Law of Statistical Propensity (Roulette SECRET) 

I recently started developing an advanced roulette simulation system. I ran 30K spins (retrieved data from real life roulette tables). It is interesting for sure. For instance, the highest amount of a single number not being hit in a row was 421. While another number scored 333, and the rest "averaged" at 285 or lower. I think the difference between the 421 and others is extremely odd, and probably quite rare too (not sure yet). Other data was that Red/Black both hit 15 times in a row at a maximum based on the sample data. The maximum misses on a column/dozen was 28 and 29 misses in a row. The coming weeks/months I will keep analyzing and add even more data for sure. I can also try out different "systems" and simulate the results profit wise. It's quite a funny project to say the least. Great video 👍

The universe works in strange ways, but it likes to find a balance when observed.

I agree. The second law of thermodynamics agrees as well. The law of large numbers agrees. It is totally possible for a number to come up 23 times, but its super rare. I believe it is almost impossible for a human made table to be perfectly level to provide no bias. That is one of the strategies some players used to win. The wheel was bias to one section of the wheel. I the way I explain it to my son is if you flip a quarter a 100 times it could land on head every time, but it isn't very likely, is it? I bet those same people who don't agree, do believe in entropy...

Equal distribution is when we receive 1 hit upon all 37 numbers within 37 spins. These are results according to strict probability, where the greatest probability will always be with the numbers that are currently sleeping the most. When we actually look at groupings of at least 37 spins, we will find that there are 3 groups which are according to the Law of the Third, which is NOT a uniform result! The reason for this is because after 37 spins the chances of the results conforming to complete uniformity is practically impossible! This phenomenon applies to all spin sequences, regardless of length. The problem with "averaging" large groups of results is that the number of spins used to create that average so very vastly exceeds the length of a single play session when we are at the table! Averaging of results is completely irrelevant! The Law of the Third applies to all sequences and is the only reliable benchmark because sleeping numbers will always remain so, never achieving the top performance (top 6 numbers) regardless of the length of the spin sequence!

I don´t see needed making statistics and more statistics. In a random sequence of numbers, do this: 1. Invent a Pattern !!! What pattern ??? Well, ANYONE !!! But it allows you to scroll through the results and analyze whether your invented pattern occurred or not. 2. Record some 1000 results from some casino roulette, and scroll through those results by analyzing their pattern: notice the sequence of times it does, and does not. 3. With the data in hand, you have analyzed how many times your pattern often fails, so you can use this as an "entry point" for a betting sequence. 4. Always keep writing down every gaming session, scrolling through it, and analyzing how many times your pattern misses… (this usually makes you notice a TREND that can be used to increase your chances of winning). Remember, the frequencies change, always write them down and apply them to each betting day.

Interesting thought. I am an author, currently in the final chapters of my books. Publishing 6 books of 5 different systems at the end of this year. One book will feature all strategies. Statistical analysis reveals a lot more about this game as people may think there was, since the casinos create a fuzzy feeling where it is okay to lose money and fool the player by distracting from relatively obvious facts. By balancing wheels to perfection, so good that a bias could not be detected in the life time of a roulette table, they have created another whole new bias, which everyone can see and detect with simplest means. The question you should ask yourself, before actually diving into mathematical, physics and mechanical or even statistical details, is, if a man-made invention, like roulette, is flawless. This also includes the perfection of manufacturing, the set up, maintenance, use of material and of course the operational aspects. Especially focus on those things which the casinos invented as a countermeasure against fraud and against those who use visual ballistics or physics as well as (also in combination) with statistics. Also, is the kind analysis of the players focus important. And suddenly, its no more a game of chance but a masked thimblerigger. I can keep you updated if you wish. Cheers from the EU, from a country that remains in the EU.

The way I see it, If you flip a coin 5 times and it lands heads every time, even though it's an independent chance of 50/50, the probability of the next flip being tails is worth betting on. And the odds get higher for each flip that does not land tails. These are worth betting on similar to "investing" in the stock market. Some odds can even be seen as a socially acceptable term "investment".

It is true that in average every number comes up every 38 spin buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut you know that there is a huuuuuuge gap in reality? Use excel and count one number that you like. It can happen that a number doesn't show up for more than 300 spins. Sure it will show up for sure, but there is no strategy I've seen that can deal with 300 misses.

