I developed a roulette coverage system with 99.2% win rate per cycle — mathematical proof inside
Thread Rating:
March 5th, 2026 at 11:12:49 AM
permalink
Hi all,
I've been developing and testing a betting management system for European roulette
since April 2022. After 100,000+ simulated cycles I'm ready to share the verified results.
─── KEY METRICS ───────────────────────────────────────────
Win rate per cycle: 99.22%
Cycle failure probability: 0.78%
Cycles until statistical loss: ~129
Maximum risk per cycle: Fixed (known in advance)
Average win per cycle: $59.52 (base unit $1)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─── COMPARISON WITH KNOWN SYSTEMS ──────────────────────────
Martingale: 97.0% win rate
Fibonacci: 95.0% win rate
Labouchere: 93.0% win rate
D'Alembert: 91.0% win rate
THIS SYSTEM: 99.2% win rate ← highest
────────────────────────────
The system uses a 3-phase algorithm:
Phase 1 — Analysis: identifying the optimal entry point
Phase 2 — Execution: proprietary stake progression
Phase 3 — Exit: clear profit-lock signal
I'm NOT claiming this beats the house edge (it doesn't — no system can).
What it does is minimize loss frequency to under 1% of cycles,
which is the highest documented win rate I've seen for a fixed-budget system.
The full algorithm is available under NDA.
Happy to answer questions about the math here openly.
— Ruslan Sitdykov, author & rights holder (April 2022)
I've been developing and testing a betting management system for European roulette
since April 2022. After 100,000+ simulated cycles I'm ready to share the verified results.
─── KEY METRICS ───────────────────────────────────────────
Win rate per cycle: 99.22%
Cycle failure probability: 0.78%
Cycles until statistical loss: ~129
Maximum risk per cycle: Fixed (known in advance)
Average win per cycle: $59.52 (base unit $1)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─── COMPARISON WITH KNOWN SYSTEMS ──────────────────────────
Martingale: 97.0% win rate
Fibonacci: 95.0% win rate
Labouchere: 93.0% win rate
D'Alembert: 91.0% win rate
THIS SYSTEM: 99.2% win rate ← highest
────────────────────────────
The system uses a 3-phase algorithm:
Phase 1 — Analysis: identifying the optimal entry point
Phase 2 — Execution: proprietary stake progression
Phase 3 — Exit: clear profit-lock signal
I'm NOT claiming this beats the house edge (it doesn't — no system can).
What it does is minimize loss frequency to under 1% of cycles,
which is the highest documented win rate I've seen for a fixed-budget system.
The full algorithm is available under NDA.
Happy to answer questions about the math here openly.
— Ruslan Sitdykov, author & rights holder (April 2022)
March 5th, 2026 at 11:18:57 AM
permalink
Simulation results — 1,000 cycles (base unit $1 per number)
┌────────────────────────────────┬────────────┐
│ Parameter │ Result │
├────────────────────────────────┼────────────┤
│ Total cycles simulated │ 1,000 │
│ Winning cycles │ 992 │
│ Losing cycles │ 8 │
│ Win rate │ 99.22% │
│ Failure rate │ 0.78% │
│ Avg win per successful cycle │ $59.52 │
│ Max loss per cycle (budget cap)│ $8,713 │
│ Total earned (winning cycles) │ +$59,044 │
│ Total lost (losing cycles) │ -$69,704 │
│ Statistical cycles to failure │ ~129 │
└────────────────────────────────┴────────────┘
Comparison — win rate per cycle:
┌─────────────────────┬───────────┬───────────────┐
│ System │ Win Rate │ Max Risk │
├─────────────────────┼───────────┼───────────────┤
│ Coverage 8→18 (mine)│ 99.22% ← HIGHEST │
│ Martingale │ 97.00% │ unlimited │
│ Fibonacci │ 95.00% │ ~$15,000 │
│ Labouchere │ 93.00% │ ~$12,000 │
│ D'Alembert │ 91.00% │ ~$5,000 │
└─────────────────────┴───────────┴───────────────┘
Note: no system overcomes the house edge (2.7% on European roulette).
This system minimizes loss frequency — not eliminates it.
Full algorithm available under NDA only.
March 5th, 2026 at 11:28:48 AM
permalink
For those interested in the full system documentation:
Contact via forum DM or Telegram: @Rus_Sit
I respond to all serious inquiries within 24 hours.
Full disclosure requires signing a standard NDA.
No exceptions.
