This entire system assumes that the wheel has an exploitable amount of non-randomness (bias) in it's operation. A good wheel won't have, so you could observe it forever and learn nothing.

No, what i'm talking about requires no bias.

If you can accurately track the ball and have a reasonable feel for when the ball will hit the wheel (i.e. the section the ball will bounce around in), then you can eliminate a enough of the wheel to where you'd be +EV.

You could do this with software and sensors. So basically, what i'm talking about is getting enough "practice" to where you can do this without the software or sensors. but again, this would take an ENORMOUS amount of practice and ability. I want to be clear on that. I'm not talking about Joe Schmoo watching a wheel for a few hundred spins and then crushing the game. I'm talking about a huge amount of work and practice, 10,000 hrs worth.

Now, this would be impossible if the wheel was truly random. But that is not the case. The wheel merely appears random to us because the variables (i.e. tracking the ball, spin of the ball, counter spin of the wheel) are beyond our ability to follow.

Or let me put this another way. If the wheel were 100% truly random, then we could set the ball spinning at a certain rate at a certain position 100% the same and we'd get different results everytime and I am saying that is not the case. If we could set this up via machines/robots so that we have the exact same initial starting conditions, and if we mapped the results, I guarantee you that we'd be able to eliminate huge swaths of the wheel, and hence we'd move into +EV territory.

But again, obtainning this skill would not be easy by any stretch. It would not only require a boatload of work, but you'd have to have some innate talents that you can't teach.

It requires bias to work unless you are past-posting, which isn't allowed.

You are explicitly describing bias and trying to say it isn't. The wheel is either random, or it is biased. This is a binary choice and mutually exclusive.

The opposite of biased is unbiased, not random. Something can be both random and biased, for instance, a biased coin.

You put money on a roulette table your losing money in the long run. No loop holes

You could use a computer to measure the velocity / angle / spin of the ball, predict where it will land and bet accordingly.

you should try this in Nevada.

You also have to be able to duplicate the motions of the dealer.

no one can control how many spins come out each time, not even the best dealer. and even if they could theres no control over how long the ball spins right before the dropping, and no controlling how many bounces the ball takes. And no way a human can exactly also quantify how much the wheel is slowing down, as it is slowing down ever so slowly every second as the wheel will stop if it is not manually spun every 10-15 minutes. grow up people

Well, if you look well enough in internet you can find out about spanish family that beats roullete. Most of roulletes are exploitable after long enough observation and data mining. They are currently banned from most casinos, own their own poker skin, stakes poker players, and stakes roullete players all around the globe (Spanish mostly, that travels around the globe exploiting roulletes). They was banned from Madrid's casino after short time they started to implement the strategy (with almost 100K in profits).
The system can be used on older roulette wheels, and it works becouse spots where numbers land changes size over time. After collecting enough data (Thousands of numbers) you can identify them, and it gives you close to 6% edge, usually it's 4-9 numbers per roullete. So, yes roullete is beatable.

Some info from " Roulette - Wikipedia"

