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

[Bayes]

Even mathematicians claim that it is unbeatable.

I love the way you say that "even" mathematicians claim that it's unbeatable, as though they are the least qualified. 

RouletteFanatic,

You are claiming that roulette is "definitely" beatable on the basis of....?

Winning several thousand bets using what sounds like a martingale? I'm sorry, but you have a lot to learn. No system can ever work. Learn from those who have fallen into the same error and don't waste any more time searching - it's a highway to nowhere.

[RouletteFanatic]

I love the way you say that "even" mathematicians claim that it's unbeatable, as though they are the least qualified. 

RouletteFanatic,

You are claiming that roulette is "definitely" beatable on the basis of....?

Winning several thousand bets using what sounds like a martingale? I'm sorry, but you have a lot to learn. No system can ever work. Learn from those who have fallen into the same error and don't waste any more time searching - it's a highway to nowhere.

Hi bayes, but the thing is the wins exceeds the loss of the martingale. it is not the classic martingale where you go 1, 2, 4, 8,16, 32 etc..

its true that at some point you would lose the progression, but its a portion of your winnings. Thus the winnings exceed the losses.

im not 100% sure of this, but that is my simple observation after testing 6k spins.

[Cash Growth]

Hey RouletteFanatic,
Glad to know you are working on a new method.
Would you share it with us?
Thank you so much,
CashGrowth.

[RouletteFanatic]

test results:

+2207 profits after 10k of spins. I hit a lost progression 3 times within the last 5k of spins I really dont know what to make of this?

[Bayes]

I really dont know what to make of this?

It's called RANDOM, and there's no way around it. 

[Number Six]

It means nothing. An upswing in an upswing, it's due to luck. The odds, probability and payouts all fit together perfectly and they are engineered to the house's advantage, thus there is no way you can win long term. It never ceases to amaze me that people can claim to have a winning roulette system based on progressions, past spins and nonsense like win goals and stop losses. None of it matters when the expectancy is always negative.

[Mr J]

And Number Six arrives on scene to stir the pot. Big surprise. Ken

[RouletteFanatic]

Hi Numbersix,  great answer but i don't entirely agree with it. It has been proven, not by me but by others that Roulette can be beaten (though, what you consider beaten? being rich?) Then maybe not.

As quoted by Poit on the Main Roulette forum:

"I wrote a program that started betting once it reached 9 in a row (betting on the other two dozens).... and yes, after millions of spins I was in profit.... but only a few hundred dollars......... hardly worth actually deploying such a method into real life, EVEN with a bot playing it.... it would probably average 5 cents a day of profit.... not worth it."

So yes even after a million spins, one can still profit though it becomes a paltry sum. Also if you don't consider a million spins long term, that what is? A billion? Trillion? Or Gazillion? Truth is, most ordinary people or even your average roulette lover would not reach a million spins in his or her lifetime.

[Herb6]

Why do people fall prey to systems based on the gambler's fallacy like "The Zone"?

To help everyone gain insight into the problem, here's some information that you might find interesting.

Scientific expertise can provoke a backlash: Participants in a University of Maryland experiment were more likely to express belief in ESP if they were told that most scientists thought it was bunk. - Source is Scientific American.
This experminet helps explain why people fall prey to absurd systems like The Zone and The Enigimista Cult. rather than simply believing an encyclopedia.  When someone knowledgeable explains why a system won't work, it triggers the activation of a stupid gene in certain people that bascially tells the person to say, "Nuh-uh!"

[gizmotron]

It means nothing. An upswing in an upswing, it's due to luck. The odds, probability and payouts all fit together perfectly and they are engineered to the house's advantage, thus there is no way you can win long term. It never ceases to amaze me that people can claim to have a winning roulette system based on progressions, past spins and nonsense like win goals and stop losses. None of it matters when the expectancy is always negative.

Do you believe is statistical variance? A positive, in your favor stretch of statistical variance could be described as an upswing, or as good luck.

Is it possible to wait until your simulated bets enter a statistical variance that benefits you? Can you then play real bets until the first sign of it changing to a flat or downswing form of statistical variance?