If red hits 5 or 6 times im betting against it. I know there's a 50/50 chance still. But then I think what are the odds of red hitting every single time 50/50? Thats like saying there's a 50 percent chance the first 50 spins will be red and the next 50 will be black. If its 50/50 . Technically speaking. That doesn't add up in my mind. I feel like odds of a streak happening or the number of that hits in that streak are not really taken into consideration. What are the odds it rolls red 50 times in a row. Is it 50/50? I doubt it.

The probability of an unbiased wheel producing the number 7 at least once in 3000 spins might be 100%, but that's an approximate value based on the fact I can't be bothered to calculate and then pedantically type a load of 9s. It's not precisely 100% though. If you were to spend a million years spinning a roulette wheel, then you certainly will start seeing runs of 3000 spins without a particular number coming up, and the frequency of such events will average out to the expected value the more millions of years we spin. The reason we don't see these things happen is because, best I'm aware, nobody has spent a million years or so analysing roulette spins. Sample sizes in the real world are far too small to find such astronomically unlikely events.

Using pascals triangle and outcomes on a Galton board you can see the order out of chaos

Put simply, the fewer the spins the less predictable the number distribution, with random chance and with thousands of spins the more predictable the number distribution with random chance. The problem with roulette is that people play with limited number of spins, they have limited money and the odds are against them. only way to win in roulette is if you find some sort of pattern in a defective machine or if you are lucky and know when to stop.

Run 500 spins...note the 10 coldest numbers. Run 500 spins more and look at those 10 numbers we selected....

This is true, you can only win few desisions though and bank roll should be used properly

What you are trying to say is that the average always reaches the bias at infinite time. So a completely nonbias wheel should have 1/38 chance of any number if given infinite spins.....so at the first half of infinite time, you have an average rating at 1/37, then the second half of infinite time should be 1/39 in order for the 1/38 for the total over infinite to come out. This means that if the first roll in a newly opened roulette game is black, then flat betting 1 unit on red with infinite money for the rest of the universe will yield you 1 unit win in total at the end. Which suggest that there is not enough mathematical edge to constitute the contrarian play. You state that a wheel/game is biased if you see far too many of something, but that's an unknown state of the game at infinite time scale......we have no way of knowing at a given moment whether 8 or 9 red numbers in a row constitutes a red-heavy bias wheel. In fact, the longest streak was 32 reds, and I personally have rolled 18 of a color in a row on 4 occasions in less than 9 years (and 5 of the same number in a row) and I'm not even on that game that often. At what point would a person say "that's a lot of X, so let me bet Y"....or rather at what point do you think the past will dictate a high enough edge for you to warrant a bet against it? 8, 18, or 32? Personally, I like to play the game like a stock market, black is up a tick and red is down a tick, and I raster a "candle" after 10 ticks (I exclude the zeroes as "commission" for the trade).....when I buy/sell "shares", I am simply flat betting the amount on the appropriate direction I want (so 1 share is 1 unit). If the "market" moves against me, I might look to "average down" and increase my bet (but stay at that new flat level). At any point I can close or reduce my position to take profit, or I run out of bank and that was an unlucky night. I may have multiple 'markets' open (high/low and even/odd at the same time softens the losses by diversifying). So yes, I'm contrarian and I love the concept of "past dictates future" idea, but honestly, being a dealer, I know that's dumb and I'm just kidding myself.....so it lies solely on whether you are lucky or not on that given day, that's it.

It depends. There are 2 factors, the speed of the spin and the wheel condition.

I've understood this for a long time but I've never heard it explained so well. Great video, thanks.

It's indeed independent, but there are mathematical laws the roulette wheel can't disobey ... we can proof this with the pigeonhole principle ... if there are MORE spins than possibilities , the roulette wheel can NOT without repetition .. the only problem is ... we just don't know when exactly , at which place in the spin series, this repetition will occur ;.. an example ... how many combinations of 3 spins are possible with red and black ? answer: 8 RRR, RRB, RBR, RBB, BBB, BBR, BRB , BRR ... so IF we had already these 8 patterns in a spin series ... the 9th will be a repetition of one of these ... we just don't know which one ;.. RRRBBBRBRR , lets break down this spin series ... RRR (1), then RRB (2), then RBB, then BBB, BBR, BRB, BRR .... 10 spins so far, if spin 11 is R ... we get our first repetition RRR (1), if it's B ... the repetition is RRB (2) ... this universal law we see at all thinkable scales ... a group of 4 ... a group of 5, 6 , 7 etc ... or zero also closes the universal law ... so in roulette you always can find spin results which will help to prepare to obey the universal law, the repetition so GROUP of spins are 'working together' in a way to obey the universal law of repetition , but this is not because of dependency , it's because of the limitation of the mathematical reality

If red comes in 20 times in a row that doesn't mean black is due , it just means i feel comfortable betting that it is.