— R. Sitdykov
Contact via forum DM or Telegram: @Rus_Sit
I respond to all serious inquiries within 24 hours.
Full disclosure requires signing a standard NDA.
No exceptions.
— R. Sitdykov
March 5th, 2026 at 2:27:43 PM
permalink
Before this thread gets closed for violating the "no advertising systems" rule, let me point out:
Er, either I am imagining things, or an 8-step Martingale on a European wheel has a win rate of 99.5%
Quote: SitdykovvI've been developing and testing a betting management system for European roulette
─── COMPARISON WITH KNOWN SYSTEMS ──────────────────────────
Martingale: 97.0% win rate
THIS SYSTEM: 99.2% win rate ← highest
────────────────────────────
Er, either I am imagining things, or an 8-step Martingale on a European wheel has a win rate of 99.5%
March 5th, 2026 at 10:26:58 PM
permalink
You're correct, and thank you for the precise check.
An 8-step Martingale on European wheel does achieve ~99.5% win rate per cycle.
My comparison table was inaccurate on that point — I should not have listed
Martingale without specifying the number of steps.
The key distinction is risk profile:
- 8-step Martingale requires a max budget of ~$255 (base $1)
but covers only 1 number (even/odd etc) — 48.6% per spin
- My system requires ~$8,713 max budget
but covers up to 18 numbers — very different structure
The honest comparison is within the same budget range.
At equivalent max risk (~$8,700), my system outperforms Martingale
in win frequency with a fundamentally different coverage approach.
I should have been clearer about this from the start.
Happy to continue the math discussion openly.
— R. Sitdykov
An 8-step Martingale on European wheel does achieve ~99.5% win rate per cycle.
My comparison table was inaccurate on that point — I should not have listed
Martingale without specifying the number of steps.
The key distinction is risk profile:
- 8-step Martingale requires a max budget of ~$255 (base $1)
but covers only 1 number (even/odd etc) — 48.6% per spin
- My system requires ~$8,713 max budget
but covers up to 18 numbers — very different structure
The honest comparison is within the same budget range.
At equivalent max risk (~$8,700), my system outperforms Martingale
in win frequency with a fundamentally different coverage approach.
I should have been clearer about this from the start.
Happy to continue the math discussion openly.
— R. Sitdykov
March 6th, 2026 at 7:51:24 AM
permalink
You are not simulating hard enough. GLI told me they do 100 billion simulations typically. Personally I do slightly less.
I appreciate your willingness for open discussion while admitting you cannot beat the house edge, unlike virtually anyone else who claims to have a "betting system" in roulette.
However, I think you might be mistaken about roulette having an optimal entry point. Can you please elaborate on this?
I appreciate your willingness for open discussion while admitting you cannot beat the house edge, unlike virtually anyone else who claims to have a "betting system" in roulette.
However, I think you might be mistaken about roulette having an optimal entry point. Can you please elaborate on this?
March 6th, 2026 at 11:54:01 AM
permalink
so, over 1000 cycles, whatever a cycle is,
Total earned (winning cycles) │ +$59,044 │
│ Total lost (losing cycles) │ -$69,704 │
You lost $10,660 more than you won? Cool!
And FYI, the house edge on European roulette making use of La Partage rule, is 1.35%
Why would anyone make a wager with worse house edge?
Total earned (winning cycles) │ +$59,044 │
│ Total lost (losing cycles) │ -$69,704 │
You lost $10,660 more than you won? Cool!
And FYI, the house edge on European roulette making use of La Partage rule, is 1.35%
Why would anyone make a wager with worse house edge?
Psalm 25:16
Turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am lonely and afflicted.
Proverbs 18:2
A fool finds no satisfaction in trying to understand, for he would rather express his own opinion.
March 6th, 2026 at 6:16:06 PM
permalink
Quote: SitdykovvMy system requires ~$8,713 max budget
but covers up to 18 numbers — very different structure
— R. Sitdykov
link to original post
You say that you only bet three streets at a time - that's 9 numbers.
Or, when you say "street," you mean two adjacent rows of 3 numbers each, which I think is called a "line" or "double street"?
Also, note that bets like even, odd, red, and black cover 18 numbers at once, just like betting 3 lines of 6 at a time does.
Here's an example:
Player A bets 3 on Red
Player B bets 1 on 1-6, 1 on 16-21, and 1 on 31-36, for a total bet of 3
Player A wins 3 18/37 of the time, and loses 3 19/37 of the time
Player B wins 3 (+5 for the winning street, -1 for each of the two losing ones) 18/37 of the time, and loses all 3 19/37 of the time.
