Question About Roulette Probability Field Imperfection, Need Mathematical Insight

Hi everyone,

Over the past three years, I’ve been running a long-term roulette experiment, a total of over 1,000,000 spins. Using my own selection method, I always choose 18 numbers to bet on, and only bet after a loss.

What I’ve noticed is quite strange, the probability field of the roulette wheel doesn’t seem perfectly uniform. To rule out manufacturing defects or wear, I purchased three brand-new 32-inch roulette wheels directly from different manufacturers, not used or refurbished ones. Each wheel was tested with over 330,000 spins under controlled conditions.

Across all three wheels, I found something consistent and unexpected, I never observed a losing streak longer than 7 when applying a Martingale-style model. I only start betting after a loss, always with a single-unit stake. This pattern has held across all data sets.

So here’s my main question,
Mathematically, what are the odds of never having a losing streak longer than 7 over one million spins, if the roulette wheels were truly fair and random?

Is this result still within the realm of probability, or could it indicate a subtle physical bias even in high-quality, brand-new wheels?

I’d really appreciate any insights or mathematical explanations from people experienced in probability theory, statistics, or physical randomness.

Thanks in advance

Probability = 0

Thank you for your reply, I understand that mathematically, if the roulette wheel is perfectly fair and each spin is independent, the probability of never having a losing streak longer than 7 over a million spins is essentially 0.

However, in my experiment, I tested three brand-new 32-inch roulette wheels directly from different manufacturers, each with over 330,000 spins, and I never observed a losing streak longer than 7. This seems highly unlikely if the wheels were perfectly random.

I suspect that even very small physical imperfections or biases in real roulette wheels, such as slight deviations in balance, friction, or ball behavior, could reduce the chance of long losing streaks. So while mathematically the probability is effectively zero for a truly fair wheel, my real-world data suggests that physical wheels may not be perfectly uniform, which is why the Martingale system worked in this specific sense.

I would be very interested in any mathematical or statistical insights about how tiny biases could affect the distribution of losing streaks, and whether this could realistically explain my results.

We don't know what condition your wheel was in. We don't know if it was in a perfectly flat surface. We don't know what condition the ball was in. We don't know if you were spinning using the same standards that casinos require. And since the casinos won't let bring your own wheel and ball, set it up on whatever surface you want, and spin it yourself, it doesn't matter. I'll bet you could destroy a craps game if they let you roll the dice from your monopoly game out of a cup onto your kitchen table, too.

I can't imagine a bigger waste of time and money than buying roulette wheels and spinning them a million times to see if 1+1 really does equal 2 in the "real world". A least if you lit the money on fire you would get some warmth and be able to roast some marshmallows or something.

I understand your skepticism, and I agree that my setup does not replicate a casino environment. However, my goal was not to simulate a casino, but to explore how real, physical roulette wheels behave in practice and how tiny imperfections can affect long losing streaks.

To minimize potential bias, I tested the wheels in multiple different buildings, using brand-new 32-inch wheels directly from the manufacturers, and conducted hundreds of thousands of spins on each setup. Even under these varied conditions, the data shows patterns that are highly unlikely if the wheels were perfectly random.

I would also like to note that the funds used for this experiment came from my previous baccarat winnings, so it was a conscious decision to invest them into something potentially useful, rather than just spending money frivolously.

This is an attempt at empirical investigation into a physical probability system, not a claim about beating a casino or disregarding basic math. Studying real-world deviations from idealized models can provide valuable insights into probability, randomness, and how physical imperfections influence outcomes, which is why I consider the experiment meaningful.

Quote: StefanQuen

Hi everyone,

Over the past three years, I’ve been running a long-term roulette experiment, a total of over 1,000,000 spins. Using my own selection method, I always choose 18 numbers to bet on, and only bet after a loss.

What I’ve noticed is quite strange, the probability field of the roulette wheel doesn’t seem perfectly uniform. To rule out manufacturing defects or wear, I purchased three brand-new 32-inch roulette wheels directly from different manufacturers, not used or refurbished ones. Each wheel was tested with over 330,000 spins under controlled conditions.

Across all three wheels, I found something consistent and unexpected, I never observed a losing streak longer than 7 when applying a Martingale-style model. I only start betting after a loss, always with a single-unit stake. This pattern has held across all data sets.

