Will 500 Reds in a row ever happen on a mechanical Roulette Wheel?

This is a continuation of the Bad Beat Jackpot thread.

I'm gauging the intelligence of the members on this forum with this question. Will a Casino Roulette wheel ever have 500 spins of red coming up in a row?

Some people on this forum think that since it's a mathematical possibility, that eventually it will happen. I want to see how many people actually agree with that craziness.

If enough people actually do, then I'll write more about the subject.

Hmmm ...

If my math is correct, the probability of 500 reds in a row is (18/38)^500, or about 5.55 EE -163.

By contrast, the age of the universe is about 4.26 EE 17 seconds.

So, in other words, if the wheel was spun starting at the beginining of the universe 1.31 EE 146 per second, it (statistically) would have happened once.

For fun, that's 1.31 hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times per second for the last 13.5 billion years.

So, while the probability is nonzero, I think that's small enough to say no, it will never happen.

I believe that the record in the last 100 years is 26.

Quote: pacomartin

I believe that the record in the last 100 years is 26.

Well yeah, but that's for red. I'd think that black would be much higher.

Shoot, I knew I should have made it 100 instead of 500.

Quote: FinsRule

Shoot, I knew I should have made it 100 instead of 500.

I think the conclusion would be the same ...

Probablility (18/38)^00, or about 3.54 EE -33.

Age of the universe: about 4.26 EE 17 seconds.

If the wheel was spun starting at the beginining of the universe 8.31 EE 15 per second, it (statistically) would have happened once.

For fun, that's 8.31 quadrillion times per second for the last 13.5 billion years.

Significantly "greater" probability, but still small enough to say no, it will never happen, IMHO. I'd bet my house on it never happening.

If we take only the last 350 years since the game was invented, and we take a "minimum probability" of (say) 1 in a billion as something that can, as a matter of practice, occur ...

1 EE -9 = (18/38)^n ; n = 27.7, use n = 28 ---> p = (18/38)^28 = 8.20 EE -10

Required spins per second in last 350 years: 7.4

I'm okay with guessing 7.4 spins have been completed every second since the game was invented. So, as a practical matter, I would be okay with guessing "yes" for "28 reds have come up in a row at least once since the game was invented."

What "spins per second" number or "smallest probability to practically occur" number are other folks okay with?

Quote: FinsRule

This is a continuation of the Bad Beat Jackpot thread.

I'm gauging the intelligence of the members on this forum with this question. Will a Casino Roulette wheel ever have 500 spins of red coming up in a row?

Some people on this forum think that since it's a mathematical possibility, that eventually it will happen. I want to see how many people actually agree with that craziness.

If enough people actually do, then I'll write more about the subject.

It's not "crazy", but rather, mathematical reality, that any event with nonzero probability will eventually occur. Don't confuse "extremely unlikely" with "impossible", or "will almost certainly not happen" with "will never happen".

Is that on a single-zero or double-zero wheel?

all things that have a probability of happening, become likely to happen give enough time. So it all depends on if you make time limits. The age of the universe dwarfs human experience, so from the human perspective it is an absurdity.

PS: for me to vote I have to know your limits. One day there will be no more humans, and we can be confident 500 reds did not happen during our existence I think.

Quote: mkl654321

It's not "crazy", but rather, mathematical reality, that any event with nonzero probability will eventually occur. Don't confuse "extremely unlikely" with "impossible", or "will almost certainly not happen" with "will never happen".

Any event with nonzero probability will eventually occur. I'm going to disagree.

Every day there is about a 1 in 10 million chance that I'm going to leave my wife and move to Montana. Every day there is about a 1 in 10 million chance that I'm going to leave my wife and move to Idaho. Every day there is about a 1 in 10 million chance I'm going to leave my wife and move to Mississippi.

Eventually I will leave my wife and move to all of those places? Eventually all possible events are guaranteed to happen? Do you know how absurd that sounds?

I'm going to eventually be President, win the lottery, have my own TV show. Everything in the world will happen to everyone.

Roulette wheels will be spinning in casinos infinitely? I'm not confusing anything. YOU are the one who is confusing the possibility that something will happen to the belief that it HAS to happen.

Apparently people on this site are as crazy as I thought. Oh well.