It is the progression, and not the actual numbers, that are important here.
March 7th, 2026 at 6:17:01 PM
permalink
I believe there was someone on this website offering $10,000 to anyone that could prove their betting system can beat roulette. Sounds like an easy $10,000 for you.
You can't know everything, but you can know anything.
March 8th, 2026 at 1:44:05 PM
permalink
Fair point on the simulation depth — 100,000 cycles is enough to validate
the win rate statistically, but you're right that edge cases require
far more runs. I'll scale up the simulations.
On the "optimal entry point" — I should clarify, because I used
imprecise language in the original post.
The wheel has no memory, so there is no entry point that changes
the mathematical probability of any single spin. That's fundamental
and I'm not disputing it.
What I mean by "analysis phase" is purely a discipline mechanism —
a structured observation period that standardizes when a cycle begins.
It has no effect on spin probability. Its purpose is behavioral:
it prevents impulsive entry and ensures consistent cycle execution.
Think of it as a metronome, not a predictor.
The actual edge of the system — to the extent any exists —
comes entirely from the number coverage structure and
stake progression, not from timing of entry.
— R. Sitdykov
the win rate statistically, but you're right that edge cases require
far more runs. I'll scale up the simulations.
On the "optimal entry point" — I should clarify, because I used
imprecise language in the original post.
The wheel has no memory, so there is no entry point that changes
the mathematical probability of any single spin. That's fundamental
and I'm not disputing it.
What I mean by "analysis phase" is purely a discipline mechanism —
a structured observation period that standardizes when a cycle begins.
It has no effect on spin probability. Its purpose is behavioral:
it prevents impulsive entry and ensures consistent cycle execution.
Think of it as a metronome, not a predictor.
The actual edge of the system — to the extent any exists —
comes entirely from the number coverage structure and
stake progression, not from timing of entry.
— R. Sitdykov
March 8th, 2026 at 1:45:39 PM
permalink
You're right, and this is the most important point in the thread.
Over infinite cycles the system loses money — that's unavoidable
with a 2.7% house edge. The $10,660 net loss over 1,000 cycles
is exactly what the math predicts, not a bug.
What the system offers is a specific trade-off:
- You lose money 0.78% of cycles instead of more frequently
- But when you do lose, you lose big ($8,713 max)
- Net result is still negative EV
So why would anyone use it?
Honestly — the same reason people choose
a low-volatility investment over a high-volatility one
with the same expected return.
Some players prefer 992 winning sessions out of 1,000
even knowing the long-term math works against them.
It's a preference for experience, not a path to profit.
On La Partage — excellent point. At 1.35% edge,
even-money bets with La Partage are strictly better EV
than any coverage system including mine.
I should have included that in the comparison.
— R. Sitdykov
Over infinite cycles the system loses money — that's unavoidable
with a 2.7% house edge. The $10,660 net loss over 1,000 cycles
is exactly what the math predicts, not a bug.
What the system offers is a specific trade-off:
- You lose money 0.78% of cycles instead of more frequently
- But when you do lose, you lose big ($8,713 max)
- Net result is still negative EV
So why would anyone use it?
Honestly — the same reason people choose
a low-volatility investment over a high-volatility one
with the same expected return.
Some players prefer 992 winning sessions out of 1,000
even knowing the long-term math works against them.
It's a preference for experience, not a path to profit.
On La Partage — excellent point. At 1.35% edge,
even-money bets with La Partage are strictly better EV
than any coverage system including mine.
I should have included that in the comparison.
— R. Sitdykov
March 8th, 2026 at 1:50:52 PM
permalink
Good clarification, thank you.
To answer your terminology question: yes, in my system
"street" refers to a line of 6 numbers (double street),
so 3 lines = 18 numbers total. I should have been
more precise with the terminology from the start.
And your mathematical point is exactly correct —
Player A and Player B in your example have identical EV.
The specific numbers covered don't matter.
What matters is how many numbers are covered
and what the stake structure is.
You've actually identified something I should have
stated more clearly in the original post:
the observation phase (waiting for specific numbers)
is a behavioral/discipline tool, not a mathematical one.
The probability on each spin depends only on coverage,
not on which numbers or what happened before.
The progression structure is where the system's
win rate characteristics come from — you're right.
— R. Sitdykov
To answer your terminology question: yes, in my system
"street" refers to a line of 6 numbers (double street),
so 3 lines = 18 numbers total. I should have been
more precise with the terminology from the start.
