It works - RNG

[Joe]

In the reality where we exist, there is no way that "each number is equally likely from one spin to the next" because ALL numbers are FORCED to strive towards a statistical balance, so in practice this means that every number that is a continuation of the distribution of numbers, must obey the rules prevailing in this reality, so this means that each such number is only part of a larger whole which in the final effect always must show a specific "picture", which in this case is the STATISTICAL BALANCE.

So you're saying that the wheel somehow knows what numbers came up previously and adjusts future outcomes so the statistical balance is formed? It's an appealing thought, but what actually 'forces' the proportion in the long run to conform to balance isn't any mysterious force, but just the characteristics and properties of the physical system as a whole, and primarily the wheel. Because this is true, there is no necessity for balance at all, because if the wheel became biased for some reason, there would be no balance, which proves that it's the physical variables which cause the long-run pattern, not 'statistical pressure'.

The assertion that there no any connection between one spin and the next is illogical from a mathematical point of view, because all numbers must constantly strive to maintain a balance with each other, which may be disturbed ONLY temporarily, but in the end ALWAYS MUST BE A STATISTICAL BALANCE, which could not exist without this "dependence", because there is no effect without a cause. (Of course, this does not mean that the next spin will be depend on the previous spin, because in this case the connection between these two events will be only partial/indirect)

It's not mathematics which is at issue here, but physics, as I've already explained. Yes, there is no effect without a cause, and the cause of statistical BALANCE is primarily the symmetry of the wheel (the fact that it's unbiased). If the symmetry is removed, there will be no balance. Logically, then, what is the cause? The statistical 'pressure' must obey the physics, not the other way round.

You misunderstood me, the point was that IN THE CONTEXT we are talking about, this part of the text "the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other" - is only an ASSUMPTION, because it has never been proven, so if it does influence in any degree, it means that it CANNOT BE independent.

No, I don't think I misunderstood your previous post. The statement was a definition of independence, so it's beside the point to talk about proof. But since you mention it, are you saying that it has never been proven that spins are independent? It's actually been proven many many times. How many systems have been created which use triggers based on events A and B which are supposedly related, only to find that there is no connection at all, and that you might as well have bet a random set of numbers? Gambling forums are full of such systems.

Actually, what has never been proven is that there is any dependence, not independence.

It doesn't matter, because in this case it is enough to use the method of deduction to reach the appropriate conclusions: "An accumuIation of smaII groups wiII form a Iarge group; therefore, anything that appIies to a Iarge group wiII aIso appIy to a smaII group, in a smaIIer way. So, the statisticaI pressure for numbers to conform to their probabiIities wiII be feIt in aII numbers that form any smaII group, just as they do for a Iarge group." - "It comes down to this: in a controIIed environment that invokes a statisticaI certainty, there has to be a cause, and an effect. The effect is that the numbers conform to their statisticaI expectation."

Ok, so as I said in my previous post, Ellison is making the argument that spins aren't independent because outcomes conform to probabilities. But if there really was a 'law of small numbers', as you are suggesting, then he would be correct.

If outcomes conformed to their long-run probabilities in the short run (say 50 spins if playing the ECs), then you could easily make a fortune very quickly, because knowing that in 50 spins the probability of at least 20 reds is over 90%, you would only have to wait for say 35 spins with only 10 reds, then you would be overwhelmingly likely to make a flat bet profit in the next 15 spins. Therefore, this means that spins would be effectively dependent, because knowing that event A occurred, the probability of event B has changed.

The problem is, there are countless systems based on this kind of logic, and none of them work. There is a reason why 'The Law of Small Numbers' is called the gambler's fallacy, it's because there is no such thing. You can argue that what happens in the long-run must happen in the short run, to a 'lesser extent', but then you haven't really understood what 'the long run' means. Mathematically, it means infinity. Try simulating some events (like the one I suggested above) and see how many spins you need to get close to the theoretical probabilities. And realize that probabilities are proportions, they don't tell you anything about exactly how many reds or whatever will be in the next X spins, and they certainly can't tell you which ORDER the reds will come in.

