Consequential Generation Roulette

The only viable approach to success in roulette, in my opinion, and the one my group has applied consistently over numerous sessions, is to recognize that roulette does not behave as a random generator after the ball is launched.

Please note, I'm not referring to the presence of physical defects, a topic discussed in another section.

So, what is a random generator? Without delving into scientific or pseudo-philosophical discussions on chance or technical debates about the algorithms underlying modern pseudorandom generators, I offer an intuitive yet effective definition of "random."

Any phenomenon evolving in a manner describable by probability calculations (with quantifiable deviations as a percentage based on the sample size) is considered random. For instance, consider a series of 10.

The occurrence frequency, clustering with other series, duration, etc. If data from a reliable sample (another challenge: when is a sample reliable?) don't exhibit notable deviations from any test (e.g., the chi-square) referencing two equally probable events, the generation is deemed random. It's well-established that roulette outcomes, from simple to complex, derive from perfect random generation, as affirmed by esteemed mathematicians.

Now, let's introduce our new theory: "the theory of Consequential Generation." This theory isn't born of a dream or instinct but precise statistical considerations derived from comparative analyses of real and simulated sessions. It may revolutionize the way roulette is studied.

Utilizing the extensive data at our disposal, which may not be deemed reliable in academic circles but has proven invaluable for us, we've identified instances where the generator ceases to be random. These theories have withstood the toughest test—the green carpet with staggered progressions—for years.

According to this theory, the roulette machine produces "trends" that are more stable than expected from a purely random game. Crucially, these trends correlate with a single day. Each day is distinct, and today's behaviors are not indicative of tomorrow. This completely contradicts theories of personal permanence, event multiplication, and interrupted vs. continuous play, which hold value in a perfect casual game, but not in roulette.

D'Alost understood this a century ago, and those who criticize him may not have given his work due attention.

I'm not criticizing those with different approaches; the goal is winning at roulette, regardless of the method.

Post-launch roulette is not a perfect generator, and the first number is vastly different from the last, akin to the first kilometer of a cold motorbike differing from a warm one.

The numbers' sequence is what matters, but this occurs with a "cold engine," when "the story begins," before the past exists and the future is unwritten. The only metric to beat the wheel is the day, and that's the only metric that matters to the speculative player. Today is a new day, and that's all that counts. Yesterday's outcomes are history.

The battle is only for one day, and sometimes, some battles can't be won, but the damage can be minimized.

This has nothing to do with mathematics. Post-launch roulette involves physics, chemistry, but not mathematics.

Practically speaking, what does the consequential roulette generation play? It bets on full numbers, specifically a sector of 19 full numbers. It must have, even to a minimal extent, a theoretical expectation of winning more shots than the dealer, despite ending with fewer shots won due to the maneuver's probability forcing.

Now, onto the cornerstone of the theory—the theory of the reference point.

Why bet on red or black? What's the difference between the 1st and 6th sextet? By targeting series or neighbors, are we making a choice, or are we deceiving ourselves?

Numbers are just boxes, named solely to determine bets and, I'd add, to confuse us. Our reference point won't be the name decided by someone but only a real one: Did the ball land in the same position, opposite position, or an intermediate position compared to its starting position (number below)? How do "slipped" throws fit into this?

Have we begun to trace the path that will lead us to knowledge of the case's secrets?

Posterity will judge.