Probability Vs Mathematical trends

[Yerg8]

I have been using the Fisher method to win a number of sessions with some success Eg: follow the previous colour spun in the hope for a cluster of repeating colours.

Recently it came to my attention that perhaps I could improve my success rate using a 9x4 matrix, to record the successive colour outcomes Eg:
002010150
Z12003050

In the above example there are 2 matches of repeating colours from the top row. The Z indicates a zero. Regardless of whether, in the matrix, the cluster is R or B.

Since there is the law of thirds for dozens, it is interesting to find out whether mathematical models can support or improve the likely outcomes of groups of R or B outcomes using this example above.

Considering the fact that there are 18 red and 18 black positions on the single zero wheel,
(Disregard the zero, and not including RNG) is it safe to say that after 36 spins, we should expect to see an equal distribution of reds and black outcomes?
Eg 18 reds and 18 blacks = 36 spins.

Can we further make a connection that our matrix will match up mathematically in our favour? Is my theory regarding this on the right track?
How can we better account for over a number of continuous spins, that there will be a specific groups of repeats?

Any comments, suggestions, questions are appreciated.

[winkel]

more than 20 years roulette forums and what happens?

One question: did you already think about the double-trick?

[nottophammer]

Yerg
Another approach for betting colours.

[nottophammer]

yerg another finger job from you ?

[ati]

Considering the fact that there are 18 red and 18 black positions on the single zero wheel,
(Disregard the zero, and not including RNG) is it safe to say that after 36 spins, we should expect to see an equal distribution of reds and black outcomes?
Eg 18 reds and 18 blacks = 36 spins.

No it's not. It wouldn't be random if you'd always get equal (or close to equal)number of reds and blacks in such few spins and that would be very easy to exploit. There is variance, and the less spins the bigger the variance.

I have done a quick test on 10,000 spin outcomes, the number of reds in 36 spins varied between 9 and 27.

The important thing is that the odds of any event always remain constant. There is nothing that can change that. In our case the odds of red or black in the next spin is always 50/50, regardless of what happened before.

[Yerg8]

more than 20 years roulette forums and what happens?

One question: did you already think about the double-trick?

What double-trick are you referring to? Do you really expect me to filter through every single previous post over the last 20 years? Hmm, Not possible!

[nottophammer]

This is probably beyond you Yerg

[Yerg8]

No it's not. It wouldn't be random if you'd always get equal (or close to equal)number of reds and blacks in such few spins and that would be very easy to exploit. There is variance, and the less spins the bigger the variance.

I have done a quick test on 10,000 spin outcomes, the number of reds in 36 spins varied between 9 and 27.

The important thing is that the odds of any event always remain constant. There is nothing that can change that. In our case the odds of red or black in the next spin is always 50/50, regardless of what happened before.

Yes I understand what you mean.

[gizmotron2]

Since there is the law of thirds for dozens, it is interesting to find out whether mathematical models can support or improve the likely outcomes of groups of R or B outcomes using this example above.

Math will never tell you when a trend or pattern will start, how long one will last, and when one will end.  They, like all spins, are independent events.

[Joe]

They, like all spins, are independent events.

So how can 'reading randomness' work? 

Logic. It's always in the way.

[gizmotron2]

So how can 'reading randomness' work? 

Logic. It's always in the way.

It works for me because I have the skill and the capacity to concentrate on the things that make it work. So ask yourself this. Do you know what singles on the weak side are? Do you know what it means to keep track of the effectiveness states? If these are just gobbledygook notions to you then you are sort of stuck trying to relate to something you might be willing to present to others as an informed opinion. I can't make people understand. I'm thrilled that many don't want to understand it or learn it. I'm counting on that. If "logic" is your excuse for not looking into it then I'm pleased the most that I can be. I'm sort of in this to blow up people's logic. So I label them mathZombies in order to trigger them to turn away. I'm also doing that because I can. You math oriented people are my personal play toys. So until that time when all is validated I get to play with your minds.  It is two things. Either I'm crazy or you are just following the crowd that thinks they were / are right. I have it all figured out logically also.

[Joe]

Gizmo, you've just demonstrated that you wouldn't know a contradiction if it hit you in the face. All that drivel about 'singles on the weak side' blah blah blah is about past results, and past results are independent of future results, right? You just told us that, right? 

No amount of skill and capacity changes a game of independent trials into a game of dependent trials, so whatever 'skill' you have amounts to diddlysquat.

I'm sort of in this to blow up people's logic. So I label them mathZombies in order to trigger them to turn away.

It's not working. It just makes you look like an idiot and provides entertainment for the 'math zombies', or anyone else with an IQ higher than their shoe-size. 

[gizmotron2]

No amount of skill and capacity changes a game of independent trials into a game of dependent trials, so whatever 'skill' you have amounts to diddlysquat.

It doesn't have to become a game of dependent trials. That's just more of your limited opinion and the search for a straw-man argument. You have just confirmed that you are clueless with an uninformed opinion concerning the effectiveness states. Talking with you is like talking with a fungi. You are a classic mathZombie.

[gizmotron2]

Gizmo, you've just demonstrated that you wouldn't know a contradiction if it hit you in the face. All that drivel about 'singles on the weak side' blah blah blah is about past results, and past results are independent of future results, right? You just told us that, right? 

I'm not using past results to determine future events. That's your baloney belief system. You need it to be that just to be logical. But this is not about any of that. It's always the same with you morons. You need it to predict the future so that you can logically refute it. I have made it clear as a bell this has nothing to do with prediction based on past results. It's all about reading coincidences and continuation of coincidences based on guessing. I know you can't hear me. Take the wax out of your ears.

[gizmotron2]

It's not working. It just makes you look like an idiot and provides entertainment for the 'math zombies', or anyone else with an IQ higher than their shoe-size. 

You are the idiot, not me. It all figures. Do the math. You think it's about prediction and nothing is going to make you suspend your disbelief.