trick. In roulette, it’s simple: bet red, lose, double up, repeat until you win. On paper, it’s got a logic to it—eventually you hit and recover. But video poker’s a different beast. There’s no 50/50 red-or-black split; you’re dealing with a deck and probabilities tied to hand rankings. So I modeled it by treating a “win” as hitting at least a pair of jacks or better on a Jacks or Better machine, full pay 9/6 table. Roughly 45% chance per deal, not far off roulette’s 48.6% on a single-zero wheel. I ran 1,000 simulated hands, doubling bets after every non-qualifying hand. Results? It crashed hard. Bankroll got wiped out in under 50 hands most runs—variance is brutal when you’re doubling into a 55% loss rate. Expected return stayed negative, around -0.05 per unit wagered, because the house edge doesn’t care about your progression.
Next, I tried adapting the D’Alembert, which is less aggressive. Increase by one unit after a loss, decrease after a win. Same setup: jacks or better as the target. This one lasted longer—hundreds of hands before the inevitable downward trend kicked in. The slower ramp-up keeps you in the game, but the math still leans against you. Over 5,000 hands, the return hovered at -0.02 per unit, better than Martingale but still bleeding. The issue’s the same: video poker payouts don’t scale with your bet progression enough to offset the edge.
Then I flipped it and tested a positive progression, like the Paroli. Bet one unit, double after a win, reset after three wins or a loss. Idea is to ride hot streaks. This felt more at home in video poker, where a royal flush or four-of-a-kind can spike your return. Ran it 2,000 hands, and it held up better—positive swings were bigger, but losses still chipped away. Net return was near breakeven, maybe -0.01, depending on how lucky those streaks got. It’s less punishing, but you’re still fighting the 0.46% house edge on a 9/6 machine.
What’s clear is none of these roulette systems “solve” video poker. Roulette’s binary outcomes don’t map cleanly to a game with multiple payout tiers. Martingale’s a disaster with video poker’s variance, D’Alembert delays the pain, and Paroli’s your best shot but still no golden ticket. Stick to optimal strategy—chasing progression systems just muddies the math. Curious if anyone’s tried tweaking these differently or has data to share.

Yo, love the deep dive into this crossover experiment—roulette systems in video poker is a wild angle to explore. Gotta say, your findings line up with what I’ve seen when I’ve messed around with betting progressions in casino games, and it’s cool to see the numbers you crunched. Since you’re looking at expected returns and variance, I’ll share some thoughts from my own experience, especially with how I approach video poker and why these systems don’t quite click for me, plus a nod to how I tweak things when I’m betting on big events like, say, a global sports tournament.

First off, your Martingale sim crashing in under 50 hands doesn’t surprise me one bit. I tried something similar years back on a Jacks or Better machine, thinking I could force my way through the variance by doubling up after losses. Big mistake. Video poker’s probabilities are messier than roulette’s near-50/50, like you said—45% for jacks or better feels close, but that 55% miss rate compounds fast. I was sweating bullets when my bankroll tanked after a string of six or seven bad hands. The house edge just eats you alive, and unlike roulette, where a win gets you back to square one, video poker’s payouts don’t always cover your doubled bets unless you hit something big like two pair or better. Your -0.05 return tracks with what I felt—pure bleed.

The D’Alembert take was interesting, and I’ve actually played around with it too, not just in video poker but also when I’m betting on sports, like during a World Cup run. The idea of nudging bets up or down based on wins or losses feels safer, and it does stretch your session, like you saw with hundreds of hands. I’ve used it on 9/6 Deuces Wild, targeting at least a high pair or two pair as my “win” condition. It’s less heart-attack-inducing than Martingale, but you’re right—it’s still a slow leak. The -0.02 return you got sounds about right; I’d guess mine was similar, maybe -0.03 over a long session. The problem is the same as you pointed out: the payouts don’t scale enough to flip the edge, and you’re just delaying the grind down.

Now, the Paroli system you tested—that’s more my speed. I lean toward positive progressions because they vibe better with video poker’s payout structure, where a single hand can pop off for a big win. I’ve run Paroli-style betting on Bonus Poker, aiming to double up after wins and cash out after a three-win streak. Like you saw, it’s streaky but fun, and those royal flush or four-of-a-kind hits can make your night. My results were a bit better than yours, sometimes even slightly positive over a short run, but I agree it’s no game-changer. The 0.46% house edge is always lurking, and unless you’re insanely lucky, you’re hovering near breakeven at best. I’ve also used a Paroli-like approach when betting on sports tournaments, doubling up after a winning bet on a match to ride momentum, but resetting after a loss to avoid chasing. It’s not perfect, but it keeps things exciting without blowing the bankroll.

One thing I’ve learned from years of playing is that these progression systems, whether from roulette or elsewhere, don’t rewrite the math of video poker. They’re more about psychology—feeling like you’re in control while the house edge does its thing. Your point about sticking to optimal strategy is dead-on. I’ve had my best sessions just grinding 9/6 Jacks or Better, playing perfect strategy, and walking away when I hit a nice four-of-a-kind or better. Trying to overlay a roulette system feels like forcing a square peg into a round hole. The variance in video poker, with its tiered payouts, just doesn’t play nice with binary win/lose logic.

