← All case studies · Joseph Jagger biography
Historical method study · Wheel observation
A genuinely uneven wheel and a short run of repeated numbers are different hypotheses.
What happened
Fletcher’s biography frames Jagger’s Monte Carlo story around observation and the possibility of a biased physical wheel. Its historical setting matters: a mechanical apparatus can be investigated as an apparatus.
A modern roulette result list is not, by itself, evidence of the same mechanism. A short unusual run can occur on a fair wheel, and selecting the most striking number after viewing many numbers introduces another source of error.
What the case teaches
For a straight-up bet paying 35 units profit, a hypothetical hit probability p gives expected profit 35p − (1−p), or 36p−1, per unit staked. Break-even is p=1/36, about 2.78%. A fair single-zero wheel gives p=1/37 and expected profit −1/37. If a genuinely established probability were 3%, the calculation would be +0.08 units. The 3% value is an invented teaching input, not a measurement from Jagger’s wheel.
Does this explain a way to predict online roulette?
No. A physical-wheel hypothesis does not establish a defect in a separate random-number game or another live wheel.
Explore the next question
Sources
- Jesus College alumni publication: Anne Fletcher’s book
- Publisher’s book description: From the Mill to Monte Carlo
Source pages checked 5 October 2026. Historical results refer to the dates stated; examples marked hypothetical are Casino101 calculations.
