Well then , substitute Hypothesis for Theory .The answer is still the same.

No it isn't. Did you actually read the quote or watch the vid?

What I said was that the method I use won more than it lost. IN REAL TIME - not in the airy - fairy Infinite time you claim .

Now you're putting words into my mouth. Where did I ever say that the you need an infinite number of spins? You don't. This is just mathematician speak for "the long run". Rather than put a specific number on the "long run" which might be misleading, they use the mathematical abstraction of infinity. In fact, empirical results show that the theoretical probabilities are approximated quite quickly, in a matter of 100's or 1000's of spins.

If you don't believe me, learn how to code and find out for yourself. Reyth has just started a thread on programming in BASIC.

AS for any 8 number series. Are you really saying that someone who bets from bet one without encountering a repeat has a BETTER chance than someone who has come late to the party and bets only the 8th ? If the maths is that over the 8 spins the chance of ANY 2 being the same ha a 53 % chance of being successful then that applies to all 8 .look again at the Wiz's calculations - they tell a completely different story to yours.

No they don't. It's just that you haven't understood.

look again at the Birthday Problem. Strange as it may appear,in a sequence of 22 there is less tha a 50% chance of a repeat while a 23 sequence has a 53% chance so , obviously, the more numbers that appear the better the chance of a repeat .

Yes, that's exactly what I was saying a few post ago.

Your chart shows that there is LESS chance as the spins progress -which defies comm0n sense. And you claim that MY innumeracy is truly mind boggling !

Yes, because once spins have spun, they no longer contribute to the original sequence. You are still stuck in the gambler's fallacy and seem incapable of grasping it. Too bad.

Extend that 8 spin sequence to a 10 spin sequence and there is an INCREDIBLE 95% chance of a repeat. ! Isn't THAT mind- boggling ?

It would be if you had a 95% chance of a win when betting on 9 numbers, but you don't. The chance is 9/37.

Probability Theory IS useless if it needs an INFINITE number of spins

I agree, but it doesn't. Again, see for yourself by writing your own programs.

If there is a 53 % chance of ANY 8 showing a repeat then there it is HIGHLY LIKELY that there will be a profit after a millions spins ASSUMING that a million spins is a sufficient sample.

No it isn't. It's highly UNLIKELY that there will be a profit after only a few hundred bets. Having reached the point of no return, the hole will only get deeper as you place more bets.

Learn to code and try it for yourself. It's pointless me doing it for you because you'll just ignore it or come back with some absurd objection.