I advise against the roulette system at this time

What system are you referring to?

not because I believe the operators are nefarious but because their algorithm for random numbers does not scale down to a system of this size.

Random numbers don't need to scale. Is this some kind of joke?

As we know, any computer generated number is not truly random due to the chicken/egg problem.

What came first, the bitcoin casino or the mathematically challenged customer?

While provably fair, the roulette table in my experience has not proven to be statistically fair. I do not believe this to be nefarious in nature buy as a result of poorly designed methods of generating random numbers. What I see is a star pattern in number generation.

Is that a thing? "star pattern"? I'm not having any luck googling for it in the context of random number generators.

Fortunately for the proprietor, this has to be the case given the liberal min/max limits on outside bets as they relate to any type of martingale system.

If you can find any kind of a pattern in the random number generator, you should exploit it. If there are more runs of all-red or all-black, then alternate your bets red-black-red-black and you can't possibly lose, right? Or toss a coin before each play and bet red for heads, black for tails. That way you've restored true randomness to the outcome and can take advantage of the site's "vulnerability to martingale"

Broad limits and single zero tables are inherently vulnerable to martingale. Anything too good to be true, absolutely is. The rules of the table as-is would destroy the owner given that the customer base knows basic math.

Martingale is a losing strategy. Single-zero roulette has a house edge of 2.7%. Vary your bets all you like; you won't change that.

Based on my average spins per minute, and a tally of of certain scenarios, I can say with confidence that the house edge on zero's is in neighborhood of 5%

If 2.7 is in the neighbourhood of 5% then you're right. It's only 2.3% doors down the street.

Cases of color reaching 10+ streaks occur multiple times routinely 1000 spins, a statistical anomaly.

You're meant to see 10+ streaks of the same colour every 655 or so spins. ((37/18)^9). If you're seeing them every 1000 spins, you're not seeing enough of them.

The math logic on this table appears to statistically error in the low digits, so if applying any type of martingale one would be best served playing 3rds by number and not row, and certainly not by color.

The worst thing for a martingale player is an unbiased wheel. If I know the low numbers come up more often than they should then I can exploit that and lose less than 2.7% of my bets; maybe even win, if the distribution is skewed enough.

At any given moment, a full history will demonstrate at least 40% of numbers under 12.

I'd keep quiet about that if I was you. I certainly wouldn't "advise against the roulette system at this time". Why not just bet over and over on the 1-12 bet? You get paid out 2-1 for it, and win at least 40% of the time.

I just tested your theory. I played 37 spins, betting "1st 12" each time. I got these numbers:

24 35 30 30 10 23 20 9 15 33 36 0 15 16 18 7 22 26 24 1 36 24 2 15 26 29 32 23 18 13 1 34 9 11 1 7 7

That's 1 zero, 11 in the 1st 12, 14 in the 2nd 12, and 11 in the 3rd 12.

Looks to me like it could be randomly distributed. It's unlikely I'd get so few in the 1st 12 if 40% of numbers are under 12.

And I've probably just fed the troll. Oh well.