[cht]

No, I don't think I misunderstood your previous post. The statement was a definition of independence, so it's beside the point to talk about proof. But since you mention it, are you saying that it has never been proven that spins are independent? It's actually been proven many many times. How many systems have been created which use triggers based on events A and B which are supposedly related, only to find that there is no connection at all, and that you might as well have bet a random set of numbers? Gambling forums are full of such systems.

If there was 1 systems bet that work veteran members on forums would have found it.

Actually, what has never been proven is that there is any dependence, not independence.

Lots of claims, including mine, which can be separated into 2categories,

1. Claims with full details that can be tested, eh. John Legend, and

2. Claims with insufficient details that can't be properly tested.

ZERO proof.

If outcomes conformed to their long-run probabilities in the short run (say 50 spins if playing the ECs), then you could easily make a fortune very quickly, because knowing that in 50 spins the probability of at least 20 reds is over 90%, you would only have to wait for say 35 spins with only 10 reds, then you would be overwhelmingly likely to make a flat bet profit in the next 15 spins. Therefore, this means that spins would be effectively dependent, because knowing that event A occurred, the probability of event B has changed.

The problem is, there are countless systems based on this kind of logic, and none of them work.

There are plenty of competent rx and excel coders who have done the test.

Your bolded statement is true.

Armed with this fact, it's important that members understand what it means.

The chance of finding something that works is next to impossible.

The simple reason is the math of extra pocket(s) and unfair payout.

Modern wheels are built with precision to spit out unbiased spins. There's computerised monitoring of spins that detect deviation real time. The casino is first to know if that happens.

Many have paid the cost in terms of lost money, fortune, time, relationships trying to beat the wheel. Lives are lost. This is the reality.

Some of you here fall inside this category.
I am one of them. I placed my first bet at the age of 26 that's 3 and half decades ago in a b&m casino. I live in casino paid by comp points. Pitboss or AM(Assistant Floor Managers) have become friends. For those who have done the same know what I mean.

My advice, quit roulette.
Stop gambling.

Your chance of finding a consistent winning bet, ie. Systems bet with positive edge is ZERO.

Your get rich quick dream remains a fantasy.
Your dream ferrari remains in the showroom.
Your dream of gambling to replace your farking job remains a fantasy.
Your hope to find the money in roulette to fund your financial requirement won't happen.

I understand it's hard to face up to reality. But that's the hard truth.

Don't go running to AP because Joe said physics work.

It's another rabbit hole, the same as systems bet. No different.

I had to make this post after reading the PMs.

[Blueprint]

Solid advice

[Ares289]

It's an appealing thought, but what actually 'forces' the proportion in the long run to conform to balance isn't any mysterious force, but just the characteristics and properties of the physical system as a whole, and primarily the wheel.

Presenting the matter in this way is manipulation, because the operation of roulette wheel is ONLY a reflection of the way our reality works, which manifests itself in constantly FORCING everything to tends to a state of balance and the way that were generated numbers doesn't change anything, so it doesn't have to be a wheel.

"No matter if you Iook at a singIe atom or the our soIar system, you wiII find that they are in baIance. A stabIe atom has the same number of protons and eIectrons. The positive protons canceI out the negative eIectrons. When the number of eIectrons does not equaI the number of protons, the atom is ionized and wiII try to get rid itseIf of the extra eIectrons… in other words, naturaIIy get to its baIanced state."

"EquiIibrium is neither good nor bad. It is simpIy a force in pIay aII of the time. StructuraI tension, which is the prime structure we use in the creative process, is a deIiberate set up of non-equiIibrium. The difference between the desired state (the outcome we want to create,) and the actuaI state (current reaIity in reIationship to our desired outcome,) forms a tension because of the non-equiIibrium factor."

