Why random results are NOT independent

[Blue_Angel]

Why "Blacks" are superior to "Reds"? Except if I didn't understand something or I missed something written before

By blacks I mean 100 value chips.

[falkor2k15]

So what does Priyanks says and what are his/her methods? (You don't even specify gender. You either use He or She at times). You say that you have glimpsed this "edge" with your own testing. So how is this edge generated? What does  Priyanka's non-random methods/approach say that differ from all the other methods since you have glimpsed them?

It's complicated and requires a whole syllabus of learning. I am still learning new things everyday. The methods are based on Non-Random: when something has to happen. They are different because there is less variance involved and they follow more stable ratios based on repeats and limiting combinations. I think edge is gained by increasing predictability/ratios for different events and also using VdW to provide a road map for when random becomes predictable. Check out Random Thoughts A concise reference for more info.

[BellagioOwner]

By blacks I mean 100 value chips.

Now it makes sense.  I knew something was missing.

It's complicated and requires a whole syllabus of learning. I am still learning new things everyday. The methods are based on Non-Random: when something has to happen. They are different because there is less variance involved and they follow more stable ratios based on repeats and limiting combinations. I think edge is gained by increasing predictability/ratios for different events and also using VdW to provide a road map for when random becomes predictable. Check out Random Thoughts A concise reference for more info.

I'll check the thread but it still looks pretty vague to me and probably others without examples or evidence.  Thanks replying though. 

[BellagioOwner]

you've done some impressive and extensive explanation on some points on the random thoughts. I must admit that part. Haven't read the whole but really extensive 

[The General]

A winning EC strategy is possible, but the profit would be so puny in comparison with inside payouts.
A player should play with "blacks" in order to worth bothering.-Blue Angel

Not true.  There simply is NOT an EC strategy that would enable the player to remain in profit over time.

[Blue_Angel]

Not true.

Prove it!

[The General]

Prove it!-Blue Angel

The general principles apply to almost all gambling games, and when they apply, they guarantee that systems cannot give the player an advantage.

To help you filter and reject systems, here are conditions which guarantee that a system is worthless.

1. Each individual bet in the game has a negative expectation. (The random game of roulette has a negative expectation.) This makes any series of bets have a negative expectation.
2. There is a maximum limit to the size of any possible game. (This rules out systems like the Martingale and up as you lose.)
3. The results of any one play of the game do not "influence" the results of any other play of the game.
(Note that we are talking about the "game of roulette", not the "gaming device."
4. There is a minimum allowed size for any bet. (This is necessary for the technical steps in the mathematical proof.)

Under these conditions, it is a mathematical fact that every possible gambling system is worthless in the following ways:

1. Any series of bets has a negative expectation
2. This expectation is the (negative) sum of the expectations of the individual bets.
3. If the player continues to bet, his total loss divided by his total action will tend to get closer and closer to his expected loss divided by his total action.
4. If the player continues to bet it is almost certain that he will:
a. be a loser
b. eventually stay a loser forever, and so never again break even;
c. eventually lose his entire bankroll, no matter how large it was.

-Please note the source "The Mathematics of Gambling", by Dr. Edward O. Thorp.

Attack the gaming device, not the game.

[Blue_Angel]

All these don't prove that EC's could be more profitable than betting straight up numbers.

So I'm asking you again, who has less exposure to HE, the one who bets 1 unit on a single number or the one who bets 1 unit on an EC?

Numbers have the faster gain and the slowest loss, regarding payout and probability that's the best option.
But in order to become long term winner you need also good timing, it's all about synchronizing with the rhythm of the game, every event has a momentum which fades away sooner or later and another one replaces it.
Therefore, it never ends, but morphing through time like chain reaction.

[The General]

A winning EC strategy is possible

Blue,

My comment was directed towards your misleading comment regarding a winning EC strategy. 

Furthermore, I handily provided the proof that you were WRONG.

[RouletteGhost]

I dont think it is black and white. Right or wrong

Anything is possible

[Blue_Angel]

I dont think it is black and white. Right or wrong

Anything is possible

If anything is possible then why don't we see the same number for 10 consecutive spins?
If this has the same possibility with 10 different numbers in 10 successive spins then I'm an alien!
The problem is that most likely another number will come is not so helpful.
On the fantasy casino number 69 hits twice in a row, players around the table considering it normal and decide to ignore it, 69 comes again and raises a few eyebrows but as everybody considers it highly unlikely to hit for fourth consecutive time, they decide to ignore it again.
69 surprises everyone by coming four times in a row, a few are thinking to place 1 chip on top of it but they decide that it would be a waste of a chip and ignore it eventually.
Number 69 hits for fifth time in a row and at that time 'General' and friends are arriving at their fantasy table.
General gazes the matrix and sees 69 came five consecutive times, as he considers it an ordinary event which happens everyday he says: ''hey guys, why don't we put our invisible bets to that biased number?''
All of his companions agree and number 69 hits for sixth time in a row, everybody except 'General' and his friends are in awe but 'General' acts like nothing happened.
Furthermore he decides to bet once again as it's so obvious that is a biased number and wins a second time as 69 hits for seventh time in a row!
Suddenly 'General' wakes up at his bed and realizes that he was dreaming!

[RouletteGhost]

Literally anything can happen

Like 30 reds in a row

Doesnt mean it will though

Roulette has limits. Not true limits. But things we will never see

When i develop and test a mechanical roulette strategy i choose selections and triggers that rarely have losses so that when i do have a loss im still in the plus.

Fallacy? Yes. But if it works i dont care what you call it.

When money is being made who cares if the general says its worthless. Lol. Its the internet. He will be gone eventually.

[BellagioOwner]

why don't we see the same number for 10 consecutive spins?
If this has the same possibility with 10 different numbers in 10 successive spins then I'm an alien!

No they don't have the same because you don't describe the same thing. In one example you say the same (SPECIFIC) number 10 times(so actually 10 SPECIFIC NUMBERS) and on the other example you say "10 different numbers in 10 successive spins" (not 1 specific each time so not 10 specific numbers)

It's not the same 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 with 10 7 34 12 16 3 19 20 25 5 (10 any different numbers).

But if you wait to see the SPECIFIC sequence 10 7 34 12 16 3 19 20 25 5 without ANY other number coming and the SPECIFIC sequence 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 then yes. THESE 2 have the same chance

[BellagioOwner]

And by the way  I think not any one of us have seen or will ever see  these 2 exact 10number-sequences since both occur 1 in 37^10.  Have anyone seen   4 808 584 372 417 849 spins?   Lol... not all of gamblers together in total history 

[Blue_Angel]

No they don't have the same because you don't describe the same thing. In one example you say the same (SPECIFIC) number 10 times(so actually 10 SPECIFIC NUMBERS) and on the other example you say "10 different numbers in 10 successive spins" (not 1 specific each time so not 10 specific numbers)

It's not the same 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 with 10 7 34 12 16 3 19 20 25 5 (10 any different numbers).

But if you wait to see the SPECIFIC sequence 10 7 34 12 16 3 19 20 25 5 without ANY other number coming and the SPECIFIC sequence 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 then yes. THESE 2 have the same chance

Ten times 1, ten times 2, ten times 3...ten times the SAME is NOT as possible as 10 different numbers!

Pick any number for 10 consecutive times and any 10 different numbers for 10 consecutive spins, it's not the same, it's like you are claiming that 1 number is as possible as the combined probability of 10!

And by the way, if you were the Bellagio owner you would knew what color have the 100 chips!