If you’re still curious about tweaking these systems, I’d suggest playing with a hybrid approach. I’ve had some luck combining a mild positive progression, like Paroli, with a strict stop-loss and win goal, especially on a machine with a good paytable like 10/7 Double Bonus. For example, double after a win, cap it at three, but quit if you’re up 20 units or down 10. It’s not foolproof, but it’s kept me in the game longer while chasing those big hits. Curious if you’ve tried anything like that or if you’ve got other systems in mind. Also, have you ever thought about how these ideas might translate to betting on something like a World Cup match, where you’re dealing with moneyline odds instead of casino payouts? Might be a fun side experiment.

Great thread, man—got me thinking about dusting off my old sim software to test some ideas. What’s next on your radar?

 

[Jacek2000]

Hey all, been digging into how some classic roulette systems might translate into video poker lately, and I thought I’d share some findings. I know we’re usually focused on paytables and optimal strategies here, but bear with me—this is more of a thought experiment about expected returns and variance.
I started with the Martingale, the old double-after-a-loss trick. In roulette, it’s simple: bet red, lose, double up, repeat until you win. On paper, it’s got a logic to it—eventually you hit and recover. But video poker’s a different beast. There’s no 50/50 red-or-black split; you’re dealing with a deck and probabilities tied to hand rankings. So I modeled it by treating a “win” as hitting at least a pair of jacks or better on a Jacks or Better machine, full pay 9/6 table. Roughly 45% chance per deal, not far off roulette’s 48.6% on a single-zero wheel. I ran 1,000 simulated hands, doubling bets after every non-qualifying hand. Results? It crashed hard. Bankroll got wiped out in under 50 hands most runs—variance is brutal when you’re doubling into a 55% loss rate. Expected return stayed negative, around -0.05 per unit wagered, because the house edge doesn’t care about your progression.
Next, I tried adapting the D’Alembert, which is less aggressive. Increase by one unit after a loss, decrease after a win. Same setup: jacks or better as the target. This one lasted longer—hundreds of hands before the inevitable downward trend kicked in. The slower ramp-up keeps you in the game, but the math still leans against you. Over 5,000 hands, the return hovered at -0.02 per unit, better than Martingale but still bleeding. The issue’s the same: video poker payouts don’t scale with your bet progression enough to offset the edge.
Then I flipped it and tested a positive progression, like the Paroli. Bet one unit, double after a win, reset after three wins or a loss. Idea is to ride hot streaks. This felt more at home in video poker, where a royal flush or four-of-a-kind can spike your return. Ran it 2,000 hands, and it held up better—positive swings were bigger, but losses still chipped away. Net return was near breakeven, maybe -0.01, depending on how lucky those streaks got. It’s less punishing, but you’re still fighting the 0.46% house edge on a 9/6 machine.
What’s clear is none of these roulette systems “solve” video poker. Roulette’s binary outcomes don’t map cleanly to a game with multiple payout tiers. Martingale’s a disaster with video poker’s variance, D’Alembert delays the pain, and Paroli’s your best shot but still no golden ticket. Stick to optimal strategy—chasing progression systems just muddies the math. Curious if anyone’s tried tweaking these differently or has data to share.

Cool breakdown! I’ve been chasing bonus games lately, so I haven’t tried roulette systems in video poker, but your numbers make sense. The Paroli sounds tempting for those hot streaks—maybe pair it with a machine offering a juicy bonus round to juice up the returns? Still, like you said, the house edge doesn’t budge. Ever test these on a machine with a progressive jackpot to see if the payout tiers shift the math?

 

[REJF]

