Why roulette might be beatable and what the method should look like

[ScoobyDoo]

Over the years of being on roulette forums, it puzzles me WHY there always has to be someone that has to jump into the thread and start nay-saying whatever method is being discussed and roulette in general.

One thing I'm 100% sure about is that they have never put in the hours of testing to even try to locate a working model of a roulette method that has a chance of winning consistantly.

I read a story about a man in California. He had a claim on a piece of property to mine for gold. After a few years and no big strike, he sold the property to a mining company and moved back East.

The mining company dug the shaft 23 more feet and hit one of the largest gold strikes in California.

My point is that if you just say that it's not possible, your giving up just like the guy that first owned the mine. Many things were not possible before they became possible...horseless carriages...airplanes...transplants...rocketships...and many, many other things.

So instead of saying something is not possible, work toward making it possible.

Scooby Doo

[MauiSunset]

The problem most have with your challenge is why do it live for just 100 spins?

Theres already a method on the forum I absolutely know will make at least 15 points in 100 spins. Why Mauisunset can you not run it yourself?

I will give you the rules and in less than a week you will have a different attitude about roulette. I am no techno whizz on computers either you or someone else on here can play it live or for fun money online or just on paper against real live spins. I assure you. you will never think roulette unbeatable EVER AGAIN, ARE YOU UP FOR THAT?

Great I accept.

I'm in the Maui airport right now headed back to St. Louis - I will be back at Roulette on Monday March 14 and will contact you then via PM.

Thank you.

[esoito]

And PLEASE be sure to post how you go!

You have many interested members...

[marivo]

And PLEASE be sure to post how you go!

You have many interested members...

Sure you do!

[Johnlegend]

Over the years of being on roulette forums, it puzzles me WHY there always has to be someone that has to jump into the thread and start nay-saying whatever method is being discussed and roulette in general.

One thing I'm 100% sure about is that they have never put in the hours of testing to even try to locate a working model of a roulette method that has a chance of winning consistantly.

I read a story about a man in California. He had a claim on a piece of property to mine for gold. After a few years and no big strike, he sold the property to a mining company and moved back East.

The mining company dug the shaft 23 more feet and hit one of the largest gold strikes in California.

My point is that if you just say that it's not possible, your giving up just like the guy that first owned the mine. Many things were not possible before they became possible...horseless carriages...airplanes...transplants...rocketships...and many, many other things.

So instead of saying something is not possible, work toward making it possible.

Scooby Doo

ABSOLUTELY!!! And scooby an I have done just that HINT HINT, YOU COULD SAY WE ARE TWO OF A KIND LOL

Sorry Scooby I couldnt help that one. But in a matter of days TWO OF A KIND Will on anyone who knows winning tongue and in their minds.

[reddwarf]

Hi all,

I was,and still am kind of busy, so it took a while before I could post again:

Summary: if we are able to avoid random play (=waiting for a winning event to happen), we just might beat roulette. JohnyLegend says he can, I hope that Mauisunset will be able to confirm this.

I will continue to ramble on in the meantime. How can we avoid random play? In my opinion, the only way we can do this is by using FACTS. So what are the facts?  that have nothing to do with statistics/probability? Please feel free to contribute

1. Pigeonhole principle (as advocated by Dyksexlic): repeats happen on all numbersets.The pigeonhole principle can be used to proof or disproof some very nice properties, like the next two:

2. related to this: link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waerden%27s_theorem: when we have two colors, there will be a pattern in maximum 9 spins, involving 3 spins. The distance between these 3 spins of the same color is identical

3. Theorem of friends and strangers: after 6 spins, I must have at least 3 similar colors, parities, halves

4. ...?

Strangly enough, after 1 year of study, these are the only, non-probabilistic facts that I could find!

There are a few probabilistic facts also (that might be employed to defeat the house edge, which I personally do not believe is possible):
1. RTM: regression to the mean (the a sampe average/stdev of the second sample will most probably be closer to the mean than the sample average/stdev of the previous sample)
2. birthday paradox (leading to the so called law of the third, which of course is not a law at all,but a rule-of-thumb)
3. ...?

Please note: it is easy to proof that using RTM we can predict with very high accuracy if the next sample mean/stdev will be larger or smaller than the previous one, but onfortunatly we can not bet in this!

Do you know of more non-probabilistic/probabilistic facts?