In conclusion: The existence of this connection between past and future numbers results directly from the way our reality works, which enforces to tends everything towards a state of perfect balance. In other words: "There is a causative force that compels numerical events to seek their legitimate place within their assigned probabilities"

No, I don't think I misunderstood your previous post. The statement was a definition of independence, so it's beside the point to talk about proof.

I don't understand what you don't understand. This EFFECT: "Two events are independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent" - cannot exist WITHOUT this CAUSE: "the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other" - And it is obvious (in my opinion) that the mention of the lack of evidence REFERRED TO THE ENTIRE CONTEXT OF OUR CONVERSATION, so not to the correctness of this definition.

Actually, what has never been proven is that there is any dependence, not independence.

It's not true. The biggest proof of the existence of a dependence between past and future events is the LIFE OF EVERY BEING, because the mechanism of action of this reality is that where you are now and what you are doing now is the result of your entire life so far (even if you don't understand it) because can be no effect without a cause, the effect is the current state of affairs, and the cause is the past state.

If outcomes conformed to their long-run probabilities in the short run (say 50 spins if playing the ECs), then you could easily make a fortune very quickly, because knowing that in 50 spins the probability of at least 20 reds is over 90%, you would only have to wait for say 35 spins with only 10 reds, then you would be overwhelmingly likely to make a flat bet profit in the next 15 spins.

The existence of a dependency between numbers doesn't mean that this form of connection must be compatible with your assumptions.

[Joe]

In conclusion: The existence of this connection between past and future numbers results directly from the way our reality works, which enforces to tends everything towards a state of perfect balance. In other words: "There is a causative force that compels numerical events to seek their legitimate place within their assigned probabilities"

As I keep saying, this has nothing to do with whether event A and event B are correlated. You are still talking about the law of large numbers. Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't somehow make it relevant.

I don't understand what you don't understand. This EFFECT: "Two events are independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent" - cannot exist WITHOUT this CAUSE: "the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other" - And it is obvious (in my opinion) that the mention of the lack of evidence REFERRED TO THE ENTIRE CONTEXT OF OUR CONVERSATION, so not to the correctness of this definition.

The statement is a definition, not a statement of cause and effect. It's a an explanation of what independence MEANS.

It's not true. The biggest proof of the existence of a dependence between past and future events is the LIFE OF EVERY BEING, because the mechanism of action of this reality is that where you are now and what you are doing now is the result of your entire life so far (even if you don't understand it) because can be no effect without a cause, the effect is the current state of affairs, and the cause is the past state.

If you're going to say that EVERYTHING is dependent on everything else, the concept of dependence becomes meaningless. And if you want to prove that this universal dependence applies to roulette outcomes, post some empirical evidence of just one example where it's true, and can be demonstrated with actual data, not just philosophical assertions. Make clear what is event A, event B, and how much the probability of B has increased with A having occurred. That's the only kind of dependence readers of this forum are interested in.

[Blueprint]

causal relation is a trap

[Moxy]

... (Wall of text) ...

You got some holes to fill in, mate.  Anyways, have you heard of brevity?  If so, what's your opinion on it?

[pepper]

a consistent winning bet,

Here are instructions to find a consistent winning roulette formula....
link:s://web.archive.org/web/20100105123304/link:://win3million.com/

Here's a tip: Stop going on these roulette forums. Everyone just messes each other up with delusions with scammers mixed in. I should take my own advice. I hope I am not a forum freak according to Charles.

[Ares289]

As I keep saying, this has nothing to do with whether event A and event B are correlated.

I don't know which events you mean, but those related to the context of discussion cannot be uncorrelated.

Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't somehow make it relevant.

I repeat the points that are ignored because they are RELEVANT, even if you don't understand it.

The statement is a definition, not a statement of cause and effect.

This particular definition describes reality THROUGH a statement saying that a specified effect is a consequence of a specified cause.

If you're going to say that EVERYTHING is dependent on everything else, the concept of dependence becomes meaningless.

Your entire argument is based on a false assumption.

And if you want to prove that this universal dependence applies to roulette outcomes, post some empirical evidence

If you want evidence that the roulette must obey the laws of reality in which exist, then you must first present evidence that it could be different.

