Consequential generation roulette

 The only way to succeed, in my opinion, and it is precisely what my group has been applying for many sessions, is to assume that POST LAUNCH the roulette does not behave as a random generator. Mind you, I am not referring to the existence of physical defects (discussed in another section).


But, ultimately, what is a random generator? Far be it from me to enter into scientific, pseudo-philosophical discussions on chance or technical discussions about the algorithms underlying modern pseudorandom generators, I will give you an intuitive but, I believe, quite effective definition of "random".

We consider random any phenomenon that evolves according to what can be described by the calculation of probabilities (with the obvious deviations, quantifiable in percentage and as a function of the size of the sample).

For example, consider the series of 10

How many times does it occur, how does it agglomerate with other series, how long can it take, etc.. etc.. If the data obtained on a reliable sample (another big problem: when is a sample reliable?) do not demonstrate notable discrepancies with any test (for example the chi square) referring to two equally probable events, the generation is random. Obviously, the chances of roulette, from full to simple, and this has been demonstrated by much more highly regarded mathematicians than us, derive from a perfect random generation!

It is also obvious that carrying out this type of analysis requires advanced probabilistic and statistical knowledge.


 It is necessary to introduce our new theory: "the theory of consequential generation" . This theory is not derived from a dream or an instinct but from precise statistical considerations derived from the comparative analysis of the behavior of real and simulated stays and, perhaps, it will change the way of studying roulette forever!

Through the mass of data at our disposal which, for the academic world, is not yet reliable, we have managed to find moments in which the generator is no longer random. If for the academic world these data are insufficient, for us they are: these theories have been passing the hardest test (and most important: that of the green carpet, obviously with staggered progressions) admirably for years now.

 According to this theory, the roulette machine works by producing "trends" that are much more stable than what we might expect from a purely random game. But, and this is a fundamental step, these trends are correlated to the single day. Every day is a new day and today's behaviors are absolutely not indicative for tomorrow. The reasons for this are long and complex but will be examined. This 100% contradicts the theories of personal permanence, multiplication of events, interrupted play vs continuous play. These theories have their precise value (and are sacrosanct) in a perfect casual game. Which roulette is not!!


And D'Alost had understood everything: 100 years ago: those who criticize him, in my very modest opinion, have not read him with due attention.

With this I do not want to criticize or worse, judge, those who follow paths different from ours, or those who think completely differently: what matters is winning at roulette... No matter how!


But the post-launch roulette is not a perfect generator and the first number is totally different from the last, like the first km of a cold motorbike, it is completely different from a km with a warm engine.


Totally different. It is the way in which the numbers follow one another that makes the difference but, all this, with a "cold engine", when "the story begins", when the past does not yet exist and the future is being written. The day is the only metric that can beat the wheel, and it is the only metric that interests the speculative player. Today is another day, and that's all that matters. Yesterday's scraps? Thing of the past.


The war concerns only one day. And sometimes, some wars can't be won. But, always, the damage can be reduced.


 And it has nothing to do with mathematics. Post-launch roulette is physics, chemistry, but it's not mathematics.


But let's get to something practical, first of all what does the consequential roulette generation play? Play full numbers, specifically a sector of 19 full numbers. He must have, even if to a minimal extent, a theoretical expectation of winning more shots than the dealer, even if as we will see, the game ends, thanks to the forcing of the probability that the maneuver allows us, with fewer shots won than the dealer. Now we come to the cornerstone of the theory, namely the theory of the reference point.


What is the point of betting on roulette R or N. What is the difference between the 1st sestina and the 6th? By targeting the series or the neighbors, are we making a choice or are we fooling ourselves?


The numbers are only and exclusively boxes, which have been given a name solely and exclusively to determine the bets and, I add, to confuse us. Our point of reference will certainly not be the name decided by someone but only a real one:

Compared to the starting position of the ball (number below), did it land in the same position, in the opposite position or in an intermediate position?

And how do the "slipped" throws fit in?


Have we begun to trace the path that will lead us to knowledge of the secrets of the case? Posterity will judge.