The problem with the scheme is that although you catch every streak of 2 or more, these only account for 50% of the total EC outcomes, the rest being singles, and that's where you get clobbered, because every choppy sequence will result in continuous losses.
Generally speaking you can't expect any virtual wins or losses to either give you extra wins or eliminate losses because what you gain on the swings you lose on the roundabouts (something that's usually overlooked by adherents). Like any other bet selection it can be worth trying for a while to mix things up, but all it really does is to redistribute your wins and losses to different patterns, it doesn't give you something for nothing (or at least, nearly nothing. ).
I was expecting to hear this, in theory every sequence has the same probability but from my empirical viewpoint, please explain me why I'm under the impression that this sequence: R B R B R B R B R B R B is less frequent
than this one: R R R R R R R R R R R R or that one: B B B B B B B B B B B B.
Is there any sensible explanation or it's just my idea that alternating EC's are more rare
than series of the same EC ??
Another one of my empirical fallacies is that I've observed columns to be more "choppy" than dozens which I consider them more streaky.
Again in theory it doesn't have any difference, 12 numbers one side vs 12 numbers the other, but does anybody else can confirm such observations?
Regarding the comparison, a fact is that 2 out of 3 dozens contain only "low" or "high" numbers, on the other side, none of the 3 columns contain only numbers from 1 EC without its opposing EC.
This could be an explanation, but why the same group of numbers (EC's) to be more streaky, i theory every number has the same chances, yet again we have witness again and again what we call unequal distribution, in other word some numbers to appear more than their probability while some others less.
I believe probability theory cannot satisfy all the questions completely, or perhaps an explanation regarding unequal distribution lays on the wheel's layout.
I'm not affirmative, just assuming that this could be an explanation.
Last but not least, please could you answer me the following: according my calculations I've concluded that 30 numbers can never be less than 72 appearances in 100 outcomes, could you confirm this?