Maths people say waiting for spins is no difference from playing at the start?

[RouletteFanatic]

What do you think?

Maths people say waiting for spins is gambler's fallacy. But lets say you use a predetermined system (with no stop loss, bad idea!) that you would bet till a particular number appears.

To simplify things we assume roulette has only 6 numbers with 1 to 5 payouts.

3,2,5,4,3,2,1,5,4,6
                  ^
Point where 5 numbers appear

If you had randomly chosen the number 6 and bet from the start, you would have loss -4 units.
If you have chosen to wait until 5 numbers appear, than bet on the last number not to appear(6), you would have made 3 units.

Of course, you can argue that even after 5 numbers appear, the last number might not appear at the next 5 spins as spins have no memory.

for exp:

3,2,5,4,3,2,1,5,4,2,2,1,3,6
                  ^
  Point where 5 numbers appeared
                   
In this case even after waiting for 5 numbers to appear, betting on the last number(6), you would have loss -1 units.
However, if you have betted FROM THE START and randomly choose 6, you would have loss -14 units.

How do you explain this? Does this show, waiting does play a difference in some cases?

[Jean-Claud]

The point is that the 5th number can not hit in 20 spins!

Yes it doesn t matter if u bet on the 1st spin or in any numerical spin...its exactly the same

[Davey-Jones]

A good rule of thumb should be if you can't prove why it works in a mathematical or scientific form, then it cannot win in the long term. Any wins are due to short term RANDOM fluctuations, which cannot be predicted. Despite the claims of many.

Ask yourself why it should work. Why it does work. If the answer is I don't know it just does, and you are unable to find out why, then it's probably a good idea to move on.

AP methods can all be proven with a basic understanding of math and physics. Those who claim AP does not work just cannot grasp the concept of checking their work with math and physics. But the concepts behind AP can still be proven to work with just a few equations.

[Davey-Jones]

-