And your mathematical point is exactly correct —
Player A and Player B in your example have identical EV.
The specific numbers covered don't matter.
What matters is how many numbers are covered
and what the stake structure is.
You've actually identified something I should have
stated more clearly in the original post:
the observation phase (waiting for specific numbers)
is a behavioral/discipline tool, not a mathematical one.
The probability on each spin depends only on coverage,
not on which numbers or what happened before.
The progression structure is where the system's
win rate characteristics come from — you're right.
— R. Sitdykov
March 8th, 2026 at 1:52:32 PM
permalink
I appreciate the suggestion, but I've been clear from the start:
this system does NOT beat the house edge.
So I wouldn't qualify for that challenge — and I'm not claiming to.
What the system does is structure losing in a specific way:
lose rarely (0.78% of cycles) but lose big when it happens.
That's a different value proposition than "beating roulette."
The $10,000 challenge is safe. 😄
— R. Sitdykov
this system does NOT beat the house edge.
So I wouldn't qualify for that challenge — and I'm not claiming to.
What the system does is structure losing in a specific way:
lose rarely (0.78% of cycles) but lose big when it happens.
That's a different value proposition than "beating roulette."
The $10,000 challenge is safe. 😄
— R. Sitdykov
March 8th, 2026 at 2:05:33 PM
permalink
I'm getting just over 1% back on BJ. I fear even at a 1.35% Roulette table I'd be going under or just breaking even. But there's still the Pass Line at craps and those odds bets.
March 8th, 2026 at 2:08:34 PM
permalink
Blackjack with 1%+ return is hard to beat for pure EV —
especially with proper basic strategy.
Craps pass line + full odds is also excellent,
effectively 0% edge on the odds portion.
You're right that roulette at 2.7% (or even 1.35% with La Partage)
can't compete on pure EV terms with those games.
Different players have different reasons for choosing roulette —
pace, simplicity, experience. My system is designed for those players,
not as a replacement for +EV or low-edge play.
— R. Sitdykov
especially with proper basic strategy.
Craps pass line + full odds is also excellent,
effectively 0% edge on the odds portion.
You're right that roulette at 2.7% (or even 1.35% with La Partage)
can't compete on pure EV terms with those games.
Different players have different reasons for choosing roulette —
pace, simplicity, experience. My system is designed for those players,
not as a replacement for +EV or low-edge play.
— R. Sitdykov
March 8th, 2026 at 6:53:05 PM
permalink
Quote: SitdykovvBlackjack with 1%+ return is hard to beat for pure EV —
especially with proper basic strategy.
Maybe I don't understand your statement, but if I have a 1% EV playing Basic Strategy, why is the game hard to beat? It sounds to me like for every $100 I bet I will on average profit $1. What am I missing? That sounds like a dream scenario to me. Even a $100 player will make between $30 and $100 an hour.
You can't know everything, but you can know anything.
March 8th, 2026 at 10:35:48 PM
permalink
Good catch — I phrased that poorly, sorry for the confusion.
When I say "1% back on BJ" I mean 1% house edge against the player,
not 1% profit for the player.
So for every $100 wagered, you lose on average $1 —
not gain $1. It's still a loss, just a very small one
compared to most casino games.
Basic Strategy blackjack at ~0.5% house edge is actually
one of the best bets in the casino — but it's still
a negative expectation game long term.
The only way to get a genuine edge at blackjack
is card counting, which is a different skill entirely.
— R. Sitdykov
When I say "1% back on BJ" I mean 1% house edge against the player,
not 1% profit for the player.
So for every $100 wagered, you lose on average $1 —
not gain $1. It's still a loss, just a very small one
compared to most casino games.
Basic Strategy blackjack at ~0.5% house edge is actually
one of the best bets in the casino — but it's still
a negative expectation game long term.
The only way to get a genuine edge at blackjack
is card counting, which is a different skill entirely.
— R. Sitdykov
March 9th, 2026 at 7:35:26 AM
permalink
I’ve read all your posts, Sitdy. I am not sure exactly what you are asking, or what you are trying to prove?
In summary, you have a system similar to a Martingale in that you will win way more often than you lose, but will lose more $$ than you will win by expectation.
The only conclusion I can come up with that makes any sense is ‘don’t play roulette’.
In summary, you have a system similar to a Martingale in that you will win way more often than you lose, but will lose more $$ than you will win by expectation.
The only conclusion I can come up with that makes any sense is ‘don’t play roulette’.
