NO,NO,NO,
We cannot,
beat random,
Or beat,  the math.

Thus we embrace the math.

Random, is unpredictable=fact...
But random, is contain, by law of probability.
Thus, say dozen one,
we can't predict when dz1 will hit or how many will hit,
but we will never see dz1 hit 88,..99, or 100 times, in next 100spins!
Thus, dz hit, randomly, but CONTAINED BY PROBABILITY.

If we know how to contain random, which must hit probability expectation.
We hit the expectation.
So in next hundreds spins, we will see all dz hit 33%, albeit green.

How we have stable selection,
By accepting that random , will behave badly, but will hit probbility,
as other two dozens, also insist on hitting probbility,
though hit randomly.
Thus in medium term, all dz will hit exactly, to probability, minus green!!!

If we insist on betting flat,
on a fixed dozen, say ,dz1,
There will be, two outcome, or rather three.
1.positive, hit more than the others.=win.
2. Negative ,...hit less.=lose
3.breakeven
Thus all three, are random too.

Thus, to bet, for getting within expectation, hit.
we must bet the random hit of the three dz.

Random of the three,
fighting and jostling each other,

for EQUALITIES...

So at the end of medium spins,
probability within expectation, will present itself.
That 33%, albeit green

You can't beat the math, so don't try to beat the math by using the math. There is no variable change in the game of Roulette. But conditional probability, a form of statistics, says that there are times that conventional probability does not run parallel with conditional probability at the same time. If you use "Coincidental Change" to process a conditional probability, then you have a value that can be discernible as a kind of situational awareness, much the same as the advantage in a game that does have a variable change like 21. The implication is that there must be a situational math based on the coincidences found in randomness.


Does that make this argument a chicken or the egg paradox? That remains to be seen until someone proves it, one way or the other.

 Thank Gizmotron, for your thoughts.
Appreciate them.

Sir,
We accept the fact that,
whatever selection,
we applied,
they are impossible,
to beat the edge.

We also acknowledge that,
we cannot predict the outcome of random.
==================

In THREE dozen bet,

we see that random,
of first dozen,

Random, of second dozen,

and,
Random,  of third dozen,

are AGAINST each others!,
and,
must drawn, to  the law of probability.

Thus, we never see, a first dozen,
hit 100, per 100spin,
not even close to 80hit per 100spins.

I mean, the random itself ,
fight each others,
to hit near 33/33/33,
minus pesky green.

A dozen,
won't let the other dozens hit more!

thus we take advantage,
of this random fight,
contained, by probability fairness,

to make a selection, where after , say 300spins,
produced, 33/33/33, albeit green, CONSTANTLY.
where you can see in my [ PA's HG reports].

thanks.

 OF course,
in every permanance,
of 300spins,
with green, thrown in,
it's impossible to have,
33%. 33%. 33%.
or 100/100/100 hit each,
of dozen, 1,2 and 3.

But when we take advantage,
of ,
the three dozen, will hit,
very near the probability, after300spins.
we will have,
a single [alternating] dozen bet,
to hit not less than 30%,
and double [alternating] dozen, to hit,
not less than 60%.
these, together with,
a feasible mild progression,
negative variance avoidance management,
cut losses scheme,

we can win constantly.