Some things ARE more likely than others !

Many years ago , in the U.K., the " road to fortune " was via the Football Results Pool .The promoters listed 12 football matches which were tricky to predict .You entered 1 if you thought the Home team would win- a 2 if you thought the Away team would win and an x if you thought the result would be a draw .
In roulette the three possible results 1-2-x becomes 1-2-3 for dozens or columns.The promoters were " helpful" and devised "plans" to take out some of the guesswork. One such was a "Nine Column Block" covering 4 matches - think spins.There were 9 of these blocks in total covering all possible 81 results.
Each of these blocks "guaranteed " that one of the 9 lines would have at least 3 correct no matter the results.I give an example below- not the original but I think it fills the bill. You will quickly find that you cannot bet the "first two spins" but can use them to assess what to bet on the next two spins so they become "Indicators ".
Logic dictates that if something is guaranteed then some things have indeed a better chance than others .Choice is still needed but all gambling carries risk and the casino is at risk of variance as well as we gamblers.

1-1-1-2-2-2-3-3-3
1-2-3-1-2-3-1-2-3
2-3-1-3-1-2-1-2-3
2-3-1-1-2-3-3-1-2

Have fun.

Quote: scepticus

Have fun.

Thanks, you too.

Quote: scepticus

Each of these blocks "guaranteed " that one of the 9 lines would have at least 3 correct no matter the results.

Step 1: pigeonhole principle.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit

deleted

The problem is, if you treat the pools as a series of individual bets, then the one line with the 3 wins means you are +1 on that line; meanwhile, you break even on the lines with 2 wins, and are -1 on the lines with 1 win. The pools strategy "works" because they are pari-mutuel.

Yes, you are guaranteed to have 3 wins on one line, but, as you say, you can't bet them "in advance", and once the first two spins are done, the guarantees disappear. The guaranteed 3 wins include situations where the first two spins were correct, ones where one spin was correct, and ones where neither spin was correct.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

The problem is, if you treat the pools as a series of individual bets, then the one line with the 3 wins means you are +1 on that line; meanwhile, you break even on the lines with 2 wins, and are -1 on the lines with 1 win. The pools strategy "works" because they are pari-mutuel.

Yes, you are guaranteed to have 3 wins on one line, but, as you say, you can't bet them "in advance", and once the first two spins are done, the guarantees disappear. The guaranteed 3 wins include situations where the first two spins were correct, ones where one spin was correct, and ones where neither spin was correct.

Yes. it's true that the "trebles" disappear but the guarantee still stands .After the first two have been spun there is still the guarantee that some column/s will have one correct while one will have two correct in the next two spins - barring zero/s.
So the question boils down to "which one ? ".

Quote: Scepticus

In roulette the three possible results 1-2-x becomes 1-2-3 for dozens or columns.The promoters were " helpful" and devised "plans" to take out some of the guesswork. One such was a "Nine Column Block" covering 4 matches - think spins.There were 9 of these blocks in total covering all possible 81 results.
Each of these blocks "guaranteed " that one of the 9 lines would have at least 3 correct no matter the results.I give an example below- not the original but I think it fills the bill. You will quickly find that you cannot bet the "first two spins" but can use them to assess what to bet on the next two spins so they become "Indicators ".
Logic dictates that if something is guaranteed then some things have indeed a better chance than others .Choice is still needed but all gambling carries risk and the casino is at risk of variance as well as we gamblers.

1-1-1-2-2-2-3-3-3
1-2-3-1-2-3-1-2-3
2-3-1-3-1-2-1-2-3
2-3-1-1-2-3-3-1-2

Have fun.

What about the zero(s)? And why does it matter what hit on the previous spins?

Are you traveling forwards and backwards in time?

If you're going to write down the possible outcomes, then you should write down ALL of the possible outcomes. If you do so, then you'll find that there are more possible outcomes than what the odds actually pay.

Quote: Keyser

What about the zero(s)? And why does it matter what hit on the previous spins?

Are you traveling forwards and backwards in time?

If you're going to write down the possible outcomes, then you should write down ALL of the possible outcomes. If you do so, then you'll find that there are more possible outcomes than what the odds actually pay.

I prefer to bet with method rather than haphazardly so choosing to let past numbers dictate what I should bet is only a method.
What is the second step in my "Pigeonhole Principle Method " ?
After the first two spins I choose the line containing those two dozens and consider the next two numbers in that column of the nine.
I do not bet the next ( 3rd ) number .If it wins I do not bet the next (4th ).
If the 3rd number loses I bet the indicated 4th dozen but only the 6 numbers of my chosen colour.
The last two numbers then become the first two numbers in the next series of four- and I stop when I have a profit or at Break- Even.
The calculation is 1/3 x 1/2 = 1/6 and since I get paid 5/1 these are the correct odds excluding the zero( I play only on a 37 number table )
.You will no doubt argue that the appearances of the zero will " kill " me in the Long Run .I dispute that and argue that this Long Run argument should be labelled "The Mathematicians Fallacy " the belief that an Expectation is a Certainty.
It is highly overrated as it
Assumes that the bettor makes the same bet with the same stake and
Assumes that all bets are therefore subject to this same calculation and
Assumes that I will live long enough to succumb to this
" inevitable "eventuality .
Maths is useful only insofar as the basis on which it is grounded is solid.There are too many assumptions in the Long Run Theory for this .
Have you guys not learned lessons from the many disasters in the financial world where maths geeks had such faith in the certainty of outcome in their models that they did not even consider whether the basis for them was flawed ? One complained of a ten sigma event having occurred !
Your fundamentalist faith is touching and may be suitable for indulging in theory - but not in the real world of roulette gambling where that little white ball can make fools of us all . I understand the risks but don't tell me that you have a crystal ball that gives you the certainty you claim.
Will I win in the future ? I don't know - you don't know - nobody knows . The difference between us is that I know that I am guessing while you don't know that you are only guessing.
You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to ridicule others who differ from you .

The part that I don't understand is why you choose the next bet based on which previous numbers came up, rather than which of your ass cheeks is the itchiest.

Left cheek: even
Right cheek: odd
Both: red
Neither: black

It works about as well as your method.

^^^^^^^
+1