Casino games are vetted by professional game theorists. Still, sometimes a leaky game gets through.

However, Occam’s razor says roulette is likely solid, and your system is fanciful malarky.

Also, a computer sim will only lead you down a rabbit hole.

Pen and paper is king, wrt casino games.

There is no amount of calculation that can turn a series of -EV bets into a +EV system, as this is mathematically impossible. And since every possible bet offered on casino roulette is -EV by itself, every possible betting system is also -EV. Many people have fooled themselves into thinking this is possible and spent many hours with "complex calculations" until they convince themselves it can work. But the proof that it isn't possible is really trivial.

What is possible is devising a systems that has a very high probability to have a series of small wins, and a relatively small possibility (but a sure thing in the long run) that you will have a large loss that wipes out the bankroll. This is the basic principle of Martingale and other progressive betting systems. They all result is a total loss in the long run.

See post #24 for an example of such a system. About 99 times out of 100 you will have a small win. The other 1 in 100 times you will go broke. And if you play long enough this will happen with 100% certainty.

TNX for reply.

It is not like I play roulette or something like this. I am not "crazy". I do not try to solve roulette in my free time (I do not have time for that). But I was a bit bored some other day and I was thinking about something and I come up with something that can maybe be used in roulette(and as I mentioned previously: probably is not EV+ bet, but what if it is). Than, I basically skimmed quickly some of the strategies online(basically there are many different variations of martingale): not even close to what I am thinking. But than again I do not know how to calculate (and I do not know how to programm:simulation) what I am trying to do. Here I am now.

TNX for reply.

But I still want that somebody will check system I am thinking about...Even if it can not be usable at roulette, maybe I can use it somewhere else. Even if this is not the case, would like to understand how the thing is calculated... If somebody is willing to do that... PM me or write here.

You write it here, then someone will post the calculations. That is how the forum works.

If you do not know even what it is you are trying to calculate, then study until you can at least post that much.

If you are otherwise unwilling to post your super secret winning strategy for casino games, then figure it out on your own and go to the casino.

GL

I am 0,1 % sure it is winning roulette strategy. But still would be very stupid of me to post it here.This is why I wrote in the way I did. Maybe somebody will want to risk some of his/her free time.

I am already risking my time to help you, in a way that you can not appreciate now. It is +EV for you to learn something important here vs have me spend the 60 seconds required to send you to the correct wikipedia page that debunks your system.

I am actually very happy for all the help I got in this forum (you included). I appreciate all the help I got in 2p2 forums. Would be great if you send a link.

I once tutored a rich kid in computer sciences who thought he got a system for roulette (and he was gonna grab his graduation money and strike it rich)

Naturally the first thing we did is write a simulator to show him that it won't work (what everyone forgets in these "brilliant schemes" is that there is a house limit and that you don't have infinitely many rebuys. Once you run out of money it's "game over" for you).

Frustratingly even with the simulator showing him that he would go broke every single time - no matter how he twisted his idea - it didn't deter him...so he went out and lost his money (natch)

To put it kindly: Unless you hold a PhD in math you are just fooling yourself. Hard. (I mean Dunning Kruger hard )
Because the kind of people who design these games hold PhDs in math. Think you can outsmart them? Really?

TNX for this. Said story.

I have considered "house limits".

I am not going and blowing my money away, if it is not winning roulette strategy. That is why I want to do the things I said.

If it will turn to be not a winning roulette strategy(like I mentioned previously:it probably is not winning strategy): I basically do not care if it is not winning roulette strategy. I mean if it is not winning strategy, it is not winning strategy.

I do not think I can outsmart people that holds PHDs in math in 99,9% cases. I also do not think I can outsmart most of the people that post in Probabily forum in 99,9% cases.

I do have some questions.
How hard is it to make simulation for somebody that knows how to do it? How hard is it to give results of "some system" out of this simulation? How much time does this take?

Thanks for answers...

A roulette script could be done in something like Perl in an hour or two, maybe more if the bets are not all outside bets. But you need a good reason, and this ain't one.

TNX for the info.

If the strat is on the order of
- bet 1$ red and if I lose double the bet the next round (or alternatively bet 1$ more next round)
or
- bet a number that just now didn't come up (because some people seem to think that numbers coming up two times in a row is less likely)

then don't bother. Those are the typical, naive 'ideas' some people have and they are based on wholly wrong assumptions about how the probabilities in the game work.

Actually the mathematically proven "best" strategy at roulette is: Take all your money and put it on red (or any of the other near-half chance fields: black, manque, passee, pair, impair) and just play once. That'll get you a 47.4% chance of walking away with a win.

Any other strategy is (proven) mathematically worse. Particularly as soon as you play more than one throw of the ball the chances of booking a win dip down in the toilet pretty quickly.

TNX for taking your time and TNX for reply.

The system I have in mind is not any kind of those 2 you mentioned. I understand why those 2 do not work.

I re-read all the text that all of you amazing people wrote here(many other posters wrote same as you did(with other words)). I do have a question for all. I am not the person that make conclusions too fast, I rather ask before, so: Can we also say 100 percent certainly that if we have roulette without 0.. We have series of EV0 bets, so whatever we do is EV0(long run) bet? Every possible system in roulette without 0 is also allways EV0?

Another question(if previous is answered with yes).
This is really mostly out of curiosity. I like to learn new things. Some other day I was reading about unsolved problems in mathematics with some insane rewards for solutions (I found some that has 1 mill awards). My question is: Is there some kind of unsolved problem(with reward) that is about roulette without zero, to make it EV+ bet...Or some kind of unsolved math problem that is maybe similar? Please link..

This question is a bit for my curiosty and maybe it can help me a bit too: those unsolved problems has got usually some partial results explained so it can maybe help me with my math problems regarding "some system" I have in mind.

Wanna add:

I am really not comfortable anymore to answer any questions about "some system" I am thinking about(what it is about:for obvious reasons). But, I really do appriciate every single word that everybody wrote here. I have learned a lot. You guys are amazing.

This is true by definition, no other proof is needed. EV of a system always equals the sum of the EV from each bet placed. No amount of contortion will change that result. Every roulette system is simply a series of individual bets.

This is not an unsolved problem. It's axiomatic.

Systems change the distribution of wins and losses, but not the sum. If you design a system to give a lot of little wins, that system will contain some big losses that cancel them out. If you design a system to go for a big win (like betting on long odds) that system will contain lots of smaller losses that cancel out the win.

Exactly.
Of course providing that each result is perfectly independent from the previous ones or whether some random defects do not come in place.

Oh. He wants to watch for bad throws.

:facepalm:

@NewOldGuy, asymbacguy

Thank you both for answers. You are both amazing.

Independence is not required to make what NOG said true. The EV of the sum of random variables is always equal to the sum of the EVs, whether the variables are independent or not.

Hipotetically speaking:

Please no answers: it is impossible. Let us say it is possible, just out of curiosity...

What if there is a way to prove that what you wrote is not correct. With math offcourse. That you can make EV+ bet in roulette without a 0(only EV0 bets). What is there to be done(for person who prove this)? Please anybody else also?

Or in general: What does a person do if he/she prove that some math theory(or assumption) is wrong? Or if he/she discovers new math theory? Who to contact? Just publish it online? Patent? Or whatever else?

Thanks for answers.. I am curious man... Like to learn new stuff..

Also "my system" is not working. At least I learned a lot of new maths stuff. It was educational, at least. But would like to know how mathematicians do the things that I meantioned in previous post. TNX for your help people

Mathematicians would say that a series of negative numbers can never sum to a positive number. It isn't any more complicated than that. The game rules don't offer any +EV bets.