Past numbers have *NOTHING* to do with future events?

[TurboGenius]

Turbo thanks for the answers. One more question probably last. If playing based on past is random, how is present and future not random. I am assuming it is random as well and then irrespective of how one play their numbers, what plan one have, at the end of the day one is playing a random game right?

Correct - the present spin and the future spins will be random outcomes.
The past spins are as well - but they don't give hints on future spins.
Random has rules (grins). As Mr J posts about often - even with random we can know that x,y and z will have a high probability of happening. We only need to defeat the house edge - which mathematically is very small.

[TurboGenius]

Betting random against random gives a neutral/downward trend, you must have some kind of structure or plan in your betting,...

Correct - neutral is of no use. The only way to win against random is to find ways to predict (at a slightly larger percentage of accuracy than the house advantage) future spins.
It's not mumbo-jumbo, "karma" or "luck". It takes no super-powers to do so.

[Priyanka]

Random has rules (grins). As Mr J posts about often - even with random we can know that x,y and z will have a high probability of happening.

he he... General what do you think about this.

To me, it is very straightforward. There is a big dark room and there are many small pathways to exit the room. However there is a long path that goes round and round. Many people will be walking round and round without finding a way to get out. However, there are few people who has found those small pathways to exit and travel freely in and out. However each of them know only those pathways they have discovered and led to believe that, it is the only way to travel at will and preach others and encouraging them to find that way. Turbo you have a way to beat the game which is not using the past, that doesnt mean that past spins doesnt matter and past spins cannot be used to beat the game. General might say, it doesnt matter whether it is past or future, unless you are able to find a bias house edge will catch you on a long run and math proves it. Steve might say, go to hell with numbers, physical attributes of the wheel is what matters and hence increase your prediction using computers even if there is no bias. While I am fan of your way of using future spins, I am not when you say past cannot be used. Everyone to themselves and there is nothing right or wrong as long as they are able to work it out and understand what they are doing.  I use past spins. I saw an interesting graph in your signature, this is my graph that uses past spins.

Maths has  always been rewritten. Rational numbers became irrational. It becomes surreal. So is physics. People deconstructed things to atoms and then further into tinier particles that constitute atom and still their is no limit to what is to come. Science and maths waits for proof to change and adapt itself. There is no proof to whether it is A or B and unless there is a proof, the discussion will continue. The key is not doing the same thing again and again, but do something different everytime. .

[TurboGenius]

he he... General what do you think about this.

Please note: I said "probability" not something that is 100%
It is as simple as knowing that 38 different numbers won't show in 38 spins - and that the same number won't spin 38 times in a row. Even with random we have rules - we have probable outcomes, even predictable ones.

[Priyanka]

Please note: I said "probability" not something that is 100%
It is as simple as knowing that 38 different numbers won't show in 38 spins - and that the same number won't spin 38 times in a row. Even with random we have rules - we have probable outcomes, even predictable ones.

Turbo - I think we both understand each other and are in perfect alignment. I think the disagreement is mainly semantics. I am happy with that.

Taking the example you have typed here when you arrive at the table number 6 is spinning. Do you think the past 37 numbers would have been 6. You enter a table and the past 20 spins has been different no repeats. Do you think the next 17 numbers will have repeats from those 20 spins that has gone through?

[TurboGenius]

Turbo - I think we both understand each other and are in perfect alignment. I think the disagreement is mainly semantics. I am happy with that.

me too

[The General]

Priyanka,

Regarding your post...some of us aren't in a dark room.  We escaped the confines of the box that's the gambler's fallacy long ago.

[ignatus]

TG: I've tested your theory, link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=16877.0 

[TurboGenius]

TG: I've tested your theory, link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=16877.0 

lol - no comment. I have nothing to do with that !

[Turner]

I firmly believe that its your own view on proceedings, or you are a follower.
Ive started with TurboGenius and are lately looking at his advice.

I have great respect for the guy, as do I with Priyanka. But Im no follower.

I like to be inspired....but I love to look at it from my angle.

Other influences, but not always on roulette knowledge....sometimes attitude, intelligence or sheer drive
GLC
MrJ
Iggiv
Steve
Ignatus
Caleb Johnnson
Drazen
TCS
Bayes

to name but a few

But I still want to do it my way 

[MrJ]

to name but a few

But I still want to do it my way 

BINGO, I agree.

Ken

[3Nine]

link:s://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rbLlCxK0pHY