The assumptions I'm making below are intended to over-estimate the chances of Red hitting 500 times in a row. It's less likely to happen than I state. I use the names of numbers listed in the US short scale at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_large_numbers

For ease of calculation, let's assume every roulette wheel in the world is a single-zero wheel. The odds of hitting red is 18/37. The odds of hitting it twice is (18/37) x (18/37). Hitting it 3 times in a row would be (18/37) x (18/37) x (18/37). The odds of hitting red 500 times in a row is (18/37)^500.

There are 467 roulette tables in use in Nevada (Gaming control board December 2010 summary, http://gaming.nv.gov/documents/pdf/1g_10dec.pdf). Let's round up and call it 500. Pulling numbers out of the air, let's assume another 500 tribal tables in the US, 300 tables in New Jersey, 1500 in Macau and Asia, 1000 in Europe, and another 1200 world-wide.

For the sake of this discussion, let's over-assume that every one of these tables run 24 hours a day at one spin every 60 seconds, or 86,400 spins per day.

These 4000 tables thus generate 345,600,000 spins per day (86,400 spins x 4000 tables, probably a gross overestimation).

With 345,600,000 spins, we can expect, somewhere, a wheel to hit 28 or 29 reds in a row each day. 27 reds would hit one out of every 281,247,656 spins ((18/37)^27); 28 reds would hit one out of every 578,120,182 spins ((18/37)^28).

The once-per-year number would be hitting red 35 or 36 times in a row: (18/37)^35 = 89,644,296,575 spins, which, divided by 345,600,000 spins per day is once every 259 days. 36 times would be once every 533 days.

Let's run the math out. Once-per-decade would be 38 or 39 times in a row. Once per century we'd see 42 spins in a row. Once-per-millennium would be 45 spins in a row.

Continuing... once every:
10,000 years: 48 spins in a row
100,000 years: 51-52 spins in a row
1 million years: 53-54 spins in a row
10 million years: 58 spins in a row
100 million years: 61 spins in a row
1 billion years: 64 spins in a row
15 billion years (rough estimate of the age of the universe): 68 spins in a row
1 trillion years: 74 spins in a row
1 quadrillion years: 77 or 78 spins in a row
1 quintillion years: 78 spins in a row
...
1 decillion years (about 26 sextillion times the age of the universe): 102 spins in a row
1 vigintillion years (a nonillion decillion, or 10^63 years): 192 spins in a row
1 googol years (10^100 years): 384 spins in a row

Extrapolating out further, into the range of unnamed numbers, we can see that we would hit 499 spins in a row once every 10^136 years. We would hit 500 spins in a row about 4 times every 10^137 years.

It's a mathematical possibility. It could happen tomorrow.

However, to answer your specific question, Will it ever happen? No. The sun will burn out in about 5 billion years (by which time we should see one streak of 66-67 reds). By that time, roulette as we know it will need to change to account for variances in gravity between the new planets and space stations, and the effect of the spread of triple and quadruple zero roulette will throw all these estimates further down the line.

Quote: FinsRule

Any event with nonzero probability will eventually occur. I'm going to disagree.

Every day there is about a 1 in 10 million chance that I'm going to leave my wife and move to Montana. Every day there is about a 1 in 10 million chance that I'm going to leave my wife and move to Idaho. Every day there is about a 1 in 10 million chance I'm going to leave my wife and move to Mississippi.

Eventually I will leave my wife and move to all of those places? Eventually all possible events are guaranteed to happen? Do you know how absurd that sounds?

I'm going to eventually be President, win the lottery, have my own TV show. Everything in the world will happen to everyone.

Roulette wheels will be spinning in casinos infinitely? I'm not confusing anything. YOU are the one who is confusing the possibility that something will happen to the belief that it HAS to happen.

Apparently people on this site are as crazy as I thought. Oh well.

Here's the source of your confusion: IF YOU LIVED LONG ENOUGH, you would indeed eventually do all of those things.

If you truly don't get the concept, I probably can't explain it to you, although if we both lived long enough, eventually I could :)

Right, and the point of the question is that CERTAIN THINGS WON'T BE AROUND LONG ENOUGH FOR EVERYTHING TO HAPPEN. SUCH AS ROULETTE WHEELS.

Tell me where in the question it said anything like "ASSUMING ROULETTE AT LAND BASED CASINOS IS AROUND FOREVER"

You can be so dense sometimes.

Quote: mkl654321

Here's the source of your confusion: IF YOU LIVED LONG ENOUGH, you would indeed eventually do all of those things.

