Can Roulette be reverse-engineered?

[falkor2k15]

If a winning roulette strategy exists using Random, Non-Random, Parrondo's Paradox (or a combination of those) to predict when something is more likely to win then could this perhaps be reverse-engineered based on past spins?

If we know that we are guaranteed more chance of profit on a particular spin then we could gather stats for, say, 10 numbers and all their different combinations over millions of spins; we could then analyse spin 11 to see which section of the board was most likely to hit: Line 3 or Even or Split 33-34, etc.

The problem comes with systems like GUT that claim you can only win by playing multiple crossings and not waiting for your favourite crossing. Something like that, played over many different spins and bet selections, may be impossible to reverse-engineer?

[Azim]

If you are a good system analyst and with a help of a good programmer, YES it can be done.

[Steve]

Yes it can be reverse engineered.  I have the software to do it.  I released a very simplistic pattern finder for free already. It should be a major tool but is just overlooked.

[Rolletti]

The problem comes with systems like GUT that claim you can only win by playing multiple crossings and not waiting for your favourite crossing. Something like that, played over many different spins and bet selections, may be impossible to reverse-engineer?

I can not proof it so it is just my opinion.
Kon-Fu-Sed proofed that if you just play one specific crossing ALWAYS and EVERYTIME when it comes up, then you lose -2,7% of wager amount.

I think it is possible to bet only your favourite crossing, if you include other considerations into the decision making process weather to bet it in a specific trot and spot or you don't bet it. I talk of checkpoint requirements according to Winkel, but also where does it come up, how did the category hit so far and specially the last few spins? I include the current trend as important component into my assessment.

[falkor2k15]

I can not proof it so it is just my opinion.
Kon-Fu-Sed proofed that if you just play one specific crossing ALWAYS and EVERYTIME when it comes up, then you lose -2,7% of wager amount.

I think it is possible to bet only your favourite crossing, if you include other considerations into the decision making process weather to bet it in a specific trot and spot or you don't bet it. I talk of checkpoint requirements according to Winkel, but also where does it come up, how did the category hit so far and specially the last few spins? I include the current trend as important component into my assessment.

Well said!  That makes sense...

[iterativ]

If you can't prove that a system works with RNG then it's not effective. It's not that complex, each spins is isolated doesn't care about previous results, if it was R before or odd or zero or whatever. The so called triggers and such calculations fall to gambler's fallacy.

The only system that in theory can work is martingale or similar with infinite funds and no limits.

A physical roulette likely is not 100% perfect, but the imperfections are less than 0.0001% in favour of a number or array of numbers, it's not enough to affect the HE, even if you are able to detect these imperfections.

[nottophammer]

Kon-Fu-Sed proofed that if you just play one specific crossing ALWAYS and EVERYTIME when it comes up, then you lose -2,7% of wager amount.

Aren't you to note the loing crossing. Now was the crossing flat bet every time, like you say if you kept info on the crossing, does it lose for 3 attempts, whats its max to finally come in.
Now the max 17 non-hit using Jackpot247 airball spins is 12 spins, once in 277 individual games, but its hit first spin 176 times and a second spin 70 times.
21
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
2



5
1
3
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
3
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
6
7
2
4
1
5
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
2
1
5
1
2
3
2
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
3
2
1
2
1
3
5
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2



4
1
1
1
3
4
5
2
4
1
2
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
4
1
4
2
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
5
3
2
1
6
1
2
2
1
2
3
2
3
12
1
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
1
1
6
4
1
1
1
2
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
6
11
3
3
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
5
1
1
1
3
1
2
3
1
3
1
2
4
1
2
6
3
1
3
1
2
1
3
1
1
4
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
5
4
4
1
9



4
2
3
2
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
3
3
1
3
2
7
2
2
2
3
1
3
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
6
2
2
1
1
1
5
1
2
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
3
1
1
3
1







277
21
12

2.144404332

594




126
70
45
14
11
6
2
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
you can check to see the max of losing games if you like

[stringbeanpc]

Yes it can be reverse engineered.  I have the software to do it.  I released a very simplistic pattern finder for free already. It should be a major tool but is just overlooked.

Steve, please provide a link to your free simplistic pattern finder

thanks

[Steve]

link:://:.roulettephysics.com/roulette-pattern-detector/

[nottophammer]

If a winning roulette strategy exists using Random, Non-Random, Parrondo's Paradox (or a combination of those) to predict when something is more likely to win then could this perhaps be reverse-engineered based on past spins?

If we know that we are guaranteed more chance of profit on a particular spin then we could gather stats for, say, 10 numbers and all their different combinations over millions of spins; we could then analyse spin 11 to see which section of the board was most likely to hit: Line 3 or Even or Split 33-34, etc.

The problem comes with systems like GUT that claim you can only win by playing multiple crossings and not waiting for your favourite crossing. Something like that, played over many different spins and bet selections, may be impossible to reverse-engineer?

will spin11 lose  if spins 1-10, have no repeat.
would spin 11 win if spins 1-10 have had 2 repeats