Glad I'm not the only one who thinks so. Unfortunately, his views seem to be influential on this forum, perhaps because Kav has his article "The law of statistical propensity" on this site -- http://www.roulette30.com/2010/04/law-of-statistical-propensity.html#.UubUUd9Qp_I
From the moment the first casino opened, there has been an ongoing controversy as to whether table game decisions are affected by previous results.
um... no there hasn't, or if there has, the "controversy" has only been ongoing among gambler's who haven't bothered to test properly (or don't know how) or seem happy to leave their brains at the door when they enter a casino.
Well, I suppose it must be true because it's on the internet, LOL.
Is it possible to prove that gaming decisions can be influenced by past results? Answering this question begins with a premise: For a roulette wheel to be deemed suitable for live gaming, it would have to show no bias towards or against any of the playable numbers. This could be reasonably established from a trial run of perhaps 3000 spins. At the end of that trial, if the table decisions do not demonstrate a marked deviation from the mathematical expectation, there shouldn't be a problem. But if the number 8, for example, doesn't turn up once in all of those spins, then there is a problem. For the wheel to pass the test, all the numbers would have to come up in a pattern that resembles a fairly even distribution.
But let's take a closer look at the implications of this. If every table game result is an independent event, how can we ever expect any particular number to come up at all? We can't, because there would be nothing to stop the wheel from selecting a different number, every time. And yet, the same people who say that these numerical events are immaculately independent, expect the numbers to conform with the probabilities. But if such events were truly independent, there would never be a moment, or even a sustained period, when any number could be expected to show up.
Several forum members have repeated this nonsense in a effort to justify the gambler's fallacy, but it doesn't take an Einstein to see that it's meaningless. They say things like "why do we never see 100 reds in row? if spins were independent this would never happen".
But the "propensity" of the wheel to certain outcomes is caused by the symmetry of the system which generates the outcomes; it has nothing to do with independence. Saying that roulette outcomes are independent means that there is no connection BETWEEN spins or sequences of spins, ie it isn't possible to predict a spin or spins having observed OTHER spins. If you understand what independence means and insert the correct definition in place of the word "independent", then Ellison means this:
"But if events are such that having observed spins, it isn't possible to predict other spins, there would never be a moment, or even a sustained period, when any number could be expected to show up
Put that way, it becomes clear that Ellison is engaging in mere sophistry, probably to increase sales of his book. Sadly, it seems that several have been taken in by it.