“Is there another "law" that captures the tendency of small numbers?”

Greek's question makes me think of "JS", an old author from 1825. Moreover, Marigny de Grilleau seems to have found his inspiration thanks to this author who was already talking about the deviation-compensation concept. This old author was an officer cadet and with his military friends, he wrote and studied 150,000 spins. The goal was to look on all types of bet spreads (even on the straight up by taking at least 3 numbers). This was a really gigantic study without a computer.

I give a general example. On the DS, he was expecting a direct gap. Then, he looked in the recent past if this gap was not a return to the balance of a reverse gap. Finally, he played 10 spins to "catch" a DS trend. I point out that there are 66 ways to form a DS with the 12 Streets.

This author had understood, without knowing the law of small numbers, that it was necessary to look into the recent past. This observation of the past makes it possible to go beyond the frame of small numbers to avoid playing completely random spins. The "**law of equilibrium**" can therefore intervene in a larger frame than that of a few dozen spins and provide compensation.

100 years later, Marigny published "*The scientific gain of one unit per attack*". In his book he speaks quickly and once of this observation of the past before the gap. Very few of his followers understood the great importance of this observation. So for 100 years the players think and say that the method of Marigny is losing.

I presented this topic on the law of small numbers because many authors publish methods not to mention this problem. But the less the players have theoretical knowledge, the more authors can sell anything. To understand this (elementary) law on small numbers is really to start coming out of certain illusions about roulette and Hazard.

However, if methods, for example on EC, select 5 or 10 spins on average over 64 spins, it is necessary to think that the profit in % will be established in time, within the framework of the law of Bernoulli. There will be in a scheme (in flat bet), a causal chain between all the shots played, then a profit is possible.

What does not work in practice is to fix an attack in a small frame (for example the trigger of 2 red indicates to play for 12 spins column 3, loaded in red). This attack is "only" related to other accounting attacks. The spins played in all attacks are not related to each other in a global structure; there is no overlap between the spins played; they are independent attacks. In this case it is certain failure, but often the misinformed player will think that a progression will save his method. Indeed, vary his bet will create links between attacks. It's a good idea to compensate for an ineffective method, but as the spins played are totally random, so with a strong deviance to predict, the progress will require a huge bankroll (so for a ridiculous profit). And over time, the probability of the player losing his bankroll will also become huge.