Not exactly. We look at data collectively - we look well beyond one spin. We look at statistics. We look at statistical relevance - ie is an event happening outside what would be expected if results were random?

An AP player looks at far more data than typical system players. That's why we're always saying "test more spins", and system players respond with "but we'll never play that many spins".

One example: statistics does not guarantee a wheel is biased, or that something is legit. Simply the more data you have, the more sure you can be.

APs do understand system players. The problem is system players are wrong. Need proof? Never once have I ever known a system player, on this on any other forum, to give one valid point about "statistics" that can be exploited. There's plenty of talk like "there must be repeats", which is as useful as saying "eventually every number will spin".

Nobody is saying you cant win with a system. Like nobody is saying you can't win with random bets. A legitimate advantage is something very different.

Hi Steve, I have a question for you about what you mean by testing 1 MILLION spins against a system to prove a system can work.

1. Are you expecting the system to play every or MAJORITY of spins with a BET to prove the approach can work?

2. What if a system looked at a series of spins and concluded that the best approach for the system was NOT to bet the following spins based on those past spins? Would this system meet your expectations? Or would you say its unplayable and so is not a VALID system?

3. What if a system looked at 1 MILLION spins and determined that only 10% of the spins were playable to make a profit assuming one could sit through that many spins in their lifetime? Would the system still be valid?

Regards,

Ricky