Yes. That is a question I need to learn how to answer using analysis: "What is the minimum occurrence (number of spins) for a loss sequence greater than [X] after [Y] times in a row?"

I mean being able to answer this question is like the gold key to system design. It allows me to design the perfect winning range based on statistics. So far I haven't learned how to answer this question yet.

Unfortunately the answer to those questions requires extensive research.

I don't believe in computer simulation to get fast results, that would otherwise take a long time to conclude from live tables.

Knowing how many times a black can spin in a row, is of no particular usefulness.

Those who have been around roulettes for a number of years know that seeing 4 or 5 back in a row happens all day long. However 10+ times in a row is getting very hard to find. And much harder 15+.

You won't be seeing that any time soon.

So if I know that 10 black in a row is very hard to happen, if I already saw 7 in a row, most likely it will turn to red in the next few spins. That is information I can use.

The math side claims that after 7 black in a row, what can happen next has nothing to do with those previous 7.

In other words I can see another 7 just as easily as the first 7.

Then y I almost never see 14 in a row in my entire stay for the day?

DON'T GIVE ME THE PROBABILITY OF 14 IN A ROW. Which is extremely small.

Use the probability of 7 in a row.

**Don't we ignore what happened before?** Y use the probability of 14 in a row if we already had 7? That probability is now 100% and we should only compute the probability of the next 7

**The point is, if we hide the score board that had brought the first set of 7 in a row, and spin another 7 spins, chances are that you won't see a total of 14 after revealing the numbers on the score board.**

Yet 7 of this or 7 of that you will often see in many boards standing by themselves.

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

Now here comes the real reason behind those phenomena.

Probability may be an integral part of the game of roulette, but in our daily lives, as we watch events happening around us (and that includes observing roulettes), we inadvertently acquire

a VISUAL PROBABILITY of the frequency of those happenings.

**A visual perception of what to expect based on empirical observation as we live thru the same situations every day. **That's how we know that having 2 flat tires in the same trip cannot happen. Or that we can't run into 10 red lights or green lights in a row as we drive, or that 100 planes cannot crash in one year etc. etc. We know it because we see it every day and live thru it every day.

Same in roulette. Math dictates that after 10 heads the probability of heads is 50%. Fine. But trying to get 11 heads in a row will be a very long process. Just to see it once. Never mind seeing it again immediately following the first sight. our visual perception or visual probability tells us that we can't see that happening. Or at least, it is extremely rare to happen.

Therefore there is nothing wrong with betting on the fact that we will not see it, And if we saw 6 heads already it doesn't matter if the probability is still the same for the next tosses.

**The visual probability is not the same. **. ( the fact that I don't see that happening, is important information that I can use).

12 scattered numbers may be missing for 37 spins all day long in many roulette tables.

However 12 numbers that belong in the same dozen you won't see missing for 37 spins.

Y? Because our visual perception (based on experience), does not see 12 numbers missing while a large real estate portion of the table layout is blank at the same time for 37 spins.

We just don't see period. It doesn't happen. Then y does it have to happen if a dozen has gone missing for 20 spins already? Because math says so?

Reality contradicts it each and every time. With extremely rare exceptions.

Are we guided by math alone, or do we also take into account out visual perception based on empirical experience?

And that's exactly what some of us do with their prospective systems.

We don't base out bet decisions on probability alone.

We rather place more emphasis on our visual experience, that a certain event won't happen based on what happened up to that point. Because we simply don't see it happening. at least the overwhelming majority of the time.

And if we don't see it happening for the most part of our roulette life, I don't see y it should happen right there and then when I'm ready to bet.