Is roulette spins truly random ?

[luckyfella]

But there is no such dependence.

So, is steve 100% correct with his statement ? Not 99.9999999% but 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt that steve  and caleb leans on all the mathematicians in this world that says the same. Did they ?

Can they possibly be wrong ?

If they are spot on correct, as steve says basic high school math, then roulette spins are random.

All other claims are bullshit and mere delusion posted by stupid people or by people with the intent to mislead. Ofc for commercial gains or some form of psycho issues.

[luckyfella]

If steve's statement is 100% correct, ALL systems strategies on this forum and others as well are ALL losers.

There cannot be a situation where spins are random and we talk about predicting future spins. That's stupid talk.

The entire systems strategy forum is trash nonsense. It's basic high school math. No genius required.

Sorry guys, that's the hard truth. Thank me for telling you this. You don't need me telling you, you already know this. Just need someone else to shake you out of your delusionary state.

That's what this thread is all about.

No bullshit. Just the facts.

Take time to read carefully, understand it carefully what I've taken the trouble to write on this forum. The rest is up to you.

[luckyfella]

Stop all your current research work or discussion. Go direct to the core point.

Answer this question the title of this thread ask,

Is roulette spins truly random ?

Give this topic your utmost attention because your answer will naturally lead you to your appropriate course of action. Everything else is moot.

Thanks for reading. Cheers

[Kav]

Of course roulette spins are random. Who says otherwise? Unless the casino is cheating you roulette spins are independent random events. However...

Large groups of roulette spins obey laws. The law of large numbers and the law of probability.
Random is not a free for all. Random doesn't mean anything is possible. There are expectations to be met. That's why you don't see series of 100 blacks or the same number hit consecutively 10 times.

While one spin can be any of the 37 numbers, when we add more and more spins to our sample then the statistical characteristics to our sample become more and more predictable.

Do we know anything about the next spin?
No.
Do we know anything about the next 10 spins?
Yes. We know they will not be all of them the same number.
Do we know anything about the next 100 spins?
Yes, we know they won't be the same number or the same split or the same dozen etc.
etc.

This knowledge doesn't translate to a precise prediction of the outcome. However, by excluding some possibilities/scenarios, we indirectly, slightly improve the accuracy of prediction. Now this is the concept. How you can take it to the next level and really use it in real play is another discussion.

Note that 100 Blacks in a row IS theoretically possible. As is a 10-times repeater.

[luckyfella]

One last post. The posts above come across as something basic, nothing special that everyone knows - Useless posts.

Let me tell you this, these series of posts is the solid foundation upon which you make progress if any. Without this nothing is possible. You either get it or you don't - the rest is bullshit. And you know it.

[Joe]

If roulette spins are independent, then roulette spins are random.

Not quite. Outcomes can be biased but still independent, and if biased they're not random, so independence doesn't necessarily mean random. For randomness you need both independence and unbiased outcomes.

[luckyfella]

Not quite. Outcomes can be biased but still independent, and if biased they're not random, so independence doesn't necessarily mean random. For randomness you need both independence and unbiased outcomes.

You are correct, thanks for the correction.

[Joe]

Large groups of roulette spins obey laws. The law of large numbers and the law of probability.
Random is not a free for all. Random doesn't mean anything is possible. There are expectations to be met. That's why you don't see series of 100 blacks or the same number hit consecutively 10 times.

Yes but this doesn't mean that future spins can be predicted from past spins.

[gizmotron2]

All other claims are bullshit and mere delusion posted by stupid people or by people with the intent to mislead. Ofc for commercial gains or some form of psycho issues.

Time to play squish the dogmatic illusions of reality.

Let's break this down into three facets. In the world of gambling we have the bet selection process, the mathematical expectations that are indisputable, and the results, either wished for or actual.

Bet Selections:

You can guess or you can predict through physics. I will rule out psychic ability. You make calculations for dealer signature, wheel bias, or visual ballistics. In either case you make a consistent selection based on either a fact or by assumption. Let's just stipulate that this is a constant effort. The question that needs to be answered honestly is does it always work all the time, or does it work at times real good, or average, or very bad at times. I would love to hear the simple consensus on that.

Is it knowable that you have good sessions and bad sessions using physics based bet selection?

Now to guessing. If you have a consistent guessing technique then I can confirm that you will get good winning session, flat going nowhere sessions, and disastrous losing sessions.

The Math

Now for the interesting part. Can you have a winning session even though you experience the average expected losses during that session? For an example you play a 100 spin session. You win just 47 of the hundred and lose 53 of them. Is it possible to win flat betting?

You control the bet amounts. The casino nor the probability police hold a gun to your head. It's up to you to decide what to bet on and how much. That's good too. If it is true that in physics play as well as guessing you can know when you are in a bad stretch of the session then you can control that session. Now the action you take will be in not knowing when the bad will end in the future, but you should know it when you see it. You will still lose the expected amount and win the expected amount in the long run.

So the question is, do you have to pay the same full price for losing streaks? Do you? Is there a law that says you must fully fund losing streaks? It comes down to being able to see the differences between the three possible phases as the current conditions as they occur. Can you do that? You can see when the physics is working better or worse. You can see when the guesses are working better or worse. There is no magical elf causing these conditions. It;s just pure randomness. There is no law of averages that sabotages your play. The space between your ears does a fine job of that without any help.

[MoneyT101]

Interesting topic

If we look at it from Steve’s perspective which is the logical math probability angle

Yes roulette is random! It is independent!

I AGREE 100%

[gizmotron2]

Interesting topic

If we look at it from Steve’s perspective which is the logical math probability angle

Yes roulette is random! It is independent!

I AGREE 100%

Math does not change. Steve is right.

[MoneyT101]

Math does not change. Steve is right.

I said perspective...  you can be correct and I can be correct and we can have different views

0+9=9
1+8=9
2+7=9
3+6=9
4+5=9

You can choose which way you want to get 9 and we both can get there but we don’t have to agree on which way is better.  But different ways require different angles to look at...

Math doesn’t change but the view and Angle used can change the way the information looks and provide something that wasn’t known before

Hope I cleared up what I meant...

[gizmotron2]

Math doesn’t change but the view and Angle used can change the way the information looks and provide something that wasn’t known before

Well perhaps, I guess. Further, Steve is correct. Each spin is independent. Past spins have no effect on future spins. Unless the wheel is biased then the wheel is nothing more than a fair randomness generator.

[6th-sense]

past spins in some minds might be independent and have no ruling as everything is random...

past spins will cause dependence...

how you define that dependence in a catergory is what is being discussed here

so its either it doesn,t or it does...

i,m for not against

[gizmotron2]

so its either it doesn,t or it does...

Don't get me wrong here. Each spin is independent from each other but each spin can be part of a whole different thing entirely. There can be 10 reds in a row and they are something that is the culmination of independent trials. When you look at syncopation, symmetry, juxtaposition, rhythmic intervals, the pathology of patterns, and streaks as a condition of awareness then all that independence crap goes right out the door.