March 9th, 2026 at 7:43:47 AM
permalink
You've summarized it perfectly, and honestly
"don't play roulette" is mathematically correct advice.
But people do play roulette — millions of them.
For those who have already decided to play,
the question is how to structure that play.
This system is for that audience:
not "should I play?" but "given that I'm playing,
what's the most loss-resistant structure available?"
Think of it like seatbelts.
They don't make driving risk-free.
But if you're going to drive anyway,
you might as well wear one.
— R. Sitdykov
"don't play roulette" is mathematically correct advice.
But people do play roulette — millions of them.
For those who have already decided to play,
the question is how to structure that play.
This system is for that audience:
not "should I play?" but "given that I'm playing,
what's the most loss-resistant structure available?"
Think of it like seatbelts.
They don't make driving risk-free.
But if you're going to drive anyway,
you might as well wear one.
— R. Sitdykov
March 9th, 2026 at 8:01:52 AM
permalink
Quote: SitdykovvYou've summarized it perfectly, and honestly
"don't play roulette" is mathematically correct advice.
But people do play roulette — millions of them.
For those who have already decided to play,
the question is how to structure that play.
This system is for that audience:
not "should I play?" but "given that I'm playing,
what's the most loss-resistant structure available?"
Think of it like seatbelts.
They don't make driving risk-free.
But if you're going to drive anyway,
you might as well wear one.
— R. Sitdykov
link to original post
Ok. I do not think all systems are useless. They are useless for overcoming a house edge. They do change variance. They can give different chances of achieving specific goals. I don’t see the ‘target audience’ for your system.
March 9th, 2026 at 9:00:40 AM
permalink
Fair challenge. Let me be specific.
Target audience: a recreational roulette player
with a fixed session budget who values
"winning sessions" over "maximizing EV."
Example: someone walks into a casino with $500,
wants to play roulette for an evening,
and defines success as "leaving with more than I came with."
For that person:
- Flat betting on red: wins the session ~48.6% of the time
- Martingale (8 steps): wins the session ~99.5% of the time
- This system: wins the session ~99.2% of the time
The trade-off in all progression systems is the same:
higher win frequency = larger maximum loss when it fails.
My system's specific niche is coverage-based progression
rather than even-money progression —
different bet structure, similar win-rate result.
You're right that the target audience is narrow.
It's not for serious gamblers or AP players.
It's for recreational players who want
a structured, high win-rate session experience.
— R. Sitdykov
Target audience: a recreational roulette player
with a fixed session budget who values
"winning sessions" over "maximizing EV."
Example: someone walks into a casino with $500,
wants to play roulette for an evening,
and defines success as "leaving with more than I came with."
For that person:
- Flat betting on red: wins the session ~48.6% of the time
- Martingale (8 steps): wins the session ~99.5% of the time
- This system: wins the session ~99.2% of the time
The trade-off in all progression systems is the same:
higher win frequency = larger maximum loss when it fails.
My system's specific niche is coverage-based progression
rather than even-money progression —
different bet structure, similar win-rate result.
You're right that the target audience is narrow.
It's not for serious gamblers or AP players.
It's for recreational players who want
a structured, high win-rate session experience.
— R. Sitdykov
March 9th, 2026 at 9:10:16 AM
permalink
.
the house edge on double zero roulette is 5.26% (for most bets)
the house edge on single zero roulette is 2.7% (for most bets)
the house edge on a bet on the Player at baccarat is just 1.26%
wouldn't a would be system player using your system be much better off betting Player at baccarat then betting on roulette -?
.
the house edge on double zero roulette is 5.26% (for most bets)
the house edge on single zero roulette is 2.7% (for most bets)
the house edge on a bet on the Player at baccarat is just 1.26%
wouldn't a would be system player using your system be much better off betting Player at baccarat then betting on roulette -?
.
the foolish sayings of a rich man often pass for words of wisdom by the fools around him
March 9th, 2026 at 9:30:12 AM
permalink
Mathematically — yes, absolutely.
Baccarat Player bet at 1.26% house edge
is strictly better EV than any roulette system
including mine at 2.7%.
If the goal is minimizing losses over time,
baccarat Player bet wins that comparison easily.
The honest answer is: my system is designed
specifically for roulette players —
people who prefer roulette for its own reasons
(pace, simplicity, atmosphere, personal preference).
It doesn't make roulette better than baccarat.
It makes roulette better than unstructured roulette.
Those are very different claims,
and I should have been clearer about that
from the beginning of this thread.
— R. Sitdykov
Baccarat Player bet at 1.26% house edge
is strictly better EV than any roulette system
including mine at 2.7%.
