Math proof that roulette cannot be beaten

[Priyanka]

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. It could contain assumptions, it could contain anecdotes, it can be copied from somewhere, it could be something that someone posted somewhere.  Can we work towards creating a proof that it cannot be beaten.  I welcome the likes of many people who have expressed their mathematic interest earlier to post here. Let's have a healthy discussion. If we can be civilised and keep away thoughts of plain statements "it's a fact, why do we need proof", "it's a futile exercise" etc etc. All we are trying to do is establish a mathematic proof. 

[TurboGenius]

You should probably be more specific.

Of course roulette can be beaten - by a few means that advantage players use, and also by cheating.

As far as mechanical systems or methods go - there is only one way to win.

[Priyanka]

You should probably be more specific

Turbo - I have specifically for a math equation to prove roulette cannot be beaten.  What other specific are you looking for.

[The General]

Here ya go.

link:s://math.dartmouth.edu/archive/m5w04/public_html/files/Pros/Roul.pdf

[TurboGenius]

The payout is less than the odds of any event happening in a game with each spin being independent from the last.
I'm not sure what kind of equation you want ?

35 (payout) < 37 (or 38) Number of possible outcomes ?
lol

It's basic math, there's no complex formula to show that 35 is less than 37 or 38

((18/37)*1)+((19/37)*-1)=-.02702703 (for even money bet on euro single zero)

Do you want something like this ? It says the same thing.
More complex ?


In any event - the payout is less than the odds of anything on the table showing up and each spin is independent from the last spin. That's just the simple way to explain it.

[Priyanka]

Here ya go.

link:s://math.dartmouth.edu/archive/m5w04/public_html/files/Pros/Roul.pdf

I am very glad that you should post this.


I am very much in alignment the work that has been done. This is one way of proving this. However when I first looked at it, I had two questions. Both questions are on the basic hypothesis that has been used.  See it with an open mind without banking on what has been pushed into our minds as fact. 

1. All the outcomes are equally likely in every roulette spin. 
2. All the spins are independent. 

These are what rrbb was describing as assumptions in the proof.  What do you think of these two assumptions?

[Bayes]

These are what rrbb was describing as assumptions in the proof.  What do you think of these two assumptions?

I think the General would disagree with assumption 1, but not assumption 2.

[Priyanka]

the payout is less than the odds of anything on the table showing up

Turbo - all you are trying to show us that the payout is less than the odds.  General has posted something more like what I was looking for here. 

Let's come to what you have written. If the payout is less than odds, how do AP players or ones who is using computers win. By increasing the accuracy of predictions.  So technically by increasing the accuracy of predictions you can win the game (beat the game = beat the house edge). One way we know is AP. One other way we know is computers.  One way you seem to know is the math beat math game you claim.  One way I seem to know is something based on certain events which breaks the basic philosophy of equally likely outcomes as spins are equally likely but certain events are not.  This can be proven that all events are not equally likely. . So in summary what you have written is not what I was looking for as it just proves that odds are greater than the payouts. It doesn't prove that roulette cannot be beaten as one can increase the accuracy of prediction by any means that works and still come ahead of your house edge equation.

[Priyanka]

I think the General would disagree with assumption 1, but not assumption 2.

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

[The General]

In the random game of roulette, what is written below is FACT.

1. All the outcomes are equally likely in every roulette spin. 
2. All the spins are independent. 

One way we know is AP. One other way we know is computers-Pri

AP stands for Advantage Play.  Above, playing with a computer to predict where the ball will land is a type of advantage play.  Exploiting a defective wheel that tends to favor some numbers over others due to wear or poor assembly is also a type of advantage play. 

An advantage is something that everyone should be trying to achieve, because without it, you simply can't remain a winner overtime.

[Priyanka]

In the random game of roulette, what is written below is FACT.

1. All the outcomes are equally likely in every roulette spin. 
2. All the spins are independent.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.  But I would like to remind you that the proof that you have published doesn't state it as a FACT. it merely states these as HYPOTHESIS or an ANTECEDENT to establish what is further explained. Nevertheless, I hear your input that these two are FACTS. 

I welcome a few others thoughts as well on these two assumptions before I express mine as well.

[TurboGenius]

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

Wow - ignore facts and imagine that anything is possible. Nice.
(I am a realist so this isn't possible for me - good luck. I use facts)

Turbo - all you are trying to show us that the payout is less than the odds.  General has posted something more like what I was looking for here.

I'm glad he answered your question better then me lol.
It's basic math why typical mechanical systems can't work - and until proven otherwise - none of them can "beat roulette" regardless of how many pages a topic gets on a forum or however the math is twisted into pretzel shapes to try to make the non-factual into fact or a lie into the truth.
Can I win using a method/system ? Yes. Will I prove it to anyone ? No... That's not my job.
But I have no problem pointing out why things that don't work - don't work. Ignoring facts and proof never advances anyone into the right direction.

[The General]

Wow - ignore facts and imagine that anything is possible. Nice.
(I am a realist so this isn't possible for me - good luck. I use facts)

I agree with you Turbo.

[thelaw]

You should also distinguish between theoretical and practical execution of the game.

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

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

Since we live in the real world........we will only be interacting with practical Roulette.

[The General]

You should also distinguish between theoretical and practical execution of the game.

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

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

@The Law,

Note the bold text referring to the random game.

In the random game of roulette, what is written below is FACT.

1. All the outcomes are equally likely in every roulette spin. 
2. All the spins are independent.