[6th-sense]

Here are instructions to find a consistent winning roulette formula....
link:s://web.archive.org/web/20100105123304/link:://win3million.com/

Here's a tip: Stop going on these roulette forums. Everyone just messes each other up with delusions with scammers mixed in. I should take my own advice. I hope I am not a forum freak according to Charles.

lol...most will think that is a weird statement with quoting win3million.com and charles...

you do know that i transcribed  the whole win3million.com site into an ebook on amazon word for word...

when simon had it....didn,t do the guestbook part though i still have all that too...

bad reviews..though it was only a transcription so not to lost in time..

[Joe]

I don't know which events you mean, but those related to the context of discussion cannot be uncorrelated.

Then let me be very specific. We're talking about roulette, not the universe in general. What I'm saying is that if there is some pattern of numbers or statistical event A which has occurred (such as 12 numbers unhit in the last 37 spins, aka LOTT), there is no correlation between it and what occurs in the following sequence of spins, which you can call event B. For example, if it turned out that one of those 12 numbers were to hit sooner, on average, than a randomly picked set of 12 numbers, that would be a correlation.
If that were the case, the probability of a hit would have increased for those numbers, which would violate the definition of independence.

There are countless other events A and B which could have been used. The thing they all have in common is that for there to be dependence, some pattern or distribution of numbers which has already occurred DOES affect the probability of outcomes which haven't yet occurred. It doesn't matter if the probability is increased or decreased, just that it changes. Of course, the event B must concern the same number of numbers as in event A otherwise the probability will change (but not because of dependence).

If you want evidence that the roulette must obey the laws of reality in which exist, then you must first present evidence that it could be different.

I'm not the one who is saying there is dependence, you are. Where is your evidence for it? As I already mentioned, there is a huge amount of evidence that independence is the reality for roulette, which is what this discussion is about. Please don't go off on a tangent about the universal laws, stick to roulette.

[gizmotron2]

I'm not the one who is saying there is dependence, you are. Where is your evidence for it? As I already mentioned, there is a huge amount of evidence that independence is the reality for roulette, which is what this discussion is about. Please don't go off on a tangent about the universal laws, stick to roulette.

Any time these people that have these beliefs expect something to be due because something else happens in the recent past then they are just making pretentious remarks over cleverly disclosed forms of "Gambler's Fallacy." Sounds like you Joe. But where I make a distinction regarding recent past spins is in recognizing it as coincidental and without cause or effect. There is no meaning or capacity for prediction. There is just one thing and one thing only. A thing can't continue unless it has already continued. Chaos can continue. A losing streak can continue. A win streak can continue. This is a form of connecting. It's not a connection based on prediction though.  It just coincidental.

[Joe]

I make a distinction regarding recent past spins is in recognizing it as coincidental and without cause or effect. There is no meaning or capacity for prediction.

Giz, thanks for owning up. I'm talking about correlation though. And that doesn't necessarily mean causation, it just means association. I have really no idea what Ares289 is on about, perhaps it's deliberate obfuscation. I'm just trying to make clear what I mean. I'm not interested in New Age fluff about everything in the universe being connected. I don't have a beard, wear sandals, or like lentil loaf.

[gizmotron2]

Sounds reasonable.

[Kattila]

This is just an example, not a system:
Let s say event A is the last 18 different numbers without any repeat, and order this event A into this
order/pattern that have two groups 1 and 2 :
121212121212121212
If we start to bet, the enemys are the unhit numbers
and the hit numbers which hit in the same order as the
pattern. When the unhit numbers hit we put them into the same pattern .....121212......
Even with that enemys , we can start to bet the last
group to repeat (event B). The both groups will grow
(most probably), but......
At some point event A will
change from 121212......to event B ....122( or....211).
Past spins do matter, and  event B do depend by event A(past spins), because we have an order(ordered groups) which will change to disorder/aka random, so
the positions between same group Will change.