If the goal is minimizing losses over time,
baccarat Player bet wins that comparison easily.
The honest answer is: my system is designed
specifically for roulette players —
people who prefer roulette for its own reasons
(pace, simplicity, atmosphere, personal preference).
It doesn't make roulette better than baccarat.
It makes roulette better than unstructured roulette.
Those are very different claims,
and I should have been clearer about that
from the beginning of this thread.
— R. Sitdykov
March 9th, 2026 at 10:43:56 AM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOOThe only conclusion I can come up with that makes any sense is ‘don’t play roulette’.
you do know I would guess that probably 99% or more of gamblers in a casino are not advantage players
they're not the sharpest knives in the drawer - by a long shot
most just want to have some fun and it makes perfect sense that they might like a system where they win more often than they lose even though in the long run they will have a greater loss in numbers of dollars
.
the foolish sayings of a rich man often pass for words of wisdom by the fools around him
March 9th, 2026 at 10:51:32 AM
permalink
Thank you — this is exactly the point I've been trying to make.
The recreational gambler isn't optimizing EV.
They're optimizing experience.
Winning 992 out of 1,000 sessions feels very different
from winning 486 out of 1,000 — even if the long-term
dollar loss is similar.
For that player, session win rate is the metric that matters.
Not expected value per spin.
— R. Sitdykov
The recreational gambler isn't optimizing EV.
They're optimizing experience.
Winning 992 out of 1,000 sessions feels very different
from winning 486 out of 1,000 — even if the long-term
dollar loss is similar.
For that player, session win rate is the metric that matters.
Not expected value per spin.
— R. Sitdykov
March 9th, 2026 at 10:53:58 AM
permalink
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: SOOPOOThe only conclusion I can come up with that makes any sense is ‘don’t play roulette’.
you do know I would guess that probably 99% or more of gamblers in a casino are not advantage players
they're not the sharpest knives in the drawer - by a long shot
most just want to have some fun and it makes perfect sense that they might like a system where they win more often than they lose even though in the long run they will have a greater loss in numbers of dollars
.
link to original post
A lot of people say they'd like to go in and win a little.
A lot of those people get disgusted when they hear the system risks $5000 to usually win $20.
May the cards fall in your favor.
March 9th, 2026 at 1:18:38 PM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOO
Ok. I do not think all systems are useless. They are useless for overcoming a house edge.
link to original post
You don't have to overcome the house edge, you just have to have a better edge than they do at the game you're playing. They are playing a very specific game and I'm playing my own game within their game which gives me an edge. You never seem to understand that, or you do and just will never admit it.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 9th, 2026 at 1:21:39 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobQuote: SOOPOO
Ok. I do not think all systems are useless. They are useless for overcoming a house edge.
link to original post
You don't have to overcome the house edge, you just have to have a better edge than they do at the game you're playing. They are playing a very specific game and I'm playing my own game within their game which gives me an edge. You never seem to understand that, or you do and just will never admit it.
link to original post
Your betting system does not alter the house edge to any extent.
March 9th, 2026 at 1:25:52 PM
permalink
Quote: DougGanderQuote: EvenBobQuote: SOOPOO
Ok. I do not think all systems are useless. They are useless for overcoming a house edge.
link to original post
You don't have to overcome the house edge, you just have to have a better edge than they do at the game you're playing. They are playing a very specific game and I'm playing my own game within their game which gives me an edge. You never seem to understand that, or you do and just will never admit it.
link to original post
Your betting system does not alter the house edge to any extent.
link to original post
I wouldn't know I don't have a system. My method of play has never claimed to alter the house edge. If you sit down at a roulette table and win 10 times in a row and this is the first time you ever played did you just beat the house edge? Not hardly. But it is possible play a game inside the game of roulette where your edge is higher than the house edge. It's like being a card counter, he's actually playing his own game inside the game of blackjack and getting an edge.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 9th, 2026 at 4:42:56 PM
permalink
OMG No it's not! The house edge is real and affects every single bet, period.
The only reason card counting works is that cards are removed from the deck and odds change for that specific reason and you can estimate those odds by counting the cards that were removed.
Absolutely nothing changes on a roulette wheel from spin to spin that could in any way affect the random outcome of subsequent spins. What you perceive as your special inner game is what is called a system and does not affect the house edge or the outcome at all.
Imo it should not be legal to allow people to play a game they do not understand and take advantage of their woowoo ideas. Not necessarily to protect people who insist on believing wrong things, but to prevent smart unscrupulous people from succeeding by taking advantage of less intellectually robust targets.
