Being totally dispassionate about it, good and back luck are just the labels we give to the convergence of what happened in real life compared to what we predicted would happen. You’re right that the odds I give are only the odds of the ‘real life’ half of this convergence. It therefore seems logical that there might be some form of luck driving how accurately our predictions will be able to track what is actually happening in real life. But, that’s where the importance of randomness comes in to play. Roulette spins are random, meaning that we have no ability to predict what will actually happen (we will make accurate predictions approximately 50% of the time if we bet on red or black). They are also independent events, meaning that one real life spin has no bearing on the next (although we can remember what happened the previous spin, the roulette wheel can’t). If there were no 0 and 00s, we would win 50% of the time and lose 50% of the time regardless of whether: a) we bet $1 or $10,000; b) the last 20 outcomes had been red (or black); or c) we had lost (or won) with out last 20 bets. I’m not sure if I answered your question, but what I’m essentially trying to say is that luck is really just a narrative that we impose on a random set of simple occurrences :)

]]>This is interesting as I never realized that it was only a 1/128 to get 7 in a row. I play on American board which is 1-36 and 0 and 00. I frequently see several red (or black) in a row and based on probability, bet big. I don’t often have good luck. I jump on the Martingale system after it’s been on a single color streak and am often lucky to break even. How to you factor in horrible luck to statistics?

]]>Thanks

]]>I understand it has been a long time after your question. But what is your final result? I am facing the same problem.

]]>Rather unfortunately for my students (at least in your opinion), I teach statistics at St Andrews University.

]]>