Is loss inevitable?

[Kav]

I'm tired of hearing that loss in roulette is inevitable, no matter your system. And this claim is often solely based on the fact that the casinos have an advantage (2,7% or 5,2%). Well I have news for you: The house advantage is not the problem. 

Explaining why the house advantage alone can't stop you from winning.

There are 7 different arguments why the negative expected value of 2,7% is overvalued in our discussions about roulette.
The conclusion is this: The house advantage is a reality and a obstacle, but it can not make us lose INEVITABLY.

Thank you.

[beretta28]

Kav
congratulations,your explanation is very clear.
I'm sure that most of expert players know very well that the first ennemy is the variance from average and the extreme fluctuations.
The house advantage is not a problem:we can discuss if it's safer to fight against 1,35% instead of 2,70%,but it's beatable.
I'm afraid you forgot to mention the second ennemy of a player:the bankroll or the huge difference between Casino money and Player money.
I think you know the Bernoulli formula concerning Casino and Player bankrolls.
No hope for the player,even with a roulette without Zero!
If two players decide to play head or tail,the first one with 100 â,¬ bankroll and the second one with 10000 â,¬ bankroll,10 â,¬ per bet,there is no hope for the first:sure loss!
It's only a matter of time.

[iggiv]

I agree.

[kingsroulette]

Casino is not necessarily at a huge advantage at all times. Ashley Ravell won more than a million in a single spin. What could casino do? Pelayo kept playing and winning all his life. Joseph Jagger killed casinos. Charles  Well did this and broke the bank in Monte Carlo. Norman Leigh did it again in France. Where was the house edge and variance for them?
           Do not forget Eudaemonic Pie group and  read a recent feat : link:://:.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1487501/Philip-Greens-big-wins-play-havoc-with-casino-groups-profit.html

[Kav]

Thank you for your replies.

Beretta,
You are absolutely right. I plan to elaborate on the reasons we lose in a coming article. The bankroll difference as well as the table limits are two of the main reasons.

[Steve]

Phillip Green is a high roller. that's big bets, not necessarily a long term winning system.

The Eudaemons used plain roulette physics. They focused on the accuracy of predictions. This is the only way you can win. I made a few pages to explain it but try link:://:.roulettephysics.com/why-it-works/ which is a simpler version with examples at the top

[Steve]

btw kav, looking back at your history of posts, you've been dropping a lot of links to your site. This is spamming. I've left the links there but please no more links.

[MrJ]

Yeah, I wasn't real sure what to do with that.

Ken

[kingsroulette]

Kav's webpages are only informative, not scamming.
             So far, whoever has proven edge in the game were either bias analysts or those using roulette machines. Nothing else worked so far. So, all used physics to beat the game.

[Kav]

Thank you kingsroulette.

I didn't plan to offend anyone. My intention was to ignite a discussion on a much debated topic.

[Steve]

Kav's webpages are only informative, not scamming.

Thats why I didnt remove the links, but its still spamming.