It is just a matter of knowing what the wheel is throwing at the time.

[cheese]

"Never think something is due, nothing is connected. " This is not true at all.  It's funny to me that people believe this. 

I actually laughed out loud when I read this post. When asked
to explain how the connection works, they have nothing to say.
In the old days, the Mob called these guys 'casino oriented'. These
days, they call them losers....

[iggiv]

Cheese, u r looking for simple answers, but  u  never give ones. that's not fair.
u were asked many times how your winning method works but never explained.
Anyone could call u "casino oriented" too. What difference is between your
opinion and other opinion? Nothing. they don't give exact details and u don't.
but u behave as if u r a winner and they are not. How they heck can u know about them?
u just can't. They can say the same about u.  Period.

[cheese]

u were asked many times how your winning method works but never explained.

The only people I show it to is the casino. They're
the only ones paying to see it.

[Nathan Detroit]

WE don`t gamble, the casino does by allowing US to play .

Nathan Detroit
HAPPY WINNINGS!!!

[iggiv]

The only people I show it to is the casino. They're
the only ones paying to see it.

that's OK. but the big question is why  u demand from the others to show U?
and when they don't want to  -- u consider them losers right away. Beats me.
u think u have the right not to, but  the others don't. They are obligated to show  u
everything or they are losers. As simple as that.

i think this is weird and funny

[ll l ll l lll ll]

Oh, they're independent, you can take that to the bank. When they aren't, like with an RNG, they can't be beaten. Weird, huh.

Independent is the ANTI-trend, the ANTI-pattern.

[cheese]

that's OK. but the big question is why  u demand from the others to show U?

I don't from everybody and you know it. Just from
the obvious frauds who have an agenda, like selling
books. The rest I could care less about.

[Bo1973]

There is a winning system and i can proof it.  I dont sell any books or something like that.  The only thing is you'll have to see it live to believe it. 
Average win 90%! I don't share my formula, but you can play along, my profit 20% of you're profit. 
The only thing is you'll have to come to the Netherlands.  No scam!

[iggiv]

I don't from everybody and you know it. Just from
the obvious frauds who have an agenda, like selling
books. The rest I could care less about.

PRP did not sell anything, but u counted him as a loser right away anyway. Not nice.
About "obvious frauds" it is a very bold statement. If a person has written some books and comes here to discuss and tell about  roulette playing ways without promoting anything,  u already declare him an "obvious fraud". Though many people declare the opposite. Many people state that whoever u called "obvious fraud" helped them one way or another. Some state the opposite. Some people have no clue but "tunnel vision".  but it is one word against another. Basically it is unfair discrediting this person and others as well.

that's not nice, Cheese.

[cheese]

If a person has written some books and comes here to discuss and tell about  roulette playing ways without promoting anything,  u already declare him an "obvious fraud".

Why do you exaggerate everything? There are very very
few people I say anything about at all. If you can learn
to win more than you lose from the obvious frauds, good
for you. Personally, I think all they have to offer is hot air,
cloaked in mystery and evasiveness.

[iggiv]

Cheese, u r too jumpy in your conclusions.

[Red74]

I found this thread a fascinating glimpse into the dynamics of how people talk to each other and how opinions are put across.  From a standpoint as a psychologist and poker player who has recently dabbled in roulette, really interesting! In the end I learned virtually nothing about how to play roulette.  The same opinions were blurted out a million times just in different guises and with escalating animosity. 

There are 2 schools of thought in this thread, those who purport to some kind of system involving past trends of outcomes, and those who see only the cold hard facts of maths and thus deny any trends are meaningful in predicting outcomes.  Now the reason 30 pages of back and forth ping-pong battles have taken place is that, those on the 'trends' side, either cannot or will not elaborate/prove how their system works.  Those on the 'maths' side demand answers.  If we could lose the personal insults of psychobabble, ufos, imbaciles and the like we might be able to get to the crux of the matter sooner than 30 pages.  There is a lot of 'side-taking' in this argument.  I prefer to take a completely objective view as far as possible, given I don't know any of you and my first ever game of roulette was 2 days ago.

I am a pragmatist, an empiricist if you will, and by training I am expert into how people think, how they form beliefs and how this influences behaviour.  So, my first thought was that past trends in roulette cannot possibly be useful in deciding how to bet in future spins.  If we take out any biasing factors and assume a perfectly random set-up this is of course 100% fact - no one can possibly know what is more likely to happen in the next spin (even if 20 reds have come in a row) - the fact that I have said the system is perfectly random, by definition means it has 50-50 chance regardless.  At this point bear with me - I am not necessarily in the 'maths' group - stay objective and we all learn something!

