Dieter
Administrator
Dieter
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 8052
Joined: Jul 23, 2014
Thanked by
odiousgambit
November 10th, 2026 at 12:17:24 AM permalink
Quote: mrrogers9000219

I agree that every modern system goes to zero over time. I'm wondering however if folks would agree that there have been systems in the past that beat the house edge?
link to original post



"Beat" here has a fairly narrow meaning.

You can play a system and often win some money, but "beat" implies that the house edge vanishes, which isn't the case with any system I've seen.

I'm open minded enough to keep looking, in case someone figures something out.
May the cards fall in your favor.
harris
harris 
  • Threads: 82
  • Posts: 1060
Joined: Jun 30, 2025
November 10th, 2026 at 7:28:19 AM permalink
Quote: mrrogers9000219

I'm wondering however if folks would agree that there have been systems in the past that beat the house edge?
link to original post



I'm not sure why the math behind roulette would change over time... other than the fact that double/triple zero is more common now lol.

Congratulations on your roulette winnings... I assume you either got really lucky or identified defective wheels.
zbrownson
zbrownson
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 164
Joined: Jul 2, 2020
Thanked by
harris
November 10th, 2026 at 7:53:11 AM permalink
I think the "delusion" is that in theory betting systems could be profitable. In a perfect martingale on a no-edge bet you would keep doubling forever until you won, rinse and repeat. Given the law of large numbers you would eventually win. Betting systems let you control the variance at which you win or lose, you just manipulate that function.

It is the logistical side where this quickly gets derailed.. Players don't have infinite bankroll, tables have limits, games have house edges, operators can refuse bets, etc.... I don't believe in them for the reasons listed, but totally understand the fascination and reasoning behind why people think they might work. At the end of the day though, they are just variance dials.
100xOdds
100xOdds
  • Threads: 742
  • Posts: 5134
Joined: Feb 5, 2012
November 10th, 2026 at 9:19:44 AM permalink
Quote: mrrogers9000219

I agree that every modern system goes to zero over time. I'm wondering however if folks would agree that there have been systems in the past that beat the house edge?

PS- This is my first post on the forum. Over the last 5yrs I've taken a liking to visiting Las Vegas to unwind. 25-ish years ago I was able to fund a doctoral degree and my wife's wedding ring with a certain pattern of play in roulette. That approach is no longer viable but I like to read about different systems to play vs. throwing down chips randomly, fingers crossed.

Seems like I can learn a lot here. Thanks
link to original post


You can beat roulette with volume.. lot and lots of volume.
The secret is:
Pondo's paraducks- A combination of losing strategies can become a winning strategy
Wasn't easy but I've mastered it

btw- What color is a green apple?
Craps is paradise (Pair of dice). Lets hear it for the SpeedCount Mathletes :)
Dieter
Administrator
Dieter
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 8052
Joined: Jul 23, 2014
November 10th, 2026 at 11:21:57 AM permalink
Quote: 100xOdds


You can beat roulette with volume.. lot and lots of volume.
The secret is:
Pondo's paraducks- A combination of losing strategies can become a winning strategy
Wasn't easy but I've mastered it

btw- What color is a green apple?
link to original post



Negative addends do not yield a positive sum.
May the cards fall in your favor.
harris
harris 
  • Threads: 82
  • Posts: 1060
Joined: Jun 30, 2025
November 10th, 2026 at 11:29:36 AM permalink
Quote: Dieter


Negative addends do not yield a positive sum.



  • Jump to: