>gambling still isn't solved through mathematics
Is it simply impossible?

It is though

>>16696849
You can only predict the odds of a bet but you cannot predict the results itself

>>16696846 (OP)
Make a simulation of roulette where you bet on colour, if you loose bet on the same colour, but triple the bet.

>>16696846 (OP)
Solving RNG is like trying to solve encryption without having the key. Theoretically it could be done but the computational power isn't feasible.

>>16696916
That is a terrible comparison.

If you model RNG as "true randomness" then the results become informational theoretically unpredictable not computationally unpredictable. If you acknowledge the processes are not truly random but the result of well known physical laws then the unpredictability comes from the lack of precise initial conditions. So, still not computational infeasability.

>>16696846 (OP)
what do you mean? casinos solved it centuries ago

Gambling in casinos usually involves Finite probability, so its pretty much solved. Gambling elsewhere where you think pushing buttons will land you 1 million can't be solved and you'll never win, only lose

>>16696846 (OP)
Gambling is about as solved as it can be.

>"can't solve gambling"
>refuses to acknowledge method of play as a solution
Hello, retard.
Please refer to double or nothing and card counting in Blackjack. Let alone every other solution that is not a "solution" by your meaningless constraints.