Real said:

The red and black only appear to catch up to one another because the spin samples grow larger, and because the percentages appear to converge. **HOWEVER, the numeric difference between the two tend to actually grow much much larger.**

This

*can* happen, but it is not the only scenario.

**If this were always the case, then all we had to do to win, would be to bet on the trending color. ** Things are much more complicated than this.

Actually Palestis thesis can be supported by serious arguments

*besides* the writings of R. D. Ellison:

Gambler's Fallacy or not? and

Statistical Propensity. Just to make myself clear, right now

**I do not express a definitive opinion on the matter**. I'm just saying that there are pretty good arguments supporting the "balancing out" view. I'm talking about theories like the

Ergodic Hypothesis. Btw, long time ago I have posted this:

------------

** A simple test that would gain you a Nobel prize**

According to current probabilities theory, roulette is a game of independent trials and independent probabilities. No mainstream professor on probabilities would accept that past results can influence future results. One of the reasons for this thesis, is that academics care about "single spin" probabilities than groups of spins (more on roulette group

probabilities in the future). Anyway, if someone can prove that previous spins can give us information for next spins, he would turn mainstream probability theory upside down, and most probably would win a Nobel prize. Here's a simple test to prove that previous spins offer info for following spins.

**Research**1. Take a database of past roulette spins - like

these spins2. Search for series of 50 consecutive spins with less than 12 appearances of one color. (that is around three standard deviations from normal distribution)

3. Record the appearances of that color in the following 50 consecutive spins.

**Result**Theoretically in step 3, both colors have the same probabilities of appearing. For example, in 20 tests, 10 times should be in favor of the one color (the prevailing color in the previous 50 spins) and 10 times in favor of the other (the less appearing color in the previous 50 spins).

However, real tests show that the next 50 spins are in favor of the color that did not appear in the previous 50 spins.

--------

Then Bayes has created this little tool, I attach here. He wrote:

I knocked up this little tool for experimenting.

But don't get too excited, for one thing, I coded a win to count as "not a loss" (ie; win or break even).

Also, it's one thing to get > average in the next sequence MOST of the time, but that's not the same as making a profit overall, you have to take into account how much you LOSE in those sessions where you get less than average. Another thing to be aware of are those cases where you get a rush of wins early on and then losses later; just betting the next X spins mechanically through to the end may not be the best way to test the hypothesis. I tend to agree with Ego in that the best way is to wait for the correction to manifest before you start your attack.

Note that the 2nd sample (the one you would actually be betting in) doesn't have to be the same length as the first sample (but obviously, the trigger has to be less than the first sample!). Play around with different figures and see what you get.

I haven't actually implemented the file option yet, so you're stuck with RNG for now. Also, it can take a long time to do the analysis (250,000 spins are taken at a time), so be patient. It takes 2-3 minutes on my computer.

I'm pretty sure I coded this idea years ago and the end result in terms of profits was... you guessed it - right on the mathematical expectation.

How the program works:The numbers are adjusted by the sliders. The trigger value is what the program looks for (number of wins) in the first sample. So in the screenshot the number of wins is 12 in the last 50 spins (1st sample). The program then starts from the first spin in the sequence of 250,000 spins and advances by 1 spin at a time checking each 50 spin sequence for 12 wins OR LESS. When it finds such a sequence, it jumps to the next sequence of spins the length of which is given by the number you input for the 2nd sample (again, 50 in the screenshot).

When you've entered these 3 numbers, hit GO! and WAIT.

After a few minutes, the list will fill with numbers. The numbers on the left are the trigger values (so they will be the trigger value or LESS), and the numbers in the right column are how many WINS you got betting the entire 2nd sample sequence. So if for example this number is 28 (and the 2nd sample value was 50), it means you would have made 3 units profits when betting the spins which followed the sample which contained the underrepresented side.

-------

Now it is up to anyone to use this little tool and test for himself.

Btw, back then F_LAT_INO has replied to my post:

**Few years back,on old VLS we tested it on all outside E/C in cycles of 80 spins and it is fact that in almost 85% next 80 spins would be in favour of opposite.**

Sputnik was also very active in that topic back then.