If you truly don't get the concept, I probably can't explain it to you, although if we both lived long enough, eventually I could :)

I disagree. Just because I lived for an extended amount of time, doesnt mean I would start a hotel chain at the North and South Poles, travel to the bottom of the Marianas Trench, or Play poker in Doyle Brunson's backyard while necking brews.

However, I subscribe to the Infinite Dimensions/Realities theory, so there is a version of me somewhere that has done or will do these things.

Let the ridicule begin.

Quote: travisl

By that time, roulette as we know it will need to change to account for variances in gravity between the new planets and space stations, and the effect of the spread of triple and quadruple zero roulette will throw all these estimates further down the line.

DJ's Poker-For-Roulette side bet will have completely dominated the Roulette market way before then.

Quote: Croupier

However, I subscribe to the Infinite Dimensions/Realities theory, so there is a version of me somewhere that has done or will do these things.

Let the ridicule begin.

NO SHIT, Croup, I was going there, and that's why I was the first one to vote YES!

Quote: travisl

There are 467 roulette tables in use in Nevada (Gaming control board December 2010 summary, http://gaming.nv.gov/documents/pdf/1g_10dec.pdf). Let's round up and call it 500. Pulling numbers out of the air, let's assume another 500 tribal tables in the US, 300 tables in New Jersey, 1500 in Macau and Asia, 1000 in Europe, and another 1200 world-wide.
...
These 4000 tables thus generate 345,600,000 spins per day (86,400 spins x 4000 tables, probably a gross overestimation).

Bad math -- should be 5000 tables. That means we'll hit it more often: 384 reds in a row once every centillion years, and 500 reds in a row once every 2*10^136 years.

Still, it ain't gonna happen. Besides, by the time you get to 200 in a row, the house is going to close down the table.

There's two questions here :

1) Given the real world, will 500 reds in a row ever happen?

2) Given a mathematical model with inifinite time and space, will 500 reds in a row ever happen, assuming we keep spinning the wheel for an infinite time?

1 - No

2 - Yes

However, it should be noted for some things it is possible that given an infinite time, with a finite probability of happening, it still is not guranteed to happen. For example, betting $1 a spin on a bias wheel (20/38 chance of red) with a $1000 bank roll. You can go busto given infinite time, but the probability is not 1.

(This is because we are looking at a chain of events, not a series of independent events. I'm explaining this badly...)

Quote: Croupier

However, I subscribe to the Infinite Dimensions/Realities theory, so there is a version of me somewhere that has done or will do these things.

Let the ridicule begin.

What ridicule?

I admit I'd like to see some evidence for it, but it is one of the finest science fiction gimmicks ever devised. I think eventaully every single SF writer either writes a parallel universe story or wishes to do so. I know I have. As soon as I'm done with my current mess of a novel, I have a parallel universe story ready to go.

Anyway, the fault in your argument, and in Finsrule's argument is that actions undertaken by human beings are not random. He may choose to leave his wife and move to Montana. Or he may choose to leave his wife and move to the Alps. He may even choose to stay with his wife. It's not a matter of probability for him, but of choice.

Quote: FinsRule

Any event with nonzero probability will eventually occur. I'm going to disagree.

Every day there is about a 1 in 10 million chance that I'm going to leave my wife and move to Montana.

I disagree too, but that's because you're making a big mistake in equating a random probability with a non-random event. Given a sufficient number of trials, a *random* variable X over discrete state space S = {s1, s2, s3 ... sN} will observe each element in S with a probability that approaches 1.0. A fair coin has S = {heads, tails}. 500 spins of a roulette wheel has S = {all reds, 1 black+499 reds, ... all black, 1 green+499 reds, etc...}. There is no qualitative difference between a fair coin and 500 spins of a roulette wheel, just a quantitative one. In other words, the probabilities are all equivalent -- they just have different values.

There is, however, a qualitative difference between 500 spins of a roulette wheel and your choice to move to Montana. The probability of you moving to Montana is not random, and it is not an equivalent concept of probability as the probability of 500 consecutive reds on roulette. For the latter, given sufficient trials in roulette, the probability of 500 consecutive reds does indeed approach 1.0. Do you dispute this mathematically? Because if you do, you must also dispute that 499 red outcomes can appear over sufficient trials, and that very quickly leads to you disputing that a single red outcome can appear over sufficient trials. And we've all seen that outcome happen first-hand...

