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?