In the game of chess 1 move is performed each turn, in game of roulette 1 number comes per spin, we should respond accordingly.

I find more significant difference in the mentality from one era to the next, instead of one geographical region in comparison with the people of another.

Era/time determines the esoteric differences while regions/space the physical characteristics (outer differences).

While from one spin to the next a distance between pockets can never exceed the equivalent total of pockets, the distance in time from 1 appearance to the next could be much more.

What does this mean?

We have 2 different elements, the numbers which represent static positions on the circumference of the wheel and the distances which represent the amount of pockets the ball has moved from 1 position to the next.

These 2 elements are both 37 in total, both have the same probability, the same prospective, but are not the same.

Both are happening simultaneously, so if for 1 number I've roughly 65% chance to win at least once within 37 bets, then how about combining the 2 different elements on the same game?

You might say that I still have the same chance to become winner, but let's not rush to jump into conclusions.

By increasing the total of numbers I'm betting I'd not only increase the chance to win but the cost of risk as well, therefore not improvement.

By combining the 2 different criteria/elements of space and time on 2 different tables the results from 1 table would be irrelevant and independent from those of the other table, thus not an improvement.

By combining the 2 different criteria/elements of space and time simultaneously and on the same table it does make a difference for the better.

You may ask why, let me tell you;

While we would not increase the total of numbers we would increase the probability, for example:

We pick randomly the number and distance 18, thus we would bet 2 numbers per spin for 37 spins.

One number is static, the number 18, while the other number, which represents the distance 18, would be changed with every successive spin according to the last spun number.

So far no advantage apparently, the difference comes into place when the 2 different selections are overlapping, on such cases, whether we would bet only 1 unit for both or 2 units on the same number, would be the edge in the long run.

If we put only 1 unit we would save some units on the way, if we would bet 2 units on the same number we would won more units, both ways would create the edge because of the combination of 2 different criteria.

While we would bet only 1 number when selection criteria are overlapping the probability of a win would NOT decrease!

Of course the 2 numbers could suffer from irregular distribution of wins, the only solution in order to decrease variance is by increasing the total of numbers to bet.

This way the wins would become more regular in the expense of more units in the risk, (time VS money).

Thus by selecting 12 numbers and 12 distances we would bet a max of 24 numbers, usually less because those 24 different selections would overlap, thus 2 different criteria leading to same number(s).

Most of the time would be a total of 18 up to 24 numbers, in such way would materialize the advantage faster than betting just 2, 1 number and 1 distance.

About which 12 numbers and distances, the last 12 spins will have all numbers and distances we would need to bet for the next 25 spins.

Why the last you might be asking, have you ever heard "first came and first served..."?