A roulette player worth to follow?

[netpup]

Asking this question means you dont understand it either.

The issue is the odds of the next spins havent changed. The "balance" from the start point makes no difference. Sure, sometimes a balance will seem to occur. Sometimes it wont occur. But more often than not, it wont occur. Thats the house edge.

If it was as simple as you say, why arent you exploiting it to make millions? It's a very old fallacy.

I get it. And you're right. I wouldn't bet on the first dozen or on 1-18 in this situation. I know that low numbers  will EVENTUALLY come. More importantly I get that you cant predict the spin where the low numbers will come, and so my knowledge that low numbers will come has no real use when it comes to placing bets.

My problem was simply this. He simply said low numbers will come. He didn't bet accordingly. He wasn't using a system based on what he said. He just SAID what he said.

If I went into a basketball gym and said, "if I shoot from half court every time, eventually I'll make a shot" and then proceeded to dribble to the basket and dunk instead... Nobody would say, "that guys doesn't know how to play, all he does is shoot from half court".

Maybe the guy is a bad roulette player. I don't think so... But maybe his thinking is way off. That seems to be what you're saying.

And that's fine. Could you just base that on his play and not on things he says that are unrelated to his actual bets? Then I wouldn't think you were being prematurely dismissive.

Thank you for your time and your kind consideration.

[Steve]

His approach is problematic from the start. You cant make a winning system out of such approaches because you're still stuck at random accuracy. It doesnt matter what angle you look at it from.

You need to start by focusing on why one winning number is more likely than another, then thoroughly test your theory over statistically significant spins (cant realistically be done manually).