Theoretical basis for a perfect roulette system


  1. Valmai says:

    Hi roulette….are you saying wait for a series of 25 different numbers to appear then bet all those? It wouldn’t work cos you may have to wait for 13 hours for that to happen, even if it did it would be impossible to put chips down on 25 different numbers at a busy table. I’m afraid you’ll have to elaborate…however, following the trend is a very sound idea ‘The trend is your friend’ and all that…

  2. Winifred says:

    Thats fine but seeing as you dont know when you are going to win and when you are going to lose how could you possibly do this? You seem to be saying that the easy way to win at roulette is just to put more money on the bets that are going to win than those that are going to lose!

    Using previous spins in roulette to predict the future is a fallacy, it has absolutely no bearing on the future at all.

  3. Gisela says:

    As far as keeping with the trend goes, you can take it down to betting the last number to repeat. I have a few days of numbers (500+ spins) recorded, and the last number to repeat has always come out at a profit. It’s all about keeping with the trend, quite often Red will dominate Black or Evens will dominate Odd or High will dominate Low, and vice-versa. By backing the last number to repeat you are covering all these trends. It also has a predictable number of bets if betting level stakes only. Definately worth a try if you got the time.

  4. Iphigenia says:

    Nothings impossible in the lovely ‘random’ game we call roulette!

  5. Michal says:

    Well Croup, you got me there for a moment Think about it this way – you put 37 numbered balls in a jar. You pull out one at a time and then put it back in. How many balls do you expect to pull out before you hit the ball you already pulled. That’s my point right there. No ‘memory’ in roulette – ’cause if there were any, you’d had 30 diferrent numbers in a row, and that does not happen. Since when poker and blackjack have a memory? I played the games a bit and it seems to me that exactly the same rules apply to each game (except playing poker with human, i.e. newbie – then you really got better odds…).

    You don’t know when are you going win, that’s entirely correct. But you do know when are you going to lose – whenever you want! If you have a basis to tell you what will be your expected wins/losses distribution, then you might set a point in which you simply quit and start the session all over again. It’s pretty stupid to push a sequence in roulette beyond reasonable limits.

  6. Negeen says:

    Well – I don’t pretend to be the finest anything, except finest data analyst, since it’s my daily job. I spend days trying to find invisible links in the data sets and mining seemingly useless data. If you have Excel on your computer you’ll easily check my basis. Use Excel’s random number generator (not the one that’s in the functions menu, but the one in Tools-Add Ins – Analysis toolpack ) The function name is RANDBETWEEN. Generate a decent dataset (10000 rows should be enough, but what a heck, go all the way to 65000). Then use IF to check if the number appeared already in the last 15 cells. I did it three times on 10000 presumed spins and only once hit 22 different number in a row. Pretty impressive, huh? If you have any objections on Excel’s RNG, I am more than ready to share my database of 5000 spins gathered on Ladbrokes and Casino-on-Red (for those who think I was referring to land casinos in the first place, I wasn’t – entire system is about online casinos), which will show you the same thing. And yes, I’m open for discussion on RNG’s.

  7. Emelyn says:

    As I said in my previous post, the system is for online casinos – and, furthermore, it’s not even a system – it’s a basis for thinking. There are no trends included, you absolutely don’t care what went out and don’t rely on a trend – you rely on a random number generator which behaves just like in real life (see the jar example in my reply to Croup earlier…). As far as the basic idea is concerned, nobody seemed to spot the real flaw in my example – the bet progression would be geometric, so you’d need a pile of money to cover the bets once you reach 15 numbers in a row. There is the ground to develop an idea – should you cover numbers? Or splits? Or quads? Or streets? etc…

  8. Madan says:

    My own opinion is that you can’t win on on-line casinos, cos they have a built-in profit margin working against you. Sometimes at a real table you can be astonishingly lucky – I have never heard anyone say that about an on-line casino. I have seen many posts from people (various forums) concerned that the so called RNG was purposely going against their bets – usually after a (minor) winning streak.

  9. Damla says:

    Quote: rouletteadvantagepro- Think about it this way – you put 37 numbered balls in a jar. You pull out one at a time and then put it back in. How many balls do you expect to pull out before you hit the ball you already pulled.

    Your expectancy would be a winner within 8 spins, which equates to bets of 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8 = 36 units. I’m sure this would be a loser on-line, but could work at a real wheel when played against individual croupiers for their first 9 spins only. Stop-loss would be 36 units & await next croup.