Math gurus, you say that each spin is independent of each other..but..

[RouletteFanatic]

I do believe that is a kind of butterfly effect where a spin might affect another in a long run. True that each spin is independent of each other in the short run. But looking at long run samples, a table that has no wheel bias whatsoever will have numbers appearing conform to its probabilities. If each spin is truly independent of each other, how can one predict that any number would come out? And if so, what is it stopping a number not to appear in 1000 or even 10,000 spins?

Do one even realize how much of a paradox is it that you say each spin is independent yet casinos look for "wheel bias", meaning a set has to conform to 100% standard deviation? If each spins is truly independent, why look for any bias at all?

Lets take two events that everyone knows to be truly independent. Like the number of people crossing a particular road in America and the weather in Japan. Lets say some guy actually goes measuring both of them for 3 days and found out a surprising effect. When 10 people crossed the road, the weather was sunny, when 20 people crossed the road, the weather was cloudy. When 30 people crossed the road, the weather was rainy.

He then concludes that the lesser people crossing the road, the better the weather. But on his 4th day, 10 people crossed the road and the weather was rainy. He was puzzled at first, but came to the conclusion that both events were truly independent and do not correlate to each other whatsoever.

The question is why hasn't casinos realized this if all spins are independent of each other? Why go measuring how many times a particular spin number has appeared in x number of spins? Since each spins is independent, wont it be equivalent to measuring the number of people crossing the road in America and the weather in Japan?

[Bayes]

Bias and independence are not the same.

If a wheel is biased, it means that all numbers are not equally likely to hit, but the wheel could be biased and yet the outcomes would still be independent. However,  suppose the hits on red and black follow this pattern:

R B R B R B R B R B

or even something a lot less obvious, for example, every time there is a sequence of at least 8 reds in 10 spins, the following 10 spins will always have at least 5 blacks. In that case there is some regularity in the outcomes, but the wheel could still be biased.

Independence has to do with the fact that there is no regularity in the outcomes. If there is no 'memory' of previous outcomes then each outcome is independent of the last - there are no clues in past results which might lead you suspect that a particular sequence will come next.

There is no contradiction in the fact that over many spins, the outcomes seem to conform to some distribution (e.g. approximately 50:50 red:black), and the observation that over a small sample of spins, they don't. The first phenomenon is called 'The law of large numbers'. If you think that over a few spins the outcomes will behave similarly, you have committed the gambler's fallacy. There is no law of 'small' numbers.

This might be helpful:

nolinks://nolinks.probabilitytheory.info/topics/the_law_of_large_numbers.htm

[Kelly]

Even though each spin is independent, then the probability for a biased number is no longer 1/37 but maybe 1.5/37 which means that the advantage is suddenly at the one who plays the biased number. 

Regarding the "even out" issue, its simply not exploitable. Imagine you have a 3 standard deviation situation after 2000 spins on the even chances. You now bet the opposit in the hope that the 3 standard deviation will balance out with you in profit. It might happen, but it might also happen that it continued with the normal expectation for the next 2000 spins, which means that because of the spin sample size now at double size, the 3 standard deviation is also gone or minimized to only 1 SD and leaving you with a small loss because you have only broken even for 2000 spins but has encountered some 55 - 60 zeros.

It might sound as just talk but all tests confirms that the approach produces no advantage.  Feel free to test out for yourself, but im not gonna encourage you, because it will be a waste of time. 

[RouletteFanatic]

Bias and independence are not the same.

If a wheel is biased, it means that all numbers are not equally likely to hit, but the wheel could be biased and yet the outcomes would still be independent. However,  suppose the hits on red and black follow this pattern:

R B R B R B R B R B

or even something a lot less obvious, for example, every time there is a sequence of at least 8 reds in 10 spins, the following 10 spins will always have at least 5 blacks. In that case there is some regularity in the outcomes, but the wheel could still be biased.

Independence has to do with the fact that there is no regularity in the outcomes. If there is no 'memory' of previous outcomes then each outcome is independent of the last - there are no clues in past results which might lead you suspect that a particular sequence will come next.

There is no contradiction in the fact that over many spins, the outcomes seem to conform to some distribution (e.g. approximately 50:50 red:black), and the observation that over a small sample of spins, they don't. The first phenomenon is called 'The law of large numbers'. If you think that over a few spins the outcomes will behave similarly, you have committed the gambler's fallacy. There is no law of 'small' numbers.

