Hello everybody,

I am new here. It's amazing to find this website and forum.

I have a question about the random numbers generated in this simulator. Are the numbers (0~36) pre-defined as a continuous string according to the physical layout of a roulette wheel prior it is generated?

I would like to conduct my test correlating both wheel and table layouts, and every spin is an independent event, has nothing to do with last spin result.

I welcome anyone to share his/her insights. Thank you. ^_^

WW

I am new here. It's amazing to find this website and forum.

I have a question about the random numbers generated in this simulator. Are the numbers (0~36) pre-defined as a continuous string according to the physical layout of a roulette wheel prior it is generated?

I would like to conduct my test correlating both wheel and table layouts, and every spin is an independent event, has nothing to do with last spin result.

I welcome anyone to share his/her insights. Thank you. ^_^

WW

Ad

Hello and welcome to youroul.com WonderWoman!

The roulette simulator uses software generated numbers for the tests.

You can use own numbers also.

I'd like to affirm your asumption: a spin is independent from its preceding spin.

But if you take more numbers in series, then there is a probability distribution.

It's more likely to have two times the same number than three times and so on.

This is, what progressions try to use: rise and lower the bets.

Have fun, trying your roulette ideas and don't hesitate to ask if somethings remains unclear.

trizero

The roulette simulator uses software generated numbers for the tests.

You can use own numbers also.

I'd like to affirm your asumption: a spin is independent from its preceding spin.

But if you take more numbers in series, then there is a probability distribution.

It's more likely to have two times the same number than three times and so on.

This is, what progressions try to use: rise and lower the bets.

Have fun, trying your roulette ideas and don't hesitate to ask if somethings remains unclear.

trizero

trizero:

I'd like to affirm your asumption: a spin is independent from its preceding spin.

Easy said but where is the proof?

SolomonK:trizero:

I'd like to affirm your asumption: a spin is independent from its preceding spin.

Easy said but where is the proof?

Is this proof enough?

trizero:SolomonK:trizero:

I'd like to affirm your asumption: a spin is independent from its preceding spin.

Easy said but where is the proof?

Is this proof enough?

It is!