Can it happen? Sure, it could happen tomorrow.
Can I say with absolute certainty that it won't? Nope.
Will it happen? Probably not.

That's about all we can say for certain.

Mark

Quote: FinsRule

Every day there is about a 1 in 10 million chance that I'm going to leave my wife and move to Montana. Every day there is about a 1 in 10 million chance that I'm going to leave my wife and move to Idaho. Every day there is about a 1 in 10 million chance I'm going to leave my wife and move to Mississippi.

I think there is a hidden message here. And today of all days!

Quote: MathExtremist

I disagree too, but that's because you're making a big mistake in equating a random probability with a non-random event. Given a sufficient number of trials, a *random* variable X over discrete state space S = {s1, s2, s3 ... sN} will observe each element in S with a probability that approaches 1.0. A fair coin has S = {heads, tails}. 500 spins of a roulette wheel has S = {all reds, 1 black+499 reds, ... all black, 1 green+499 reds, etc...}. There is no qualitative difference between a fair coin and 500 spins of a roulette wheel, just a quantitative one. In other words, the probabilities are all equivalent -- they just have different values.

There is, however, a qualitative difference between 500 spins of a roulette wheel and your choice to move to Montana. The probability of you moving to Montana is not random, and it is not an equivalent concept of probability as the probability of 500 consecutive reds on roulette. For the latter, given sufficient trials in roulette, the probability of 500 consecutive reds does indeed approach 1.0. Do you dispute this mathematically? Because if you do, you must also dispute that 499 red outcomes can appear over sufficient trials, and that very quickly leads to you disputing that a single red outcome can appear over sufficient trials. And we've all seen that outcome happen first-hand...

You're right, bad example of me moving.

The whole point of this thread is the fact that at least 5 people on this site think that "if something can possibly happen, that means that in a real world application, it actually will eventually happen"

And what the intelligent posters on here are saying is that unless alternate universes exist, that statement is wrong.

Quote: FinsRule

Every day there is about a 1 in 10 million chance that I'm going to leave my wife and move to Montana. Every day there is about a 1 in 10 million chance that I'm going to leave my wife and move to Idaho. Every day there is about a 1 in 10 million chance I'm going to leave my wife and move to Mississippi.

Yeah, but these are mutually exclusive. It's 1:10000000 that ONE of them will happen. There's zero chance that all of them will happen.

Quote: marksolberg

Can it happen? Sure, it could happen tomorrow.
Can I say with absolute certainty that it won't? Nope.
Will it happen? Probably not.

That's about all we can say for certain.

Mark

Probably the best response so far!

wgaf?

Quote: FinsRule

The whole point of this thread is the fact that at least 5 people on this site think that "if something can possibly happen, that means that in a real world application, it actually will eventually happen"

If you restrict "something" to random variables, and allow that "eventually" is also possible to achieve, then that statement is true. It doesn't mean that a real roulette wheel with a life-expectancy of 20 years will necessarily observe 500 reds in a row, but it does mean that a theoretical unbiased roulette wheel with an infinite lifetime will.

Once you step outside of random variables, the statement stops making sense. Most of that boils down to the word "eventually" having a very different meaning when you start considering finite lifetimes rather than infinite random trials.

Quote: FinsRule

The whole point of this thread is the fact that at least 5 people on this site think that "if something can possibly happen, that means that in a real world application, it actually will eventually happen"

I see nothing wrong with that, given certain conditions and limits. As I said in the bad beat thread, if the possible ways of an outcome are not too large, then any possibilities ought to eventually happen. What I don't see is how you can test it. For all we know, the scenario propposed on that thread happened at some poker game last night among friends in Peoria.

And try to check out the roulette situation in prallel universes :P

In any finite segment of time, some things could occur that are outside the probabilities of likely occurrence.

Also, in any finite segment of time, some things that have a likely probability of occurring, will not in fact occur at all.

A better question would be, if you saw 15 reds in a row would you bet for red to continue or for it to end. I saw 22 reds in a row at The Rio a few years ago and not one person was betting for it, everybody was heaping huge amounts on Black. It hit Black at spin 23, then there were 7 mores reds in a row. Nobody bet those either.

Quote: Nareed

Anyway, the fault in your argument, and in Finsrule's argument is that actions undertaken by human beings are not random.

Good point, well made.

