You can't beat the math, so don't try to beat the math by using the math. There is no variable change in the game of Roulette. But conditional probability, a form of statistics, says that there are times that conventional probability does not run parallel with conditional probability at the same time. If you use "Coincidental Change" to process an accepted form of conditional probability, then you have a value that can be discernible as a kind of situational awareness, much the same as the advantage in a game that does have a variable change like 21. The implication is that there must be a situational math based on the coincidences found in randomness. Does that make this argument a chicken or the egg paradox? That remains to be seen until someone proves it, one way or the other.