Nobody misunderstands this. It's just variance. The more results you gain, the smaller the variance gets. Just like how it went from like 18-50, vs a little more and a little less, you added data, so the variance reduced. None of this means you have an actual betting strategy since you have to lean into the law of large numbers to hit the statistical inevitability, but the problem with that is the "house edge" is literally the statistical inevitability of what each player would give the casino if the law of large numbers played out over a million rounds, so by testing any of this with any real amount of money, the casino simply takes the "house edge" tax. If you're playing for the long run, you're playing the house edge, not individual numbers on roulette. You would somehow have to prove that a number consistently defies the norm even after reducing variance in such an amount that is higher than the house edge, which biased wheels do create, but betting strategies do not.

Thanks for enforcing my rules. Won $800 today btw

I think it's impossible for a roulette number to never come up, it's just whether it comes up before your fibonacci progression bankroll runs out. Choose a single zero table if you can and never a triple zero. Play low stakes and grind your way up, if you start to quickly lose then just stop and move to a different table, or go play some blackjack or something else for 15 - 30 minutes then try again. The fibonacci dozen and fibonacci dozens are two pretty good systems that have worked for me in the past and still do from time to time. Currently looking for a systems that blends low risk with some jackpot numbers for added excitement.

Roulette rolls are not directly influenced by past results. They do however tend towards evenly distributed results due the average possible combination of results having an even distribution. To visualize this, start by imagining all of the possible outcomes of a set number of roulette rolls. 100 rolls x 58 slots = 5,800 combinations out outcomes possible Imagine plotting 5,800 true false tables (like a table showing the possible states of the bits in a byte) with 58 columns and 100 rows. Then imagine filling out all the possibilities, starting with rolling all 1s, then a 2 and all 1s, then an 3 and all 1s, etc. Imagine lining up all those tables in the order you created them. The player has an equal 1/5,800 chance of any of those tables (games) occurring. There are many more games with evenly distributed number outcomes than there are with wonky ones, like spinning a one 100 times in a row; so, it is more likely that any set of rolls has a roughly even distribution of outcomes. The roughly varies with the number of rolls. The individual rolls aren’t correlated, the possible combinations of a set number of rolls have more evenly distributed combinations than weirdly distributed ones. Therefore, it is more likely that over a large number of rolls the player ends up with a roughly evenly distributed set of rolls. The same applies to colours.

To hot to handle? It's too stupid to deal with.

Yeah, I’m trying to workout the gamblers paradox vs the birthday paradox. 🤔

Not That it matters much but I have never heard one person explain HOW a roulette number gets posted on the board ? It is not manually entered by the dealer.

If you want experiment your systems of Roulette, this book have fews real novel permanences. "Permanences authentiques pour tests" whidarte Joel

you need a lot more spins to calculate it more accurately, I have seen a number not showing up 500 times. You need more spins, like 100,000 games to conclude your theory.

What this video fails to address is that while all numbers will eventually find their statistical standard deviation The number of spins required to do that can easily be in a few thousand spins. With that said any one number appearing on any one spin has NO PREDICTIVE VALUE. And ANYONE who claims that they can beat roulette in the long run ? See the definition of Mathematically Challenged.

How do you know that 3 thousand spins is sufficient? You shouldn’t be looking to get a perfect distribution evenly for every number. You should look is for the likelihood of unlikely outcomes. If I flip a coin 100 times, it’s quite possible at some point I will get 7 heads in a row...

That's absolutely correct

At the end of the day, RNG knows your assumption, and live wheels spinners are trained to not build a method of operation, ..

Past spins have no bearing on future spins -Fact- every spin is independent which odds always favour the Casino

This sounds logical, but I want to ask a question since I don't know statistics or math that well. Is there in statistics something that takes in to account numbers that fell before, so the chance of that same number falling again gets less and less probable?

This was a great and intelligent breakdown thanks

It's true. Law of probability exists

I am now stupider because I watched this video. This is the casino version of r/WSB

Using pascals triangle and outcomes on a Galton board you can see the order out of chaos