Math proof that roulette cannot be beaten

[MoneyT101]

In roulette there is no parrondos paradox because everything about the game is negative.

[praline]

Priyanka wrote about this...
Basicly you search a dependency between bankroll and the game of roulette. If you are playing according to the "rules", you must loose to the house edge whenever your entry point is  based on your bankroll or stars position. Becouse what you have is just a random selection.
Something like this, but im a bit lasy to search the exact post were she is explaining this in random thoughts...

[Scarface]

In roulette there is no parrondos paradox because everything about the game is negative.

Negative expectation doesn't mean it can't be beaten, in my opinion.  Let's say red only appears once in every 3 spins.  This would be a negative expectation game.  However, knowing it will appear once in a 3 spin cycle will allow for an easy progression to overcome this.

If the worse case scenerio (in 10 million spins) in 200 spins is 65 reds, I'm convinced there is some solution to this.  I don't know what it is.

[praline]

Negative expectation doesn't mean it can't be beaten, in my opinion.  Let's say red only appears once in every 3 spins. 

For me negative expactaiton is the fact that
In the long run we will have exactly:
(100-2.7)/2  %
Of red or black

[praline]

I will open a topik with "what is my personal view on this game".
Im really sure that it will move forward, all those "addicted" people to something more evolved.

[falkor2k15]

If i remember, the Parondos paradox is about a dependency beetwen games that can potentialy lead to a positive edge for a player.

They said PP doesn't work in Roulette, but that there is a "Parrondo-like" method that involves 2-spin pigeons and maybe a 1-shift parallel stream that follows the last or some such.

[falkor2k15]

I read this somewhere and found it interesting.  Suppose you are playing a single number for 36 spins.  A stranger walks up and bets you $20 that you will not be in the profit after 36 spins.  The stranger is confident because he knows that roulette is a negative expectation game.  So, you take his wager for 36 spins.  In fact, you play many sessions of 36 spins.  Guess what?  You are mathematically guaranteed to win money in the long run.  Seems like a paradox, BUT this has been proven by mathematicians.

$20 is a great return for flat-betting 36 red/blacks!

[falkor2k15]

What is the hidden assumption?

Remember: Non-Random/cycles aren't related to random numbers and have nothing to say about random numbers specifically. What they do describe are rules relating to any number arrangements.

[Steve]

imagine betting on a coin flip.  There's a 50/50 chance to win. But every 5th win you have must be paid to the dealer.

So how are you going to profit?

Figure that out then you'll better understand how to beat any casino game.

[cht]

Increase the win rate or reduce the loss rate or both.

[RouletteGhost]

Roulette cannot be "beaten" with any mechanical system

The math is the math

However, some "systems" may be better than others

I enjoy systems that play against "rare" occurrences. Those perform best.

[bigmoney]

RUBBISH

[Scarface]

Math proof only shows that the negative edge will cause you to lose if you FLATBET.  There is no proof to show you will lose if your bet size varies. 

[Drazen]

Hi Pri

Its been a while since we had a chat. Hope everything is well with you.

As I am still looking  for a possible way to disprove the proof on impossibility of beating the game (I simply cant find a way how to accept it) I stumbled onto something which seemed quite contrary to me. I was hoping maybe you can help me.

Topic of Vaddis grail seems to become hot again and it was a good reminder to take a look at some of his hints.

But as unfortunately he is not around (at least not that I know) I cant address this question to him.

Among his posts I found this:

Did I ever say the "event" is a number repeating ? NO,(so number repeating is NOT an event) I said the system is based on a PRINCIPLE. Not an EVENT

And your definition of a repeat would be that is an event, so where such difference is coming from?

Who is right, and who is wrong? Or is it possible that both of you are right?

Thanks

[nottophammer]

Did I ever say the "event" is a number repeating ? NO,

Drazen i know this is not your words, but if its not going for a repeat, why are you betting the last hit upto the magic number of 8, that only breaks even, if you get that far.
We should all know 7 unique  can come and repeat is a possibilty.
Just now on Multi player 33,31,17,12,25,19,15,15 so good repeat, but what now, this is what came
16,23,10,8,26,36,14,13,34,11,5,18,22 and at last repeat 23.