The gambler who expects to see "average" results grossly underestimates how large a sample size is needed for convergence to the average. The gambler's fallacy arises from the mistaken belief that mean reversion happens much quicker than would be predicted from the law of large numbers.

A grail comes from the deep study of the game and by knowing all the statistical and probability related issues that are connected with this game. There are certain problems that do not let you win, in a session or as a whole, in long run:

1. Ignorance of what can happen with you. Like many players are just not aware that a bet may go so bad, any moment that it can eat even a million chips without giving you back even one unit profit. You may not see such things for years but it can happen any moment.

2. Poor Money management/progression: If someone get hypnotized by the use of martingale or labouchere or fibonacci and consider them as panacea, they are sure to get bust before they play their 100th session. Someone surviving with them for longer, is surely luckiest person on earth.

3. Planning to win in short time: law of small numbers is a must read theory for all who desires to win in all sessions by any betselection or MM

4.Negative Variance: If every bet runs smoothly around mathematically expected hit rate, every Tom, Dick and Harry will beat the game. A session may be very good for your bet, it can be average, poor or horrible. Randomness brings positive and negative variance to different bets. You can't guess which bet will get what kind of variance,in the next session.

5.House Edge: I feel it is a factor but a comparatively weaker factor for losses, in short session. Although, in long run, it is the main defense of casinos against you. With the help of this, casino sucks punters money, in almost invisible way.

                      If you have a strategy that keeps all these factors, in the mind and you have the ability to simulate that in at least 100k placed bets(not spins count but 1 placed bet means u bet in that spin, ignoring empty spins) and if it gets better than break even, you are most likely, having a grail. It is pertinent to mention here that any co-incidence or temporary positive variance won't let you win till 100k placed bets unless you reverse engineer the data to create an approach that can beat exactly that data.

Those posts were as off topic as your talk of Steve, in this debate.

You changed the topic too, Ken. What is the relevance of Steve to this debate?

Steve is a genius. Isn't it Ken? 

and what kind of social service you are doing Muggins here?

You are not expected to chill out when a dog is trying to shove his teeth down your legs.  lol

@Muggin (last time)
               What is a value post for you? Clapping on fallacies or spreading new innovative ones? Read my last written topic here in gambling philosophy on sequential probability, you may learn something with substance. Regarding sharing my HG, as it is, it is not possible because I haven't seen even a single method here or in any forum that is even slightly better than playing any EC, flat bet, every spin. Bayes once made a list of Holy Grail Claimants (including himself), only two of them were written openly, JL's Pattern Breaker and Flat_Ino's method which were disastrous. Even after being a global moderator, he chosen to not to publish his stuff. Why should I put an exclusive stuff of mine here, in open?

@ Turner,
           It seems that you guys excel in cut-paste half the statements, that may create illusions to the readers.
         I said,

QuoteLiberty to start a bet or pause or resume or quit at your own choice doesn't make a winner. Please show one such strategy of yours that does, we simulate it and you will no longer be a winner.

I hope you are not color blind.
                 What I commented upon greatplayer's comment is a fallacy of "hit and run" that talks of entry and exit at random points. It is widely believed to help than playing regularly. Unless analysed properly, fallacies usually appear to be sweet and helpful, like martingale but one who knows to simulate ideas can see them as disaster.
                 If you guys enjoy blindfolding each other with variety of fallacies and count them as contribution, I can't help it.
         

            If you guys want to spread some more fallacies to this already fallacy-ridden place, go for them. If you want to have serious and fruitful debates, start that with a logic and digestible approach and let other members contribute to them, suggest tweaks and improvements peacefully. That is how a debate should go on.

@Muggins,
           You are a very new kid in the block and before mudslinging on others have a look at yourself. Daily waking up and writing a raw idea as a system is not what I do. Have a look at my blog that has about 190k views from lurkers and frustrated players like you who look at my writings for reference. Many of the biggest names that you have heard over many forums have been members over there.

@gr8player,
                 I consider you to be both a player and innovator. House edge is set in stone to help casinos. I do not say that it makes casino any immortal but rather try to fight the worst probabilities where my bet has a very bad hit rate (where house edge and negative variance both playing against me). See: http://betselection.cc/money-management/albalaha's-open-challenge-can-anyone-beat-the-worst/ 

@greatplayer,
                 You seem to forget my few more lines:
                           

QuoteSo you mean option to when to start, how much to start with and when to pull off is an advantage/edge to the player by themselves or a player needs proper strategy to use them in a logical way to get an edge/advantage?

             Liberty to start a bet or pause or resume or quit at your own choice doesn't make a winner. Please show one such strategy of yours that does, we simulate it and you will no longer be a winner. [smiley]aes/stop.png[/smiley]

@gr8player,
                 So you mean option to when to start, how much to start with and when to pull off is an advantage/edge to the player by themselves or a player needs proper strategy to use them in a logical way to get an edge/advantage?
         The player's edges that you defined are available to all players, all the players use them too but they still lose.

You are most welcome, Mr Li. 

Dear Mr. Li,
              It may sound annoying to you but may I ask as to what kind of advantage is their in your whole variety of fancy betselection?
We play matrix or circle or nuke or bowtie or ring or any other astronomical figure you can imagine on the wheel, how does it help to win?
Numbers on the wheel are totally unrelated to each other and playing them together would not help to handle the negative variance that they will suffer from, as any other random betselection. Further, your all these bets can't help to pick the future winner by any wild imagination.
        Care to explain?

Those who are new to this debate may look at the topic where it was discussed earlier: http://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=1283.0
Don Colonne has revised his earlier strategy. It is truly an "out of box" work but let's see whether it helps in winning random sessions or merely an attempt towards that. Esoito, please invite Don Colonne to this discussion for clarifications. I hope every member will behave with Mr. Colonne and keep the decency to debate like what is done in a conference.