So here’s my main question,
Mathematically, what are the odds of never having a losing streak longer than 7 over one million spins, if the roulette wheels were truly fair and random?

Is this result still within the realm of probability, or could it indicate a subtle physical bias even in high-quality, brand-new wheels?

I’d really appreciate any insights or mathematical explanations from people experienced in probability theory, statistics, or physical randomness.

Thanks in advance
link to original post

I find it hard to believe you got wheels from 3 different licensed manufacturers. Very unlikely they would sell to the general public.

I believe the chances of losing 7 times in a row, covering 818 numbers, during 1,000,000 spins is is 99. followed by 2,398 nines. So that seems pretty unlikely as well.



ZCore13

That’s actually not true. Several professional roulette wheel manufacturers do sell directly to private buyers, research institutions, and gaming clubs. You don’t need to be a licensed casino to purchase a regulation-size wheel. Mine were brand-new 32-inch models ordered directly from the manufacturers, fully authentic and professionally balanced.

I understand that the results sound unlikely, and that’s exactly what makes the experiment interesting. If everything behaved perfectly random, the probability would indeed be astronomically small. But since I reproduced the same result on three different wheels in three different locations, I believe it’s worth exploring how real-world physics might slightly influence outcome distributions.

How long does one spin take? Are you the only spinner and data enterer? Does a psychiatrist prescribe anything for the abject boredom such as trial would lead to? My god, I can’t think of many things I’d like to do LESS than what you did. I can tell you the result before you spun the wheel once.

Quote: SOOPOO

How long does one spin take? Are you the only spinner and data enterer? Does a psychiatrist prescribe anything for the abject boredom such as trial would lead to? My god, I can’t think of many things I’d like to do LESS than what you did. I can tell you the result before you spun the wheel once.
link to original post

What we have here is a brand new poster, claiming to have some something that no one in their right mind would attempt to do, at significant expense (both monetary and time), claiming to have gotten results that are essentially impossible, providing absolutely no evidence of having done this or having achieved those results, and making up math terms along the way ("probability field imperfection!")

Draw your own conclusions.

When you, having joined less than a few months ago, put someone who joined nine months before you did, down as and for being "new" it makes you a suspect member as well, for a different reason.

Quote: SkinnyTony

Quote: SOOPOO

How long does one spin take? Are you the only spinner and data enterer? Does a psychiatrist prescribe anything for the abject boredom such as trial would lead to? My god, I can’t think of many things I’d like to do LESS than what you did. I can tell you the result before you spun the wheel once.
link to original post

What we have here is a brand new poster, claiming to have some something that no one in their right mind would attempt to do, at significant expense (both monetary and time), claiming to have gotten results that are essentially impossible, providing absolutely no evidence of having done this or having achieved those results, and making up math terms along the way ("probability field imperfection!")

Draw your own conclusions.
link to original post

Its laughable. 1,000,000 spins at 1 minute per spin is obviously 1,000,000 minutes. 16,666 hours and 40 mi uses of spinning. If he spun for 8 hours a day with no break and stayed at 1 minute per spin the whole time, it would take 2,084 days to complete. Thats with no days off. That's 5 1/2 years straight of 8 hours a day, 7 days a week. I guess he could cut it down to about 2 straight years if he spun all 3 at the same time and stayed at 1 minute per.

I wont even get into him saying he got wheels from casino manufactuters or that a professional wheel does not arrive perfectly balanced. It has to be assembled and balanced on site.


ZCore13

(snip!)

Quote: Zcore13

I guess he could cut it down to about 2 straight years if he spun all 3 at the same time and stayed at 1 minute per.

I wont even get into him saying he got wheels from casino manufactuters or that a professional wheel does not arrive perfectly balanced. It has to be assembled and balanced on site.


ZCore13
link to original post

They do have automated wheels.
Still, it seems a lot of effort to test an idea that has been fairly well understood for at least a hundred years.

Quote: MDawg

When you, having joined less than a few months ago, put someone who joined nine months before you did, down as and for being "new" it makes you a suspect member as well, for a different reason.
link to original post

Did you read past the first couple of words?

When I claim that I flipped a coin a million times (and presumably spent thousands of dollars as well as thousands of hours to do so) and never saw 7 heads in a row you can call me out on that. Because that's completely ridiculous.