"I think you might have made a couple of mistakes here: roulette is by definition a -EV game, there is no way to play it with a positive expectation (unless you're the house, obv)".
Roulette has two defects that can -- and have been -- exploited. One is biased wheels that spin up numbers with a frequency distorted enough to negate the house edge. This has been known since the 1890s. The other defect is allowing bets to be made after the ball is in motion. This makes wheel clocking possible. This has also been exploited, and the counter measure is legislation to make it illegal to use the technology necessary to clock the wheel.
"Same goes for craps"
This game also has a potentially exploitable defect: the players are allowed to handle the dice. The most obvious exploit is switching a loaded die in and out of the game. Influencing fair dice is another. Depending on how you play, if you can make seven come up too infrequently -- or more frequently -- than it should you have an advantage.
Is this possible? Here, I don't know. Stanford Wong seems to have thought it was possible, then he changed his mind and doesn't think so. Maybe he's right, maybe he's not. Maybe dice influencing is something that requires years of practice to master, and maybe it's one of those things that only some weirdly talented individuals like Frank Scoblete, the "Mad Professor", the "Captain" or the "Arm" can do successfully just as not everyone can bat 300+ or shoot a round of golf 6- under par. No matter how hard they try, most folks aren't gonna be considered for even the minor leagues or come close to the PGA tour. Maybe dice influencing is the same?
"So... I'm not quite sure why you wouldn't lump those games in with slots or wheel of fortune?"
That's why. The only way to beat Wheel of Fortune is psychokinesis, and no one's ever done that.
