Coz winkel said only 5-6% have the exact average

[winkel]

That is not exact what I tried to say.
But it gives me the motivation to show you some statistics that haven´t been seen before.

What I critizise is the short explanation of the so called LoTT.

Here is the truth:

If we only count the hit numbers and say there will be 24 hit and 13 non-hit the stats say this:
out of 1,040,424 cycles of 37 spins there are 211,766 cycles with this result.

This is just a part of the LoTT. Because if we have only 13 unhit numbers, that doesn´t mean that we have 14 numbers that have hit once.

We have 54 different outcomes with the name "13 unhit"
only 3 of them have the combined name "13unhit - 14hitonce" and they count 65,716 results

If we have 13 unhit what range is given to the "once hit":
minimum 11 oncehit
maximum 19 oncehit

So if we have 13unhit in 37 spins what is this difference depending on?
It is in the "more than once hit"
the minimum 13non 11once gives us 13 twice hits
the maximum 13non 19once gives us 5 twice and more hits


so the conclusion that you can refer from nonhits to the outcome of the once and morethanonce hit is a dream.

The stats in the picture

[winkel]

The next problem is we have to allow that the average is just missed by 1.
That means only 12 unhit or 14 unhit could fulfill the average.

with 12 unhit we have 42 different results
(remember 13 unhit 54 different results)
with 14 unhit we have 72 different results

so every additional hit reduces the variance of distribution.

[winkel]

Not very much interest in basic knowledge. 

[Tinsoldiers]

Not very much interest in basic knowledge. 

Probably because we are all listening.

[Roulettebeater]

Well said, I like analysis that is based on facts and frigures, the law of the thirds is interesting but trying to defeat roulette with basic concept has been proved and it lost, unless you build a hybrid (multi dimensional distruibutions) you won't be able to set an edge for yourself.