Yet another subject that is very popular on roulette discussion forums is the so-called debate about how random performs. It's always interesting how those who don't agree that random has limits will also agree that it does - even to exploit it when possible. When a bias wheel is detected, this process of testing proves in itself that the current spins are not "random" and a bias is present... yet the same people will argue that random has no limits. It would give the reader the wrong idea that with random "anything can happen"..... either given enough time or spins... "anything" is possible with random. This simply isn't true. There are things that do happen, but these prove that a wheel isn't producing random results (bias) and further backs up the argument for random having limits. As a quick initial demonstration I've uploaded a video showing software tracking the results of spins as they happen. ================================================= Now, this is how random performs. It isn't chaotic and unpredictable, it actually shows predictable results. It also shows the limits that random has. Assume for a moment at spin #1 that we have a fresh set of data being charted.... is there any locations below 0 ? No. 0 appearances is the low limit at all times. This already is a limit that exists naturally. Now a number can appear 10 times more than the others for example... but as soon as it gets beyond "random" in results the "FAIL" will appear and this isn't considered a random outcome game. It could be from a wheel defect or some other cause, but it isn't random. There is a high limit - and when this limit is surpassed - we don't have random results. This again yet alone proves that random has limits.. a low limit and a high limit and as spins go by (as in the video) - all numbers will gain hits randomly and the circle grows... at no time is there some strange deviation from this "random" and if there were, it would NOT be random. The results would have gone beyond the limits. Example #1 - I created 2 blue dots to represent fictional numbers. One is off on it's own near the center of the circle - it would have appeared at some "impossible" place in the chart, and another outside of the bottom right - again appearing at some "impossible" place. If either of these were an event, "random" would not be the result... because random has limits. The green line represents the "mean" or the average - as we can see MOST numbers appear incredibly close to this "average". Some have appeared more than expected and are outside of the green average line. Some have appeared less than expected and are inside of the green average line. The blue line that connects them all SHOULD be considered as an analogy I like to use - a "rubber band" that contains random. Some can be greater and some less than average - but this ALL happens within a controlled area - what isn't possible with "random" is for either of the blue dots that I added to happen. If so, then there isn't random - there is a bias/malfunction or defect in the apparatus producing the spins. So while many will argue that "anything is possible" - I've just proved and demonstrated that this statement is false. Random HAS limits, when it doesn't - it's NOT random.