Why do people claim Roulette is unbeatable, when it definetly is?

[RouletteFanatic]

Even mathematicians claim that it is unbeatable. Einstein once said the only way to win in a Roulette table is to steal from the dealer.

But I beg to differ, (not by visual ballistics, but by a system)

Although every number is equally likely to appear and there are the house odds against you, the numbers fall within a considerable predictable range. This is not gambler's fallacy, it is simply the truth. Gambler's fallacy state that after 10 red spins, a black or a red is equally likely to appear. While the above is true, I don't deny, but we are talking about the NEXT direct spin in that case. How about a hundred, how about thousands of spins? Most of us gambler's know we don't just play ONE single spin, we play though with some progression (most of us)

To illustrate further, it is a mathematical certainty that at some point that you would reach 9 reds and 1 black if you take a sample of 10 spins. But how about 90 reds 10 blacks? You see? It is not just a simple ratio thing. 9 reds and 1 black is a confirmed event, but 90 reds 10 blacks isn't. I don't deny that if you consider infinity time, anything can happen, but 90 reds and 10 blacks is WAY OUT of the mathematical probability threshold. It wouldn't happen anywhere near our lifetime, or our kids or grand kids lifetime for that matter.

The same goes for numbers, you would never see 6 numbers "sleep" for more than 109 spins. I guarantee that. If it happens, it has hit 100% probability threshold, the wheel is biased and I would advice to bet all the numbers except the 6 and rake in the profits.

So it is very very possible to build a system to win at Roulette.

[Spike!]

So it is very very possible to build a system to win at Roulette.>>>

Based on math? I don't think so. Give an example.

[RouletteFanatic]

Well spike, it is proven that Roulette can be beaten long term, just look around the internet. There are people profiting through a system or testing millions of spins and come out with profit. Although some of their systems they might make only 7k after 100 k of spins testing. it is still consider a "win". Also, there are systems which can make good money I believe, just need all the right criteria.

Also im manually hand-testing one system I created, results so far +3054 units after 4000 spins. It might or might not fail at some point though.

[Spike!]

Well spike, it is proven that Roulette can be beaten long term, just look around the internet. There are people profiting through a system or testing millions of spins and come out with profit.>>>

Who? Name somebody that has a proven winning system. I don't mean somebody that CLAIMS it, somebody thats PROVEN it. There isn't one, and you know it.

[RouletteFanatic]

theres a system called selecta4 around here which people claim to be winning consistently, and even compared against tens of thousands of Hamburg spins still come out with a good profit after 1 year of testing playing everyday with every month ending in a profit.

Well, I use the word "claim" because myself hasn't tried that mentioned method so I can't guarantee anything.

[Spike!]

system called selecta4 around here which people claim to be winning consistently>>

LOL! 'Claim' is the right word, nobody has proven they win with that thing. But its been proven over and over with math that its loses long term. Thats all you got, El Chipo's Selecta? Even he doesn't play it, he's disappeared with Signum, his newest losing brainchild.

[Jean-Claud]

Noone had ever had a proven winning system.

In theory YES,in action NO.

[Mr J]

Spike, you forgot about The Zone!

[Spike!]

Geez, The Zone, how quickly we forget... 

[RouletteFanatic]

spike? so is it a claim or not i do not know, cause i am not that said person, but he did said he compared to hamburg spins and come out a profit a year later, there are ppl in this forum who also said they earn more they lose with it.

Anyway why are you so one-sided? Roulette is a complex game. Once casinos thought Blackjack was unbeatable, but a man discovered that by card counting it can be beaten. The pit bosses in the casinos thought he was cheating and couldn't for hell figure out how he did it besides cheating because it is programmed in their brains that blackjack cannot be beaten so they did not even consider that alternative.

[Jack Wad]

In roulette, those who know the most, speak the least.

[Jean-Claud]

U are correct!
In black jack they used a way that they took advantage.
The same can happen with roulette with VB.

[RouletteFanatic]

jean-claud - though u dont believe it can be beaten with a system?

[Spike!]

but a man discovered that by card counting it can be beaten. The pit bosses in the casinos thought he was cheating>>

There is no 'he'. BJ card counting was done for decades before Thorp wrote his book about it. All he did was prove it worked with a computer. Some of the players who'd been doing it for decades begged him not to write the book, but he didn't care, he had his ego that needed to be stroked.

[RouletteFanatic]

spike, let me ask you something. Do you believe that in 6000 spins one can profit?

Why I think roulette is beatable is because im testing a system I created out myself and it seems that either

a) It is working

b) I'm incredibly lucky

in 6000 spins, given to me after I've created my system. (I don't get a set of spins, and fit in a system retrospectively to win for that particular spin set) I created the system FIRST then tested it.

Im planning to test it on 20,000 spins.

But so far in 6000 spins I've got about 4700k already.

And no, I wont lose everything if I lose the progression, so far it has only gone to the 11 step progression of my system, if it loses that it loses 920 only. but 4700k in profits > then 920. So even if I lose the 11 step still it seems profit more then loss.

I really don't know what to make of this? Im testing for 20,000 spins. Anyway wish me luck. I will update on results once I reach 20,000 spins.

[RouletteFanatic]

-