Math proof that roulette cannot be beaten

[TurboGenius]

Theoretically........each spin is independent.

Practically........each spin is not independent due to mechanical imperfections of the device itself.

This isn't really true. Each spin is independent.
"Practically" - a defective wheel won't even be known to be defective (No, it's not THAT obvious) that a player sitting and playing for a few hundred spins would be able to use that to their advantage.
I would argue that roulette is NOT random - therefore some advantages could be found there, but it IS random enough (even with a device that isn't 100% perfect) that we can't throw out common sense and "fact" in order to let in opinions and nonsense which wastes everyone's time.

[thelaw]

This isn't really true. Each spin is independent.
"Practically" - a defective wheel won't even be known to be defective (No, it's not THAT obvious) that a player sitting and playing for a few hundred spins would be able to use that to their advantage.
I would argue that roulette is NOT random - therefore some advantages could be found there, but it IS random enough (even with a device that isn't 100% perfect) that we can't throw out common sense and "fact" in order to let in opinions and nonsense which wastes everyone's time.

If the mechanical device is changed with each spin.....then no.....each spin is not independent........unless you want this to be "theoretical".

Now......to what degree it is changed......is another debate entirely. But you guys want to have a theoretical debate here.......which would be purely based on the math of the game..........removing the wheel entirely.

Someone has already included advantage play in this discussion.........which is practical.....not theoretical.

First rule of a debate...........Agree on Terms!

Whether it's practical or theoretical..........you must agree...........to have a proper debate.

[TurboGenius]

The main intention of this thread is to prove with a mathematic equation that roulette cannot be beaten.
...
All we are trying to do is establish a mathematic proof. 

Seems this job is done already then lol.
Next ?

(I forgot to read the small print - isn't not about proving anything because proof is based on facts and now facts aren't allowed.)

See it with an open mind without banking on what has been pushed into our minds as fact. 

[Priyanka]

I'm glad he answered your question better then me lol.

And indeed am glad as well as expressed already. After a long time I have enjoyed reading what he has posted for a change.

Seems this job is done already then lol.
Next ?

Turbo - the proof provided in itself doesn't accept the two hypothesis as fact. It merely states them as hypothesis.  Remember the hypothesis can always be proven to be wrong. I am merely asking what are your thoughts on those two hypothesis. General says (not thinks not an opinion, but states) they are facts.  I believe you are also stating  that those are facts. Heard you!!  I am just waiting for others to voice their thoughts as not everyone seem to be posting 24x7. But at this point in time, considering your statement on those two are facts, the rest of the proof is valid and we have a math proof that roulette cannot be beaten. you can move on to NEXT, if you wish so, but am keen on hearing other thoughts as well on those two hypothesis for the proof

[The General]

"You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts."

[Priyanka]

"You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts."

General - again. I heard you loud and clear!!  As I said let's hear others as well. As you rightly said they are entitled to their opinion. 

[winkel]

Seems this job is done already then lol.
Next ?

(I forgot to read the small print - isn't not about proving anything because proof is based on facts and now facts aren't allowed.)

Your answers as well as the answers of caleb show one thing: Either you are not willing nor able to discuss this issue.

Only denying that there might be a solution is your argument and proof.

Iron cannot swim! That was a fact for a very long time. But then someone thought about it again.
Man cannot fly!
and so on ...
1 and 1 is 2. that is a fact. what do we need to think any further.

[TurboGenius]

Iron still cannot swim (?)
Man still cannot fly.

[maestro]

  this one is wellllllllllllllllll   BIA|sed.....sorry my math is bad

[atlantis]

I don't know if it is a FACT that roulette can't be beaten.

Maybe this needs to be qualified.

When I play  - I play to WIN of course... but does that mean the same as playing to beat roulette??

People play roulette; some are winners and some are losers. Can the winners then be rightly said to have beaten roulette? Or do we say, Yes they beat roulette this time somehow but they will of course not beat it every time? Or, Yes they won in the short term but they cannot do so in the long term?

What about the person who plays roulette for the first time and wins £10,000. And then never ever plays the game of roulette again in this lifetime... Has he/she beaten the game of roulette? FACT is - they won £10,000 and that cannot be denied.