The only way any favourable conditions may be at play is if there is any biasing of any sort.  Any trend based on biasing may well be used advantageously.  But the trend may not be based on biasing but on randomness.  BUT - so what?! Whether an apparent trend is based on 'favourable conditions' or not - it DOES actually make sense to bet as if the conditions are favourable.  This is because it can't hurt to bet this way as given that if this is not a meaningful trend but just random, then to bet as if it is favourable gives the same odds as not using such a system as it's 50/50 anyway. 

Therefore the ultimate conclusion must be: If you have evidence that a wheel is biased and throwing up trends then play this.  If you have no evidence of any bias, that is not the same as evidence of no bias, therefore again play as if favourable.  If there happens to be no bias - and let's face it it stands to reason that in the vast majority of instances there is no actual meaningful bias/favourable conditions - then it doesn't hurt to play as if there are favourable conditions - and at least you are ready to take advantage if there are!

So the 2 opposing arguments on this thread in a way are BOTH right.  The maths people are right to say you can't predict the future random number based on past perfectly random numbers.  They are also right to ask for proof and a more explicit and eloquent response from the 'trend' school who simply shout them down.  Both sides are guilty of making personal attacks to each other.  The trend school I believe do have the practical reality of using this trends system and feeling it works for them, partly down to the explanation I give above - i. e.  being ready to take advantage of any genuine favourable conditions even though most of the time the trend is randomly produced.  Furthermore, when they hit on the next spin due to their system - they get a feeling of 'reinforcement' making them more likely to continue to adopt this strategy and believe their reasoning is right - despite their success often being luck (50/50).  I feel this sense of reinforcement which is well understood in the field of psychology, may well be leading some to placing more emphasis on favorable conditions that is warranted.  But as I say this doesn't matter as the worst case scenario for them is that they have 50/50 chance anyway.  I also feel the 'trend' school would find it hard to explicitly elaborate on their 'system' as they realise deep down it's not based on anything more substantial than I describe above.  I'm sure they want to give the impression of having mastered something esoteric, and they achieve this by not explaining and providing proof - or saying that even the proof would not be convincing if they did see it as somehow the maths school are not esoteric enough as people to get it!

In the end, simple maths and common sense suggest you play as if a trend is real even if it's not! Further common sense suggest do not spend too much time on this gambling game as only a few lucky people will show good profit, even those who manage bankrolls, playing time and tilting need luck above and beyond a coin flip to win short or long term.  Without preaching, surely roulette by definition is a gamblers fallacy.  Give it up and take up a game of skill/chance. 

         

[crackers]

Red74 Quote: " and those who see only the cold hard facts of maths and thus deny any trends are meaningful in predicting out comes."

I think that the trend people say that trends are not about predictions. That's the argument that the math people want to have anyway. At least that's what they always complain about. This had been going on for many years. It's  even a split argument among the math community.

[Rocky]

Interesting observation Red74..........

The reason those who believe in past spins determining future spins generally won't explain is because they have come up with something that works pretty consistently.

To prove it at a very simple level, (and I'm giving something away here) go back through your history of past spins you've collected over the years........ and observe on a basic level whenever a number alternates, i.e. say 16 then number 8, then number 16 again as they come out in that order or say 17, 23, 17 (it doesn't matter which combination of alternating numbers) and even as an example 15, 30, 4, 15 (even a repeat of the same number two positions away spun in that order what you will see 8 to 9 times out of 10 spins, is that the ball will go to zero (or 26 or 32) on a European wheel within the next 6 to 12 spins after this.

So in the above example 16, 8, 16 then in the next 6 to 12 outcomes, going back to zero, (give or take one position either side of it). The same with the above example of 15, 30, 4, 15 ( a lot of times its zero next spin, but 8 to 9 times on average in the next 12 spins.

I don't know why it does this, but this is one pattern I've observed consistently over many years and have even gone to the casino, just tracking zero's this way to pay for my son's travel interstate one time, as I knew I would get the money needed at short notice.

Cheers Rocky

[TwoCatSam]

"So in the above example 16, 8, 16 then in the next 6 to 12 outcomes, going back to zero, (give or take one position either side of it). The same with the above example of 15, 30, 4, 15 ( a lot of times its zero next spin, but 8 to 9 times on average in the next 12 spins."

Rocky

Don't mean to be contrary and I hold the same belief:  Certain numbers cause other numbers to come.  Bear with me..........

How long would a body have to sit to see 15, 30, 4, 15 come in that exact order?  Maybe days?  Weeks?  What if you went to pee?

Surely you must have a myriad of numbers and each of the combinations points to a different number.  Otherwise you'd be sitting for years.

Also, in your first example of 12 outcomes betting 3 pockets.......well that's a hit on one of 3 numbers in 12 spins.  That's 36.  Is that guaranteed?  Or does concentration and dispersion play into it?

Sam

[TwoCatSam]

-