Very nice and thought provocating topic. Law of large numbers talk of likelihood of a large sample to be closer to mean, in each bet. If you say, toss a coin 10 times, all heads could happen but can it happen 10x10 times? Answer is, the sequential probability of such events are so remote it could take gazillions of tosses to find one such sample. Realistically, we can safely presume that such things can't happen. Larger the data, closer we get to mean. It can only be proved untrue with some physical bias but never in a truly random outcome.
            There is a bigger question of how to utilize even if law of large numbers is eternally a truth. There are very few strategy meant to work for long run and most known ones are proven failures by one reason or other.

Bayes has been one of the most intelligent and rational guy arounds forum and I have heard lesser irrational things from him than anybody else. What he is suggesting is to put 3 units as 1 on the coldest doublestreet, 1 on hottest doublestreet and 1 on average. There are lots of trouble deciding them. At times, there will be two hottest or coldest or average doublestreets together. So, it is easier said than done. There can be cleaner parameters like farthest hitting  line, the latest hitting line and one in the median leaving the last line i.e. 3rd in nearness. That can be played with decisive pick.
                                    All these won't seriously help in any manner, in my humble opinion. I have worked on these for pretty long time and found that no way of picking bet is superior by itself than all others. It is impossible. Hence, although it could be interesting to pick three doublestreets instead of RED, it won't matter in short or long run and it can not reduce variance by even an iota. Trying to find a better bet in a purely random game is a joke. We better make strategies to survive the worst cases(whenever they come in our bet) and how to win if there are average wins after a horrible drag.
 

                                    Instead of saying that maths says that the game is unbeatable, one should say that no known math has so far worked to effectively and conclusively beat the game. House edge is there in blackjack too. That was conclusively beaten with card counting by Thorpe and everybody accepts that. Similarly, through bias analysis and advantage play people like Pelayo, Eudeamonic Pie did it. Some recent university level researches prove some sort of cloaking wheel and ball does help to determine where to bet with success. House edge wasn't different for them, yet they turned them down and won.
                               And if someone is smart enough to know that it can not be beaten and loss is inevitable, why the hell he is a member of a gambling community like this?

Dare not play such progressions. You will always win 1 unit till you lose a few thousands.

QuoteAs per Math no bet selection or progression can beat casino games with negative house advantage.

Maths or science are neither static nor flawless. New knowledge evolves with scientific out of box thinking and researches. Pluto used to be a planet just a few years back, not any more. By the way, which maths book said that bet selection or progression can not beat this game?

It is only partially true. Money management is the key to beat a game with slight edge. Not in short run but definitely in a long run. Before claiming this I did over 10 million spins of simulations. Since you are aware of only old school failure MMs, your presumtions are very narrow. Remember, unless an aeroplane started to carry people across world, it was considered a bad joke only. If you don't know something do not claim that it does not exist.

RNGs do not make anybody lose. It is basically a fault in the strategy itself. Anybody can simulate over a considerable random data to verify the feasibility of his strategy. If he wins there and loses easily by number of sessions in any RNG, one should doubt the RNG. I must congratulate on his success and believe the same to continue for very long.

Every spin has the same, static odds that none can change with rules, guesswork, calculations or speculations.

Lots of talks over spins getting disturbed due to connectivity or playing each spin in continuity. It is not required to play spins in continuity. You can play 100 spins today and can play 100 more some other day at some other time. All of them will offer same odds. Rather, each spin, irrespective of them being together or far, offers same odds so do not bother about disconnections or missing a few spins. It won't change anything in long run.

Indeed any betselection arrived after lots of tracking and triggers and complex rules and calculations bears same level of risk as playing a simple bet as Red.

What you opined made many play progressions like martingale and lose what can not be earned back. Things are not so easy and simple.

It was very easy. The answer will be 96

It is like (a*b)+a

I do not understand why should it be considered a tough question or if I am wrong.

In a purely random game no prediction is ever possible. House edge will teach a lesson to every bet, sooner or later. A game is either not random or unpredictible. Both can not be possible together. it is not more than a joke that one wishes to win by his magical picks alone. Those who can not simulate or love to live in a wishful dream world can think of doing that. Simulate your bet on random set of data and know the reality.

@the magician,
            you better be in your Hogwart school of magic than talking or debating about any logic. The way you are bragging about yourself proves your immaturity and lack of knowledge relating to various issues of gambling.

Quote from: Mike on July 14, 2017, 07:48:05 AM
Albalaha,

You criticise every system as being fallacious and urge us to focus on a money management system which is able to withstand the worst drawdowns. Perhaps you don't realize it but no staking scheme or manipulation of stakes can CREATE an edge. All progressions can do is amplify the edge you already have. If you have no edge, the result of using a progression will worse than if you had just flat bet.

Bet selection should take priority. It IS the name of this forum after all.

We do not need edge to win. Edge is mathematically impossible. We can still win.
Let me get you brainstorm a bit. Martingale and labouchere can beat any session in the long run mathematically. The problem is, they will seek countless chips in very harsh moments. That is not doable practically and hence we need to innovate around those lines to make a sustainable way to bet. A wise money management can extract from the game while being sensible enough to not lose much even in the harshest times. my harsh sessions kind of showcase that capability which are unbeatable to any old school progression idea ever.

@magician
        I am not a global moderator and being one doesn't make you much more informed or say smarter. I moderate my blog only and quite happy with that.

@all
         please do not recall me the name of this forum. If betselection is the only thing we need to talk of, why do we have other sections?