If people could not or never ever beat roulette then it would not even exist as a viable game; hence it must be beatable *sometimes* by some people and in some ways ex. by luck or design (or both)

Or again, what about those lucky fortunates who win the jackpot lottery? Have they beaten the lottery? Depends how you look at it - but FACT is they won the top prize.

Winning at roulette... Beating roulette ; are these different things, then?

A.

[Nickmsi]

Hi all . . .

I do not have a mathematical equation to show why random roulette cannot be beaten.

I have a statistical/logical explanation.

I have tested over 1,000 random systems and my empirical data showed they all lost because:

Random ALWAYS found a set of numbers to make each one lose.

Just my 2 cents.

Nick

[Tomla021]

1. All the outcomes are equally likely in every roulette spin.
2. All the spins are independent.
I think the point is are these facts or not? all of the math after is based on the idea that these are facts

[Bayes]

What do you think bayes? I extremely value your thoughts too.

Priyanka,

Your question poses a bit of a dilemma for me, because on the one hand, I'm a "math guy". That means I respect the maths and "believe" it. On the other hand, I'm also a system junkie, and without boasting I claim to have done rather well out of roulette playing my systems.

I absolute get what the General is saying. The random game of roulette cannot be beaten because IF spins are equally likely and independent, no winning system is possible - that's one definition of what random MEANS - equally likely and independent. Simple logic.

However, how do I explain the fact that the house edge hasn't caught up with me? The general will say it's because I've essentially been lucky (riding a temporary positive variance), but I know enough about probability and statistics to know that it can't be so, because "luck" runs out eventually. I also know a few others who have been similarly "lucky".

So I propose the following hypothesis which may account for my success. The random game of roulette really only exists in some Platonic realm where mathematical equations are real (not just models of the world) and *dictate* outcomes, which is absurd. There is the random game of roulette and there's the real game which the general exploits because real wheels are not Platonic wheels.

So in the real world we can strike out one of the twin pillars of randomness - that outcomes are equally likely - at least sometimes and for some wheels it is not the case. Is it so absurd, then, to suggest that the remaining pillar of randomness - independence - also exists only in a Platonic realm?

After all, you can't *prove* independence. You can test for it, and of course outcomes really are independent in the sense that each pocket remains on the wheel between spins, but independence can be violated in other ways, and the tests for independence such as Chi-Square etc are just that - tests. And there are any number of ways of testing. Do you know how many statistical tests are out there? literally hundreds, and more being invented all the time.

Testing a simple scenario like "after 10 reds in a row black is more likely" will always return the apparently obvious and common sense result that these events are independent when using the simple tests which everyone knows about (well, all statisticians anyway). No argument from me there, but is that sufficient to put an end to the matter? I don't believe so.

You may argue that non-bias and independence are fundamentally different beasts and that no-one has ever found a wheel which generates dependent outcomes, but plenty of wheels have been found to be biased. But that just begs the question - it *assumes* the very thing to be proved.

Also, without wishing to deflect from the topic, there's a massive inconsistency going on here between Turbo and the general. I have great respect for both you guys but Turbo ain't no AP. If "math beats a math game" (and I agree, taking a broad view of "math"), how come the general always backs up Turbo when he obviously believes no such thing? The general believes that "Physics beats a physics game", and that *anything* else is fallacious. Yet he apparently indulges *Turbo's* fallacy while trashing everyone else's.

[Turner]

Also, without wishing to deflect from the topic, there's a massive inconsistency going on here between Turbo and the general. I have great respect for both you guys but Turbo ain't no AP. If "math beats a math game" (and I agree, taking a broad view of "math"), how come the general always backs up Turbo when he obviously believes no such thing? The general believes that "Physics beats a physics game", and that *anything* else is fallacious. Yet he apparently indulges *Turbo's* fallacy while trashing everyone else's.

Because he has respect for him, and doesnt for others and his heart is ruling his head on this one. Call it a soft spot, kinda like a murderer helping a cat out of a tree just after he wasted his family in the house...but less serious lol

[INTERCEPTOR]

Hi All,

I welcome anyone to post in this thread. The main intention of this thread is to prove with a mathematic equation that roulette cannot be beaten.

Yes indeed roulette cannot be beaten with mathematic equation, so dear Priyanka you need to find another path.  or you will fail.