The only way for your theory of house's advantage to be true is for the player to place bets no matter what the current condition for statistical variance is showing. Nope, your's is a flawed belief. It's a religion of a theory only. You have never made a compelling argument. Your amazement is not evidence. You need to prove that statistical variance leads to the "house's advantage" for a player, while that player at the same time deliberately attempts to avoid its negative side.

It's also a religious belief that you can not avoid the negative side of statistical variance.

[Bayes]

Is it possible to wait until your simulated bets enter a statistical variance that benefits you?

No. There is no advantage to be gained from this. It's more of the same - betting in the belief that past results can somehow indicate better results to come.

You have never made a compelling argument.

So neither logic nor empirical results are compelling, apparently.  

[gizmotron]

No. There is no advantage to be gained from this. It's more of the same - betting in the belief that past results can somehow indicate better results to come.

So now there is no such thing as "the win streak, "the losing streak" the concept of the upswing, or the downturn.

If any of you want to take the advice from someone that can't recognize a win streak then perhaps you should questions more of his absolute notions of gambling reality. Even the most inexperienced player knows when he/her is having a win streak. Why can't you?

[Bayes]

Gizmo,

You weren't just talking about winning and losing streaks, you said: Is it possible to wait until your simulated bets enter a statistical variance that benefits you?.

I was looking through some stuff on my hard-drive this afternoon and came across an old book, written in 1987, called "The Punter's Revenge". There's a short chapter on roulette, an extract from which is relevant to many on this forum:

We are dealing with an event which is essentially random and therefore unpredictable.

The compulsive roulette player is therefore a kind of scientist gone wrong. Like the scientist, he believes in the orderly and ultimately predictable nature of his world - the world of the roulette wheel. Like the scientist he also has a working hypothesis which is supposed to describe and account for the events he seeks to control. This hypothesis is called the law of averages.

The law of averages is quite different from the law of probability. The latter tells us that the probability of black coming up, say, twelve times in a row is smaller than the probability of it coming up eleven times in a row, and considerably smaller than the probability of it coming up three times in a row.

However, it also recognises that there is no theoretical reason why black should not run up an infinite sequence, and that knowing that black has come up twelve times does not make it any easier to predict exactly when black's winning sequence will end.

The believer in the law of averages remains obstinately convinced that the sequence of winning numbers contains vital clues which point to the identity of the next winning number. He dutifully records each number as it arises on cards thoughtfully provided for this very purpose by the casino management. He attaches an almost cabbalistic importance to his steadily lengthening list of numbers, and bases his entire betting strategy on its supposed predictive power.

However, it is inevitable that the roulette player's assumptions about his world, and his belief in the law of averages, will be empirically falsified. In the long run, reality will prove his theories wrong. He will be unable to make sufficiently accurate predictions and he will lose money. It is at this point that he parts company with the good scientist and becomes instead a scientist gone wrong.

Instead of re-examining the theoretical basis of his actions, the roulette player will simply add convenient epicycles to his existing body of theory, just as Ptolemy and his followers added epicycles to geocentric cosmology when it could no longer be squared with accumulated astronomical observations.

In the case of the roulette player, these may take the form of additional subroutines to existing procedures for interpreting the run of numbers. Or it may even take the form of private incantations and/or propitiatory rituals as the wheel is spinning, in which case his system is essentially based on magic.

[gizmotron]

There's that assumption again: "We are dealing with an event which is essentially random and therefore unpredictable."

Why does something have to be classified as predictable? These win streaks happen without regard from any predictions. They just happen from time to time. There is no force. If you have a bet selection process it will happen from time to time. If you have a really good bet selection process it will happen more frequent. This concept is about recognition and deliberate action taken. It's about being patient and waiting for it to happen.

I have to go somewhere. Talk later.

[Number Six]

Is it possible to wait until your simulated bets enter a statistical variance that benefits you? Can you then play real bets until the first sign of it changing to a flat or downswing form of statistical variance?

Of course not, truly I cannot understand how you can be a self-proclaimed expert on randomness when simple things, the fundamentals, completely escape your comprehension. Only in the Blubber World does probability apply to "virtual" bets and the parameters of the game can be changed without physically changing the gaming device. Variance isn't a one-dimensional occurrence, it moulds itself around what you are doing, thus, when considering past spins, there is no way to avoid it, nor can you use it to your advantage. I could explain why, but I really don't think you'd understand.

[Number Six]

-