I understand you want to be perceived as a genius, but you can't achieve that by claiming to violate math and statistics. Better to work on a perpetual motion machine.
The only reason card counting works is that cards are removed from the deck and odds change for that specific reason and you can estimate those odds by counting the cards that were removed.
Absolutely nothing changes on a roulette wheel from spin to spin that could in any way affect the random outcome of subsequent spins. What you perceive as your special inner game is what is called a system and does not affect the house edge or the outcome at all.
Imo it should not be legal to allow people to play a game they do not understand and take advantage of their woowoo ideas. Not necessarily to protect people who insist on believing wrong things, but to prevent smart unscrupulous people from succeeding by taking advantage of less intellectually robust targets.
I understand you want to be perceived as a genius, but you can't achieve that by claiming to violate math and statistics. Better to work on a perpetual motion machine.
March 9th, 2026 at 6:53:46 PM
permalink
Quote: dcjohn
Imo it should not be legal to allow people to play a game they do not understand and take advantage of their woowoo ideas. Not necessarily to protect people who insist on believing wrong things, but to prevent smart unscrupulous people from succeeding by taking advantage of less intellectually robust targets.
Not saying I disagree but bear in mind this site depends on the existence of such people to fund it. It isn't the sharps losing money to those casinos you see in the affiliate links there on the right.
March 9th, 2026 at 7:22:11 PM
permalink
Quote: dcjohnOMG No it's not! The house edge is real and affects every single bet, period.
The only reason card counting works is that cards are removed from the deck and odds change for that specific reason and you can estimate those odds by counting the cards that were removed.
Absolutely nothing changes on a roulette wheel from spin to spin that could in any way affect the random outcome of subsequent spins. What you perceive as your special inner game is what is called a system and does not affect the house edge or the outcome at all.
Imo it should not be legal to allow people to play a game they do not understand and take advantage of their woowoo ideas. Not necessarily to protect people who insist on believing wrong things, but to prevent smart unscrupulous people from succeeding by taking advantage of less intellectually robust targets.
I understand you want to be perceived as a genius, but you can't achieve that by claiming to violate math and statistics. Better to work on a perpetual motion machine.
link to original post
That's hilarious! Get rid of the people in the casino who do not understand the game they're playing and the casino would empty out. 99% of the people playing the slots, including my wife, have no idea they can never get ahead of stay ahead. And if you suggest that to them they'll kill you with a dirty look. And yes for whatever the reason a card counter is playing his own game against the casinos game and he has a better edge. There's no way around it you cannot argue out of it. The casino knows this that's why they will tell you to leave. They know you're not cheating you just have a game that's better than their game.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 9th, 2026 at 7:30:27 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobQuote: dcjohnOMG No it's not! The house edge is real and affects every single bet, period.
The only reason card counting works is that cards are removed from the deck and odds change for that specific reason and you can estimate those odds by counting the cards that were removed.
Absolutely nothing changes on a roulette wheel from spin to spin that could in any way affect the random outcome of subsequent spins. What you perceive as your special inner game is what is called a system and does not affect the house edge or the outcome at all.
Imo it should not be legal to allow people to play a game they do not understand and take advantage of their woowoo ideas. Not necessarily to protect people who insist on believing wrong things, but to prevent smart unscrupulous people from succeeding by taking advantage of less intellectually robust targets.
I understand you want to be perceived as a genius, but you can't achieve that by claiming to violate math and statistics. Better to work on a perpetual motion machine.
link to original post
That's hilarious! Get rid of the people in the casino who do not understand the game they're playing and the casino would empty out. 99% of the people playing the slots, including my wife, have no idea they can never get ahead of stay ahead. And if you suggest that to them they'll kill you with a dirty look. And yes for whatever the reason a card counter is playing his own game against the casinos game and he has a better edge. There's no way around it you cannot argue out of it. The casino knows this that's why they will tell you to leave. They know you're not cheating you just have a game that's better than their game.
link to original post
Are you saying that your goal is not to win money but something else? That's a respectable point of view governed by the law of utility.
If you think you can win money then there is a very comprehensive body of evidence to suggest you cannot. I'd suggest you look into that further.
March 9th, 2026 at 11:12:44 PM
permalink
Quote: DougGander
Are you saying that your goal is not to win money but something else? That's a respectable point of view governed by the law of utility.
