Even though CF is 50/50. However, we could abuse that fact. Say you play twice The sample space is WW WL LW LL Note how a win and a loss from the sample space appears twice, that is regression to the mean. Regression to the mean doesn’t just account for 1 game, it accounts for more than 1. With a larger sample space you are pretty much guaranteed to be ending at 50/50 at the end, and that’s what makes this method so attractive. Say you have top+ and is sent to the cosmic prisons for tax evasion, then you are in luck. Say you start at $10k. You cf $2k, having a 50/50 chance to win or lose. Let’s say you lost, if you lost, the universe generally wants you to win. Therefore, double your amount. If you lose, half your amount. Doubling is the inverse of 1/2, chance to win / lose a cf. Therefore, this is a strategy that relies on mathematics and therefore should be used. But wait, there’s more. There’s tax. yes screw you go buy top+ from the money you make in cf. Thank you for reading this

This is the definition of problem gambling. Anyone thinking like this should stop and seek help. There is no math or trick beyond you having exactly a 50/50 chance. That's it. It doesn't matter if you increase or lower your bet, it will always be 50/50 each time.

Literally just outlined how flipping a coin works. Indeed - if you flip it enough times you should eventually break even.

Heyoo!! It is 50/50 as you mention but there are ways that are risky but can work if you do your math correctly. Here is how I coinflip. I got around 300mil. I start with 5mil if lose move onto 15mil if lose move onto 45mil if lose move onto 135mil, if lose I would just go all in. For smaller amounts, it is easier said. I just triple my amount every time, 100% profit chance when you win. I usually gain about 100-120mil on like 45-60mins by doing this.

No, color has everything to do with cfing. The big cfers on Sahara (Larucus and Silent) both know the chances of winning for each color because Larucus was apparently told all of the chances of winning by the cf plugin maker, and then passed the information to Silent. There are certain colors that have a higher chance than other colors. Streaks have nothing to do with your chance of winning.

No. Just no. I literally made a post only a few days ago explaining in detail why coinflip strategies don't exist and why people incorrectly believe they do. This is simply not how probability works. The idea that odds will try to return to even over time is a variation on the Gambler's Fallacy (meaning "mistake made by people who risk money") called the Law of Small Numbers. There is a book on the subject by Thaler I would recommend that explains why this is not true. I beg you to read my post and please ask me anything I haven't been clear about.

Apologies! The book is actually by Kahneman (a different behavioural economist) although you will probably come across both if you research the field.

This concept is a pretty common idea known as the Martingale System, which originated in 18th Century France. The 'optimal' way to 'use' it is actually to double your bet each time not triple it. The quotation marks are there because it actually doesn't work in the long run. This is because the likelihood of winning in the end is offset by a huge risk to lose everything you bet and the edge of the house (in the case of prisons, this would be the CF tax). The mathematical proof behind why this is the case is outlined in the Optional Stopping Theorem. The problem lies in the lack of infinite wealth used to bet which does not seem like an issue at first because you would assume that if you start low enough you are bound to win in the end. However, it is a well documented heuristic that people always underestimate the odds of large losing streaks (which makes this strategy look appealing) when in truth they are far far more common than people would think. This is called Insensitivity to Sample Size, and is also documented in the book on the subject by Kahneman and Tversky. With the optimal strategy, you are risking far more than you realise for, at best, your initial smallest bet in return. Said like that, it doesn't seem so appealing any more. Again, please check out my previous post on coinflips and if I explained something badly please let me know so I can clarify.

Also, this is not regression to the mean. The win and loss appearing twice is a property of Pascal's Triangle and by extension, the Binomial Expansion from which you can calculate these probabilities. Regression to the mean does not account for these things, it's merely an effect observed in some cases (not this one) when results that are very far aware from the expected outcome normalise in the next trial.

Did not forget about tax. I addressed that in my response. With tax it's just straight up negative odds because of the house edge, so I went under the assumption that if you do try this (which you still shouldn't as explained) you have top+. Also triple cash does not make more money because it means the exponent governing how fast your money runs out is greater, which is the limiting factor of the whole thing, again as explained. The winnings are small either way because of the nature of the system, and because of the way the losing streak and limited cash supply is the cause of the problem you have, any attempt to increase per-round winnings will result in greater losses in the long run.