Hey all, been digging into how some classic roulette systems might translate into video poker lately, and I thought I’d share some findings. I know we’re usually focused on paytables and optimal strategies here, but bear with me—this is more of a thought experiment about expected returns and variance.
I started with the Martingale, the old double-after-a-loss trick. In roulette, it’s simple: bet red, lose, double up, repeat until you win. On paper, it’s got a logic to it—eventually you hit and recover. But video poker’s a different beast. There’s no 50/50 red-or-black split; you’re dealing with a deck and probabilities tied to hand rankings. So I modeled it by treating a “win” as hitting at least a pair of jacks or better on a Jacks or Better machine, full pay 9/6 table. Roughly 45% chance per deal, not far off roulette’s 48.6% on a single-zero wheel. I ran 1,000 simulated hands, doubling bets after every non-qualifying hand. Results? It crashed hard. Bankroll got wiped out in under 50 hands most runs—variance is brutal when you’re doubling into a 55% loss rate. Expected return stayed negative, around -0.05 per unit wagered, because the house edge doesn’t care about your progression.
Next, I tried adapting the D’Alembert, which is less aggressive. Increase by one unit after a loss, decrease after a win. Same setup: jacks or better as the target. This one lasted longer—hundreds of hands before the inevitable downward trend kicked in. The slower ramp-up keeps you in the game, but the math still leans against you. Over 5,000 hands, the return hovered at -0.02 per unit, better than Martingale but still bleeding. The issue’s the same: video poker payouts don’t scale with your bet progression enough to offset the edge.
Then I flipped it and tested a positive progression, like the Paroli. Bet one unit, double after a win, reset after three wins or a loss. Idea is to ride hot streaks. This felt more at home in video poker, where a royal flush or four-of-a-kind can spike your return. Ran it 2,000 hands, and it held up better—positive swings were bigger, but losses still chipped away. Net return was near breakeven, maybe -0.01, depending on how lucky those streaks got. It’s less punishing, but you’re still fighting the 0.46% house edge on a 9/6 machine.
What’s clear is none of these roulette systems “solve” video poker. Roulette’s binary outcomes don’t map cleanly to a game with multiple payout tiers. Martingale’s a disaster with video poker’s variance, D’Alembert delays the pain, and Paroli’s your best shot but still no golden ticket. Stick to optimal strategy—chasing progression systems just muddies the math. Curious if anyone’s tried tweaking these differently or has data to share.

Yo, this is a wild dive you’ve taken, and I’m kinda here for it. Comparing roulette systems to video poker is like trying to teach a fish to ride a bike—intriguing, but it’s gonna flop hard unless you rethink the whole approach. I’ve been grinding sportsbooks and dipping into casino games for years, and while I don’t usually mess with video poker, your post got me thinking about how betting progressions clash with games like this. Let’s unpack it.

Your Martingale experiment? Ouch. Doubling down after losses in video poker is like betting against a team that’s down 20 points in the fourth quarter—you’re just begging for a blowout. That 45% hit rate for jacks or better sounds close to roulette’s red/black, but the variance is a whole different beast. You nailed it: the house edge doesn’t bend, no matter how big your bet gets. I’ve seen guys try similar stuff in blackjack, chasing losses with bigger bets, and it’s always the same story—bankroll goes poof. Your sims showing a crash in 50 hands tracks with what I’d expect. The math’s ruthless, and video poker’s payout structure doesn’t give you the recovery pop you’d need to make Martingale work. Honestly, anyone trying this in a real casino would be sweating bullets before the cocktail waitress even circles back.

D’Alembert’s a bit more chill, and I can see why it lasted longer in your runs. It’s like hedging your bets on a parlay instead of going all-in on a single game—slower bleed, but you’re still leaking. That -0.02 return over 5,000 hands makes sense. The incremental bumps don’t spiral out of control like Martingale, but you’re still stuck in the same trap: the game’s edge is baked into every hand. I’ve messed with similar systems in sports betting, like scaling stakes after losses, and it’s always a grind. You might stretch your session, but you’re not outsmarting the odds. Video poker’s tiered payouts just don’t flex enough to flip the script.

Now, the Paroli angle’s got some spice. Positive progressions vibe better with games that can spike big, like hitting a four-of-a-kind or, if the stars align, a royal flush. Your near-breakeven result feels right—those hot streaks can carry you for a bit, especially if you catch a couple of high-payout hands early. I’ve used Paroli-ish systems in baccarat, letting bets ride after wins, and it’s fun when it hits. But like you said, that 0.46% house edge is still lurking, ready to nickle-and-dime you back to reality. It’s like betting on a team with momentum—you might ride the wave, but one bad quarter tanks your profit.

Here’s where I think casino bonuses could shake things up, since they’re a big part of stretching value in games like video poker. If you’re playing on a platform with a decent reload bonus or cashback, it’s like getting a little extra padding on your bankroll. Say you’re running Paroli and snag a 10% cashback deal—those losses don’t sting as much, and you might extend your session long enough to hit a streak. Or picture a deposit match: you’re effectively playing with house money for part of your run, which could offset the edge a tad. I’ve cleared wagering requirements on video poker before, sticking to 9/6 Jacks or Better, and it’s a grind but doable if you’re disciplined. The catch? Bonuses don’t change the math of your progression systems—they just buy you more spins at the wheel, so to speak. You’re still fighting the same variance and edge.

One tweak I’d toss out: what if you mixed a bonus-driven approach with a capped Paroli? Like, set a strict three-win double-up limit, reset after a loss, and only play with bonus funds on a full-pay machine. You’d lean on optimal strategy to keep the edge low and let the bonus absorb some of the variance. I haven’t simmed it, but I’d bet you’d get closer to breakeven, maybe even a slight positive swing if you hit a big hand early. It’s not a roulette system anymore, though—more like a hybrid hustle.

Ultimately, you’re spot-on: these roulette systems don’t “fit” video poker. The game’s too layered, with payouts and probabilities that don’t bend to binary logic. Stick to optimal play, maybe juice it with a bonus if the terms are decent. Anyone else out there messing with progressions like this? Or got a favorite bonus deal that’s kept you in the game longer? Spill the beans.