This might be helpful:

nolinks://nolinks.probabilitytheory.info/topics/the_law_of_large_numbers.htm

Though one can already observe the so called "law of large numbers" in a small spin set.

Take for example, everyone has seen 10 reds in a row in a 10 spin sequence, but never 100 reds in a row. Even 30 is unheard of.

Surely the spins are not entirely independent in that sense? If you break it down to 10 spins sequences 10 reds in a row is likely to happen 10 times in a row to become 100 reds. Mathematically it is possible, but you never see it in reality.

[Jean-Claud]

Ok yes u are right!
And how are u planing to get advantage of tjis?

Man u are very new in Roulette.
As Kelly posted feel free to test any idea of urs...
We were there...We did that....

Nothing can beat roul;ette exept Bias and VB

[Herb6]

Is each spin of the wheel an independent event?

Let's see:

1. Does the dealer block each number from hitting again once it hits?  Answer: No.
2. Does the number of pockets on the wheel change from one spin to the next? Answer: No.
3. Are the numbers on the wheel or the ball aware that they should behave a certain way?  Answer: No.


Now using a little common sense above, it's plain to see that each spin of the roulette wheel is indeed an independent event.

-Herb6

[Spike!]

it's plain to see that each spin of the roulette wheel is indeed an independent event.>>

Hooray, that means it can be beat. Thanks for clearing that up.

[RouletteFanatic]

Ok yes u are right!
And how are u planing to get advantage of tjis?

Man u are very new in Roulette.
As Kelly posted feel free to test any idea of urs...
We were there...We did that....

Nothing can beat roul;ette exept Bias and VB

Actually i've been studying roulette for awhile, anyway wheel bias and visual ballistics are so hard? I mean nowadays, where do you actually find a wheel that is bias? Yes, is it true that no man made machine is perfect, but then the bias has to be SIGNIGFICANT enough for you to invest your time in. a number has to appear less then 1 in 35 in x number of spins. Lets say after recording thousands and thousands of spins, you get one or two number in 1 in 34 or 33 range. Would it be worth it? I say at least a 1 in 30 is needed, but even such a wheel is hard to find.

Listen this, most modern casinos would keep track of the spins and maintain their wheels regularly, thus they would be more likely to know of any bias rather then you. Also you would pick steam trying to record numbers every day a week for 2 weeks to qualify a wheel bias.

Yes, though there are some tactics, like in some casinos, the slot machines are near the roulette tables and allow you to record while you are "playing" slots. However, even recording for 2 weeks on end, you might find that there might not be any bias at all..Is it really worth it? Then?

Moving on to visual ballistics, I don't deny that it can be profitable especially with a computer, but I think it is illegal in most casinos. Also VB without any computer assistance is incredibly hard. I don't know the exact way to do it and most explanations are vague, I would be glad if you guys can point me to the right direction  though.

Anyway, according to math gurus, 100 reds in a row is as probable as any combination of 100 red and black. But in reality it can't happen and I can guarantee you it has never happened  it roulette history. The law of diminishing probability states that the longer something happens, the less likely is it to continue. I believe there is something to it, an event so unlikely to occur, it may be deem impossible.

There are actually odds that a meteor would crash into Earth and destroy all of mankind tomorrow. But the odds are so astronomically unlikely it is not worth considering as in the above case of 100 reds in a row applied to roulette.

[RouletteFanatic]

Let's see:

1. Does the dealer block each number from hitting again once it hits?  Answer: No.
2. Does the number of pockets on the wheel change from one spin to the next? Answer: No.
3. Are the numbers on the wheel or the ball aware that they should behave a certain way?  Answer: No.


Now using a little common sense above, it's plain to see that each spin of the roulette wheel is indeed an independent event.

-Herb6

Herb, I agree with you each spin is independent of each other in your sense. What i'm saying is that they fall within very reliable probabilities(as reliable as swiss watches) in the long run. You can never have a number not appearing within a 1000 spins in a non bias wheel.

But then again, what do you defy as independent? totally unrelated? If that is the case, red and black, or the 37 numbers in the wheel are not totally unrelated. If red appears, black cannot appear and vice versa this is the relationship between them. This applies for the single numbers. Two totally unrelated true independent events can happen at the same time, such as me drinking a glass of water and the weather being rainy. Just because I drink a glass of water doesn't mean the weather can't be rainy and vice versa.

[RouletteFanatic]

-