So according to you this:
18, 6 ....
Has the same probability with that:
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
How often will you see 1,1,1? How often will you see 1,2,3? Or 3,2,1? They each have the same probability, and on average will occur the same amount of times.I think where most people dont get it is they have never seen 1,1,1,1,1,1,1, so they assume they can make a system based on it. But have they ever seen 32,14,4,1,8,12,17?
What it matters is to win, a minor profit because of the unfair payouts is still better than losing.
Any profit, over the long term, is only assured if you overcome the unfair payouts. And this is only possibly by increasing accuracy of predictions.
What makes us lose is the variance and not less profit.
No, what makes us lose is unfair payouts for the odds. Variance is nothing but plain statistics. Variance basically means "things wont be exactly as expected".
It's like you are claiming that a business could be terminated because of the taxes!
No it's nothing like that.
I suggest you do the following experiment, place two bets simultaneously, one on red and the other on black, find out how long it would take to lose your bankroll. While one who is doubling up continuously will lose his bankroll in just a few spins.
All that would prove is larger bets means larger losses. It's a simple concept.
Perhaps you should buy a dictionary.
I have one, but prefer dictionary.com. Your wording "results are altering", depending on the context, could mean a few things like:
a. Results are always changing
b. Results are "due" eventually
You did not give clear context, so I dont really know what you were saying.
They don't have to, everything is a cycle and history repeats again and again like a deja vous.
Actually history is a never-ending unfolding of events, with ever-changing variables. To some degree, history does repeat. That's because the variables that determine the winning number are similar enough. But if you mean RRBBRRBB means B will spin after RRBBRRB, then no history doesn't repeat with any greater probability than R spinning next.
I'm all up for rational debate, but what you are saying so far isn't correct. It isnt my opinion. It is clear fact anyone can see with proper testing.