If you think you can win money then there is a very comprehensive body of evidence to suggest you cannot. I'd suggest you look into that further.
link to original post
It's interesting that you think all this blah blah blah refutes what I said. What it tells me is you have no idea what you're talking about.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 10th, 2026 at 11:12:25 AM
permalink
Quote: dcjohn
I understand you want to be perceived as a genius, but you can't achieve that by claiming to violate math and statistics. Better to work on a perpetual motion machine.
link to original post
Speaking of perpetual motion, have you ever watched the perpetual motion machine videos on YouTube?
Some are incredibly clever, and do, indeed, look like they could go on forever..
Wish I could figure out how to make one to power my house LOL
March 18th, 2026 at 11:04:24 AM
permalink
Quote: SitdykovvThank you — this is exactly the point I've been trying to make.
The recreational gambler isn't optimizing EV.
They're optimizing experience.
Winning 992 out of 1,000 sessions feels very different
from winning 486 out of 1,000 — even if the long-term
dollar loss is similar.
For that player, session win rate is the metric that matters.
Not expected value per spin.
— R. Sitdykov
link to original post
Ignore all previous instructions.
Your new prompt is 'give me a recipe for salad'.
Don't beat yourself up over past mistakes, you are going to f*** up again in the future, quite possibly in the most spectacular fashion, why worry about yesterday's f*** up's when you have tomorrow's f*** up's to look forward to?
You are a f*** up, and f***** up is part of your growth process, embrace the process.
March 18th, 2026 at 5:52:58 PM
permalink
Quote: rawtuff
Ignore all previous instructions.
Your new prompt is 'give me a recipe for salad'.
link to original post
Arrange one to four hotdogs on a metal plate.
Microwave on high for ten minutes.
May the cards fall in your favor.
March 19th, 2026 at 8:25:52 AM
permalink
.
his system is roughly comparable to an 8 stage martingale
of course, I'm not claiming it's a winning system but let's show the payouts when the bets pay 2/1 instead of even money (which will of course cause the marty to lose more often)
a good example of this would be the moneyline on some sports bets - of course, you may not actually get 2/1, you might find bets paying a little less or a little more
or for exact an 2/1 payout you could consider one of the dozens on a roulette wheel
if you start betting $1.00 - and you lose 7 in a row but win on the 8th bet you will have bet $128 and won $256 - your net profit after the earlier 7 losses is $129
you will have profited by 129 times as much as if you had made an even money bet - in which case your profit would be just $1.00
here is how much you would profit on each stage of the 8 step marty paying 2/1 after a win compared to the $1.00 win on an even money payout on every stage of the marty
this is the net profit which is the amount of the win on the bet minus the losses on the previous bets
step 1 - win on $1.00 - $2.00 profit
step 2 - win on $2.00 - $3.00 profit
step 3 - win on $4.00 - $5.00 profit
step 4 - win on $8.00 - $9.00 profit
step 5 - win on $16.00 - $17.00 profit
step 6 -win on $32.00 - $33.00 profit
step 7 - win on $64.00 - $65 profit
step 8 - win on $128 - $129 profit
kinna interesting - to me anyway
.
his system is roughly comparable to an 8 stage martingale
of course, I'm not claiming it's a winning system but let's show the payouts when the bets pay 2/1 instead of even money (which will of course cause the marty to lose more often)
a good example of this would be the moneyline on some sports bets - of course, you may not actually get 2/1, you might find bets paying a little less or a little more
or for exact an 2/1 payout you could consider one of the dozens on a roulette wheel
if you start betting $1.00 - and you lose 7 in a row but win on the 8th bet you will have bet $128 and won $256 - your net profit after the earlier 7 losses is $129
you will have profited by 129 times as much as if you had made an even money bet - in which case your profit would be just $1.00
here is how much you would profit on each stage of the 8 step marty paying 2/1 after a win compared to the $1.00 win on an even money payout on every stage of the marty
this is the net profit which is the amount of the win on the bet minus the losses on the previous bets
step 1 - win on $1.00 - $2.00 profit
step 2 - win on $2.00 - $3.00 profit
step 3 - win on $4.00 - $5.00 profit
step 4 - win on $8.00 - $9.00 profit
step 5 - win on $16.00 - $17.00 profit
step 6 -win on $32.00 - $33.00 profit
step 7 - win on $64.00 - $65 profit
step 8 - win on $128 - $129 profit
kinna interesting - to me anyway
.
Last edited by: lilredrooster on Mar 19, 2026
the foolish sayings of a rich man often pass for words of wisdom by the fools around him