Biased wheels
Whereas betting systems are essentially an attempt to beat the fact that a geometric series with initial value of 0.95 (American roulette) or 0.97 (European roulette) will inevitably over time tend to zero, engineers instead attempt to overcome the house edge through predicting the mechanical performance of the wheel, most notably by Joseph Jagger at Monte Carlo in 1873. These schemes work by determining that the ball is more likely to fall at certain numbers, and if sufficiently good will raise the return of the game above 100%, defeating the betting system problem.
In the early 1990s, Gonzalo Garcia-Pelayo believed that casino roulette wheels were not perfectly random, and that by recording the results and analysing them with a computer, he could gain an edge on the house by predicting that certain numbers were more likely to occur next than the 1-in-36 odds offered by the house suggested. This he did at the Casino de Madrid in Madrid, Spain, winning 600,000 euros in a single day, and one million euros in total. Legal action against him by the casino was unsuccessful, it being ruled that the casino should fix its wheel.[13][14]
To prevent exploits like these, the casinos monitor the performance of their wheels, and rebalance and realign them regularly to try to keep the result of the spins as uniform as possible.
In 1982, several casinos in Britain began to lose large sums of money at their roulette tables to teams of gamblers from the USA. Upon investigation by the police, it was discovered they were using a legal system of biased wheel-section betting. As a result of this, the British roulette wheel manufacturer John Huxley manufactured a roulette wheel to counteract the problem.
The new wheel, designed by George Melas, was called "low profile" because the pockets had been drastically reduced in depth, and various other design modifications caused the ball to descend in a gradual approach to the pocket area. In 1986, when a professional gambling team headed by Billy Walters won $3.8 million using the system on an old wheel at the Golden Nugget in Atlantic City, every casino in the world took notice, and within one year had switched to the new low-profile wheel.
Edward O. Thorp (the developer of card counting and an early hedge-fund pioneer) and Claude Shannon (a mathematician and electronic engineer best known for his contributions to information theory) built arguably the first wearable computer to predict the landing of the ball in 1961. This system worked by timing the ball and wheel, and using the information obtained to calculate the most likely octant where the ball would fall. Ironically, this technique works best with an unbiased wheel though it could still be countered quite easily by simply closing the table for betting before beginning the spin.
Thomas Bass, in his book The Eudaemonic Pie 1991 (published as The Newtonian Casino in Britain), has claimed to be able to predict wheel performance in real time. The book describes the exploits of a group of University of California Santa Cruz students, who called themselves the Eudaemons, who in the late 1970s used computers in their shoes to win at roulette. This is an updated and improved version of Edward O Thorp's approach where Newtonian Laws of Motion are applied to track the roulette ball's deceleration, hence the title.
In 2004 it was reported that a group of two Serbs and one Hungarian in London had used a laser scanner hidden inside a mobile phone linked to a computer to predict the sector of the wheel where the ball was most likely to drop.[15] They were arrested, but released without charge as there was no proof they had technically interfered with casino equipment.[16]

If you look around the Internet enough you can find anything, true or false.

But note that some of what you mention is cheating, legally.

Right next to pictures of Planet X on youtube.

OP and Jeremy,
The consensus on Roulette is that the game is not beatable.
Anyone who consistently plays roulette will lose money over the long term.
Only way to beat the game is keep on playing until you are on an upswing and then quit for good. But remember the longer you play the greater edge the casino has and the greater chance you will lose money.

I am quoting someone but I don't remember who:
"gambling is a tax on people who are bad at math"
This is really true.
If you dont want to do the math of roulette to come to this conclusion, just take other people's word for it - the game is not beatable.

EDIT: dighariss' idea is awesome (but maybe not possible)

I have a winning roulette system. I have doubled my money and never lost a bet, NEVER. Wesley Snipes said to always bet on black. So, I tossed $5 on black, it hit, and I took my $10 and left. I have NEVER lost at roulette, though I played only a single spin. Tell me that's not a winning system worth millions of dollars!

That's not a winning system worth millions of dollars.

If you were to bet 2 million on black, that would be with millions (2).

Man I really wanna hit and run roulette for 5K on a color.
but If I lose I am just another roulette loser.....
I heard huck seed did that.... unconfirmed....

I think I saw a show about these guys a few years ago on Discovery channel. If I remember correctly they used their toes to tap the computer in their shoes at certain times, and by measuring the change in speed they could determine what part of the wheel (they divided it into eight octants) the ball was more likely to fall on. They did not get caught, but did not get rich either.

The closest you'll come to beating roulette long term is to never play. If your going to play anyway you can at least play one with only one green zero(unless the minumum bet at these wheels isn't higher than the two green zero wheels).

It's a winning system, and value is in the eyes of the market. So far, I have your bid of "not worth millions of dollars". Who wants to bump up the bid?

Not worth billions of dollars.

Is this thread title listed as an example when you look up oxymoron in the dictionary?

A strategy is merely a plan for a sequence of game decisions.

Roulette strategies exist. They just generally don't influence the house edge.

You mean all these e-books I just bought about how to totally crush roulette by simply doubling my wager each time are worthless? Good thing they have a "guarantee"!

The wheel does too know when I left. I get a card every month from the Cal Neva wheel saying it hasn't seen me in a while. Funny thing tho, I don't remember the skank hoes. Well, a lot of skank and a couple hoes, but no one looked like them.