The story is fun to read, but the important thing to recognise is that this is survivorship bias in action — the wins get posted and the far more common losses don't. Roulette is a negative expectation game no matter how you bet, and covering a number plus its neighbours doesn't change the odds, it just changes the variance. The sequence described here could easily have gone the other way, and often does. What's worth taking from it isn't the method but the discipline in the middle of the story: walking away at a predetermined point is the only behaviour that reliably protects a win. Nobody posts about that part. There's a discussion on
https://rolldorado.co.at/bonus about separating luck from skill in gambling outcomes — the point about variance masquerading as strategy was well-made. Did you set a limit before you started?