It may appear at first logical to look for a mathematical way to beat roulette. After all, everything can be explained with mathematics. From the mathematical roulette strategies throughout the forums, I’ve never known one to work. Perhaps the appeal of mathematical systems is that they are mechanical in the sense that no guess work is required, and the player follows a simple and logical bet selection process, or a betting progression. If you are unaware of what a betting progression is, it is simply changing the size of bets based on wins and losses. One of the common progressions is the Martingale. It is also important to understand why most players lose, and how to properly test your roulette system.
Unfortunately truth is not always popular, and in this is also the case when it comes to roulette systems. I constantly finding myself referring back to what Einstein reportedly said about winning Roulette, which was that you cannot beat a roulette table unless you steal money while the croupier isn’t looking. And I need to remind people that he was referring to the betting table, not the wheel. Einstein wasn’t particularly interested in roulette as far as I know, but it would appear logical that if he put time and effort into winning Roulette, that he would have focused on physics. After all he was a physicist. But also there is no physics without mathematics. You might consider the definition that physics is the theory behind the way the universe works, and the mathematics is the proof, at least assuming you consider mathematics is an absolute science without guesswork. In other words, if you consider that one plus one equals two, without exception, then it’s safe to say you believe mathematics is absolute truth.
Maybe I’m getting too technical. What I’m getting at is mathematical roulette strategies are usually based on simple arithmetic. One example is considering the sum of all winning numbers over the last 10 spins, then dividing the result by 3 until you have a number to bet that is between one in 36. However bad my example is, there are many systems that are based on equally bad principles. When I initially developed a roulette systems, I was no different and was just about randomly coming up with different sequences and concepts, looking for some kind of hidden pattern. There was no logic to the pattern, except that I was hoping to get lucky and find some holy grail hidden pattern. I wasted many years before I even considered the actual roulette will itself. This was because of my stubbornness and wanting to find something that it was incredibly simple that could make loads of money with very little effort. I’m not saying to not try to beat roulette with mathematics. I’m saying you need to use mathematics correctly. A mathematically based system for counting apples might be to consider the amount of oranges and pears divided by amount of grapes, with some fantastic magical formula that only exists in your head, but it will have no value in accurately counting the amount of apples I have. Genuinely effective mathematics applied to winning Roulette involves calculations of the actual variables that are involved. Besides the geometry of the wheel and the layout of the numbers, the numbers themselves are meaningless. So if you are developing a mathematically based Roulette system, you need to consider the layout of the wheel. If you arbitrarily count subtracting divide numbers, and look for sequences that have absolutely no relation to wheel layout, expect to lose. Another way of looking at is just imagine if your system had numbers 32 and 8 mixed around. How would this affect your system and the bet selections? Now imagine somehow incorporating the geometry of the wheel, or more specifically the layout of the numbers. Then it wouldn’t matter where the numbers are, because the position of pockets are relative to each other.
Using math to beat roulette
One legitimate example of using maths to beat roulette is to calculate the amount of times that the ball bounces 10 pockets from where it strikes the rotor. Of course there are many variables that will determine how far the ball will bounce, but you are looking for the most common distance the ball will travel. This is very basic mathematics, but it’s just an example help how mathematics is properly used. It is still intimately tied with physics though. Perhaps a more complex example is how the deceleration rate of the ball will change over time, because of variations like air pressure. This is particularly important for roulette computer devices such as those explained on my website at roulette-computers.com. There are a few ways to deal with the variation ball deceleration, although for many reasons I prefer the use of complex polynomials and splines. This is basically a mathematical modelling for a best fit curve, that mathematically defines the ball deceleration rate change.
Using choas and fractals to beat roulette
Scams like roulette bot plus claim to use hidden pattern technology, but basic testing reveals they are a scam. Basically anything, including roulette wheel outcomes, can be expressed in a mathematical equation and visual chart. And over enough spins, fractals become apparent. Fractals are basically self similar patterns, or patterns that repeat. I’ve spent a lot of time studying fractals in roulette, and there is definitely something significant going on although I am yet to find a way to use fractals to predict a spin before an event. It is like having a very close view of a painting. But you are only allowed to zoom out once a picture is fully finished, and then you see how it looks. And you need an unreasonable amount of data to see any pattern.
With respect to fractals, I have concluded that visually charting roulette spin outcomes does reveal that there are patterns. But if there was a way to use fractals to predict roulette spins, you would need such a vast amount of data that it would make it impractical. And I’m talking about potentially billions of spins, which none of us will ever see in our lifetime. This realisation and my understanding of energy interaction let me to understand that everything affects everything to at least some degree. There are countless variables that contribute to events. Nothing happens for no reason. I’m not talking on some metaphysical level like divine influence. I’m talking about plain and simple cause-and-effect. With roulette, it is likely fact that someone scratching their head on the other side of the world has some influence on where the ball will land, but the influence is so small that the effectiveness is insignificant. Perhaps this is why typical fractal analysis has been unsuccessful. But most importantly I found that you don’t need to have so many variables to predict roulette spins. The physics and mathematics behind winning roulette is relatively simple, and there are relatively few variables to consider. Winning Roulette really isn’t rocket science, it is actually quite simple. It all starts with wheel selection and identifying the conditions and wheels that lead to predictable spins, then applying the appropriate approach.
Questions to ask yourself
If you still want to pursue mathematical roulette systems, consider the questions:
Would your system still work if the numbers on the wheel were different?
What is the logic or working principle of my system?
Will my method of bet selection increase the accuracy of predictions?
Not always is a safe roulette system that doesn’t lose too much a good thing. The best professional advice is to focus on real wheels and the physics of roulette. Don’t bother looking for the best red black roulette system because any outside bet system is bound to eventually lose.