Quote: EvenBob

A better question would be, if you saw 15 reds in a row would you bet for red to continue or for it to end. I saw 22 reds in a row at The Rio a few years ago and not one person was betting for it, everybody was heaping huge amounts on Black. It hit Black at spin 23, then there were 7 mores reds in a row. Nobody bet those either.

Well said Even Bob - that is a better question

I have often seen a run of 12 or more black or red on airball roulette in Macau - punters instinctively bet against the tide. Similarly I saw 36 come up 4 times in a row - I played it but no one else did.

I don't lay outside bets so was not interested in how many blacks or reds there were.

Quote: FinsRule

This is a continuation of the Bad Beat Jackpot thread.

I'm gauging the intelligence of the members on this forum with this question. Will a Casino Roulette wheel ever have 500 spins of red coming up in a row?

Some people on this forum think that since it's a mathematical possibility, that eventually it will happen. I want to see how many people actually agree with that craziness.

If enough people actually do, then I'll write more about the subject.

According to

http://gaming.nv.gov/documents/pdf/1g_10dec.pdf

There are 467 roulette tables in the state of Nevada. If they are all operating 24 hours per day and let us assume that they are all in full commission at all times, and the ball is being put into play once per minute, that's about 7 events per second state-wide.

Of course there are more wheels in the world, and of course they are not all operating simultaneously, but it's at least a rough guide ...

18/38 is .4736842

.4736842 ^ 500 is 5.5520611817914761420073371210244e-163

1 / 5.5520611817914761420073371210244e-163 = number of events on average before event = 1.801132889672752741454216134237e+162

So that would be about 8.2723990009220345635573565836137e+153 years

So while it could possibly happen ... uhm .. I think that the probability of it happening is lower than the probability of other things happening first that would prevent it from eventually happening (for example, the extinction of the human race.)

Just my conclusion .. I guess.

Maybe the other way around is more interesting to me .. what is the most number of red in a row you could expect to happen in all of las vegas?

7 events per second * 60 seconds / minute * 60 minutes / hour * 24 hours / day * 365 days / year

= 2.2E+8 events / year

which is about 27 to 28 red/blacks in a row is about the most you would expect to happen in a year in all of Las Vegas.

Or something like that anyway.

Take the last 500 spins on any chosen roulette wheel. The probability for that exact sequence of results to happen is: (1/37)^500 = 7.93E-785 so it is even more unlikely than 500 reds in a row. But yet that specific sequence just happened!

Quote: FinsRule

Right, and the point of the question is that CERTAIN THINGS WON'T BE AROUND LONG ENOUGH FOR EVERYTHING TO HAPPEN. SUCH AS ROULETTE WHEELS.

Tell me where in the question it said anything like "ASSUMING ROULETTE AT LAND BASED CASINOS IS AROUND FOREVER"

You can be so dense sometimes.

Don't stoop to personal insults. I don't see things the way you do. That only equates to being "dense" in the cobwebby recesses of your own mind.

Quote: FinsRule

This is a continuation of the Bad Beat Jackpot thread.

I'm gauging the intelligence of the members on this forum with this question. Will a Casino Roulette wheel ever have 500 spins of red coming up in a row?

You know, it's an act of supreme assholery to pose a question and then say that "intelligence of the members on this forum" depends on whether they wind up agreeing with you or not.

Did you really just tell one poster not to stoop to personal insults, and follow up with an insult?

Real smart.

Quote: thecesspit

Did you really just tell one poster not to stoop to personal insults, and follow up with an insult?

Real smart.

To answer your question, no, in fact, I didn't really do that. I didn't insult the poster, I criticized what he said. Read for content:

Insult: "You are an asshole."
Comment on what someone said/did: "That was an act of assholery."

In a similar way (just to make your understanding crystal clear): "That was a stupid thing to say" is NOT the same statement as "You are stupid".

Please note that the poster in question had tendered an actual insult: "You can be so dense sometimes." NOT, "what you said was so dense" or something along those lines. Please read the forum rules that say it is acceptable to criticize the thought or statement, but not the poster himself. Spend some time mulling over the distinction, and then get back to me. I'll wait.

If only people were more competent in the English language, a LOT less misunderstandings would occur. Sigh.

and we're off... wait... I didn't hear the bell ring yet....

Quote: EvenBob

A better question would be, if you saw 15 reds in a row would you bet for red to continue or for it to end?

I saw 22 reds in a row at The Rio a few years ago and not one person was betting for it, everybody was heaping huge amounts on Black. It hit Black at spin 23, then there were 7 mores reds in a row. Nobody bet those either.

