That is indeed true - which is why I said "your opinion is perfectly reasonable".

Actually I don't think it would be if my reasoning was flawed; wouldn't that be a contradiction?

The truth or effectiveness of AP is not the issue. In essence my argument is:

1 "If in a series of independent fair bets, strategy is irrelevant to expectation, then AP cannot work"

2 "AP does work"

3 "Therefore, in a series of independent fair bets, strategy is not irrelevant to expectation".

Which is a valid argument. It may not be SOUND, because I haven't proved the second premise ( for an argument to be sound, it must be valid and the premises must all be true), but there's nothing wrong with the reasoning.

I can't prove it because it is logically impossible to prove a negative

Why not? If I claim that there's a pink unicorn in my garage and you deny it, you can just look in the garage and if there isn't a pink unicorn there, haven't you just proved a negative?

I claim that no winning roulette system is possible, given certain reasonable assumptions. The proof is well known and widely ignored, LOL.

Not only that, but "it is logically impossible to prove a negative" is itself a negative, so the statement refutes itself.