Quote:Mission146Always?

Would you care to demonstrate how 37 spins absolutely cannot result in each of the 37 numbers hitting once? I will tell you the e th probability of 37 spins yielding every number once:

37/37 * 36/37 * 35/37 * 34/37 * 33/37 * 32/37 * 31/37 * 30/37 * 29/37 * 28/37 * 27/37 * 26/37 * 25/37 * 24/37 * 23/37 * 22/37 * 21/37 * 20/37 * 19/37 * 18/37 * 17/37 * 16/37 * 15/37 * 14/37 * 13/37 * 12/37 * 11/37 * 10/37 * 9/37 * 8/37 * 7/37 * 6/37 * 5/37 * 4/37 * 3/37 * 2/37 * 1/37 =

Quick Pause: Interestingly, you are less than 50% to have the first eight numbers all be different!

---Less than 20% to have the first eleven numbers be different!

---Less than 10% on the first thirteen!!!

---Barely over 0.5% on the first eighteen!!!

.0000000000000001303986462 or 0.00000000000001303986462%

I am surprised to find that hitting the same number nine consecutive times is slightly more probable than this result. If it has ever been proven that the same number has hit nine (or more) consecutive times, then I would be willing to be that we've spun for the cycle at least once in the course of human gambling events. It would be an unprovable bet, though.

I would also venture to say it will happen in my lifetime. If you look at all of the casinos, on-line casinos, video games, play-for-fun on-line, video roulette, etc. etc. etc., Every repeated result would be a new series with the repeated number the first of the series, because the 37/37 spin is obviously a given. Whether or not I will be there when it happens, however, is a different matter entirely. ; )

Has there been anyone throughout the history of roulette ever seen ALL 37 numbers (0 - 36) land within exactly 37 spins of the wheel?

It will not happen in your lifetime.

Quote:NotnabDoesn't fewer bets result in greater deviation?

Fewer bets do have higher standard deviation than more (smaller) bets for the same total amount. That is a good thing in a negative expectation game, because standard deviation is a measure of likelihood than your result will end up farther from its expected value. In other words, in a negative expectation game, like roulette, the higher the standard deviation, the more likely you are to win (or to lose a lot). If standard deviation were zero, it would be impossible to ever win, you'd just keep losing a little bit on every bet. You can simulate that situation by betting on every number in roulette. Such a bet would have the lowest possible variance, and it would never win.

Quote:NotnabHas there been anyone throughout the history of roulette ever seen ALL 37 numbers (0 - 36) land after 37 spins of the wheel?

I guess, it has not happened. Must mean it's due! :) Any day now!

The 1 in 766,879,127,067,901 chance of it happening could have happened already at least one time over all the years of RouletteQuote:NotnabHas there been anyone throughout the history of roulette ever seen ALL 37 numbers (0 - 36) land within exactly 37 spins of the wheel?

It will not happen in your lifetime.

the game has been around a long time and no one could have been watching for it.

Just like the 154 roll craps hand for 1 in 5.6 billion chance, it would take many years (200 years) to see that, but it happened.

Still no public proof of it, just a story.

Where is the video??

added:

Just knowing no one has seen that event, makes it no more likely that you can pick winning numbers.

I still say a blind squirrel can choose winning Roulette numbers just as well as any human or computer can.

But will that blind squirrel ever be able to sell his system ??

Quote:guido111The 1 in 766,879,127,067,901 chance

I'm predicting that it won't happen in YOUR lifetime, while YOU'RE playing roulette.

Quote:guido111The 1 in 766,879,127,067,901 chance

I'm predicting that it won't happen in YOUR lifetime, while YOU'RE playing roulette.

Quote:NotnabI'm predicting that it won't happen in YOUR lifetime, while YOU'RE playing roulette.

Sure thing, but it doesn't matter to improve your chances of picking the right numbers on the next spin.