I've often said, for every man that ever said "Look, Honey. 9 Reds in a row. Let's bet on Black", there was a man who, not two minutes earlier, said "Look, Honey. 8 Reds in a row. Let's bet on Black."

Quote: mkl654321

To answer your question, no, in fact, I didn't really do that. I didn't insult the poster, I criticized what he said. Read for content:

Insult: "You are an asshole."
Comment on what someone said/did: "That was an act of assholery."

In a similar way (just to make your understanding crystal clear): "That was a stupid thing to say" is NOT the same statement as "You are stupid".

Man, talk about splitting hairs!

Quote: mkl654321

If only people were more competent in the English language, a LOT less misunderstandings would occur. Sigh.

It's cuz MLK has an IQ of 190, he possesses the intellect to decipher the nuances that plaque how the common folk abuses the English language...

Quote: DJTeddyBear

"Look, Honey. 9 Reds in a row. Let's bet on Black"

If you bet with the streak, you can only lose once. Bet against it and, well, you know.. I'm just sayin..

Quote: EvenBob

If you bet with the streak, you can only lose once. Bet against it and, well, you know.. I'm just sayin..

I would always bet with the streak in such situation, because the only possible rational reason for choosing to bet one way or the other is that the wheel is skewed. I mean, it probably isn't, but if it was, it would be better to bet on the red hitting again, and if it isn't than it just doesn't matter.

Also, I would not like Jufo81's post above to go unnoticed, because, this is really the correct answer, condense, and on point:

Quote: Jufo81

Take the last 500 spins on any chosen roulette wheel. The probability for that exact sequence of results to happen is: (1/37)^500 = 7.93E-785 so it is even more unlikely than 500 reds in a row. But yet that specific sequence just happened!

What a lot of people are missing is that odds of something happening being, say, 1 in trillion, does not mean at all that it will take a trillion spins for that to happen. So, all those comparisons with the age of the universe are impressive, but misleading.
Think about the probability of the chain of events that lead to intelligent life happening at the right time and in the right sequence ...

But as far as the answer to the question in the poll goes - "will it happen?" - it is, of course, - "probably not."

In an infinite universe there is always the possibility that it will return to a singularity in the next instant. But I'm not canceling any appointments.

Quote: weaselman

it would be better to bet on the red hitting again, and if it isn't than it just doesn't matter..

The point is, you're singling out the streak as an event, and whats the best choice for the event. The rule you make is, you're going to play the event till it ends. The only logical choice is to follow the streak, either way you can only lose once. But by following it, you have the chance of winning a few times before the end comes.

Quote: Mosca

In an infinite universe there is always the possibility that it will return to a singularity in the next instant. But I'm not canceling any appointments.

Thanks. I NEEDED that laugh!

<redacted>

Quote: mkl654321

To answer your question, no, in fact, I didn't really do that. I didn't insult the poster, I criticized what he said. Read for content:

Insult: "You are an asshole."
Comment on what someone said/did: "That was an act of assholery."

In a similar way (just to make your understanding crystal clear): "That was a stupid thing to say" is NOT the same statement as "You are stupid".

Please note that the poster in question had tendered an actual insult: "You can be so dense sometimes." NOT, "what you said was so dense" or something along those lines. Please read the forum rules that say it is acceptable to criticize the thought or statement, but not the poster himself. Spend some time mulling over the distinction, and then get back to me. I'll wait.

Ah, sorry, I completely mistook someone posting like an asshat, with someone actually being an asshat.

It's hard sometimes to tell the difference between the actions someone takes and their inner nature.

Quote: thecesspit

Ah, sorry, I completely mistook someone posting like an asshat, with someone actually being an asshat.

It's hard sometimes to tell the difference between the actions someone takes and their inner nature.

And thank YOU for that laugh!

Yea, when I drive around in Detroit and get cut off from the right lane at every stop sign, I think about creating a bumper sticker that says:

If you drive like an asshole
you ARE an asshole.

But THE ODDS ARE I'd be killed or carjacked...

Not to change the subject, but...

I recently had a Dealer tell me he hit the same number 6 consecutive spins in mid-2010. After the fourth time, he said he called Maintenance for them to check the wheel. They did, and it checked fine. Then he hit it twice more. Record?

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Man, talk about splitting hairs!

The distinction may be beyond you but it exists nevertheless.