Roulette Building a system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Norton_Lorenz

It's a scientific that decided to simplify forecast analyse to few parameters to determine the weather, instead of taking many&many parameters.

 

Sharptracker - considering we standing at the very end of the table with only 25% view of the wheel.
Then you have vertical deflector at 12 a clock and no device.

Now you have to estimate the ball and rotor speed just looking at the wheel.
My conclusion is that it can be done.

Measuring/estimate ball/rotor at the same time.
Even Laurance mention this kind of method in volume 1 at the very end of the book.
He is not giving any details in his book so I email him to get the detailed explanation.

I consider there are two ways to measuring/estimate ball/rotor speed with eyes only without starring into the wheel.
Now other solutions come into calculation when you estimate deflector hits and offset.

I am willing to talk about these parameters in private if you considering intressting.

Cheers

 

You have to be able to see a small section of the wheel the wheel.

 

@Sputnik

You could stand anywhere you want, even just next to the wheel and have a full view. You don't also need to bet after ball is spun, or let's say just after you see not anything anormal. No the thing is that i believe some results (for example a number/sector that hit much more than it should) are due to particular conditions. Those conditions can be seen in previous spins. Then at a time it could be good to detect them and bet according to what you saw.

 

I'd like to add that biased wheels are victims of a wrong common belief, that it was concerning past wheels only and that nowadays it's not anymore the case. I'd say the opposite, that they're all biased to a certain degree.

Of course they improoved the way to build the wheels, no doubt. But humans cannot build total perfection in any area. If it was the case, for example nobody could die when they send someone in space because of a mistake that would make a crash... Here with roulette, there is even not any life engaged... There is no PERFECTION.

Besides, you must know that the final result is not totally due to the wheel construction or to random but also because of parameters that are manifesting at a time only. If you can observe those parameters, you should be able to act when they manifest and not bet when they not show.

 

About Parameters, many parameters can be skipped because they won't act alone on the result. I guess a million of parameters could influence the final result like i said as a fly's fart. But for example, the way the ball hit a diamond could be an interesting parameters to take in count...its behave after hitting could be also very interesting...

Actually the way the ball hit the diamond is directly the consequence of many parameters like air pressure, humidity, the dealer influence in the way to spin the ball, the track, the way the wheel is balanced today. But in any case, we can observe the effect it produces without observing all those useless parameter, (we cannot consider all of them with an extreme accuracy) and start to build hypothesis related to the results.

 

I lUV IT@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

all i have to do uis pick the section of a group of numbers, place wagers like a book and wait and wait and wait

then i win and win and win and the wins are more than the losses

the casinos will be pulling out the tables any fucking day now, fuck me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Please John make an effort to read correctly.

Don't believe it is as easy as your Ata Woto Rombo things and that you can now increase your expenses...

 

I find something interesting and it reminds me of RRSYS - both methods use release number and outcome - distances from A to B using sector selection with five pockets wide. RRSYS did not show any proof of real results. But the other method has been tested online with good results.

It surprises me that you can get such good results counting pocket distance with the dealer's release number.
Really light wheel signature.

Fairway casino
(Vig)
• Sessions played: 79
• Result: +391 pieces
• Average pieces per session: 4.94
• Sessions won: 55 (70%)
• Sessions lost: 24 (30%)
• Jumps: 3 (4%)
• Number of different croupiers: 43

dublinbet
(Evolution game - Roulette)
• Sessions played: 29
• Result: +333 pieces
• Average pieces per session: 11.5
• Sessions won: 22 (76%)
• Missed sessions: 7 (24%)
• Jumps: 1 (3%)
• Number of different croupiers: 14

And there is no ball/rotor estimation.
There is no dominant drop zone estimation.

Only release/outcome distances using pocket count based upon repetition/repeats.
And separation in CW and CCW directions
Cheers

 

Ok Sputnik, but you should have tried to find also result from Random.org and create distance also. Because it just can be "random into random", the fact that you're observing physical parameters can exclude partly randomness from your observation, because randomness and variance are everywhere.

 

You misunderstand me, I just wanted to share something that surprises me.
No need to use random.org - Snowman gave me the analyze software specific for wheel signature.
And Laurance RA works great.

Should also point out that you have the option to analyze distance from one outcome to another.
Kind of bias signature.

This is fascinating where Toby finds a 7 STD using a specific range of numbers with the principal outcome to outcome.
That is not random and truly bias.

What is amazing is that you can win and find an edge using limited measurements.
But no one cares to discuss and talk about the underlying factors towards cause and effect.

For example outcome to outcome.
The first assumption that comes to mind is that you get the same or similar effect taking the last outcome versus a dealers release number.
Where Caleb once mention measuring a release hitting 5 STD, that is not random.

The conclusion is that a dealer repeats the same movement over and over again.
The time factor lifting the ball from the number ring and slightly push the rotor creates distances from the moment he lifting the ball and spin the ball. During this time rotor travel a certain distance from last hit pocket where the ball rest and therefore can be comparing to a dealers release number.

I missing such underlying discussion about physics.
And again I am just surprised that such simple means can create such results.

Cheers

 

I did understand Sputnik but this is too random, i'm sure the % of real signature is 1%, all the rest is random i guess...

To be a real signature it should:

-Have the same revolution'number of the ball
-Have the exact same rotor speed, 1 little difference at start, 15 seconds later would be a big difference
-Ball should hit same diamond
-Dispersion of the ball should be the same

Most of the time same distance = Random. I converted sequence from Random.org and i had also crazy distance 's concentrations. I didn't go further but i guess i could have got 7std also. You could also observe a suposed bias wheel with a very good std and then eveything goes down to normal, only because it is normal for random sometimes to express extreme cases...
Those extreme cases can be actually useful to build hypothesis than needed to be confirmed.

Look what i've wrote here:

"
I'd like to add something even if everyone do not care... maybe once one will appreciate.

1/ As we know Distances doesn't solve the problem of the edge, and that most distances (more than 90% of them according to me) are due to randomness, a player could simply use numbers on the wheel and separate the two directions. It makes no difference if you use distances, it is just like another numbers to bet on...

2/ Do not try to create something too rigid but flexible. The numbers of pockets bet can be different (good mean is 5 pockets bet)"

I mean that it could be better for example to separate the two direction and observing the numbers, not the distances. If you got for example on one direction 0/36/15/18/4/1/... here bet 15 and neighbours per 5 or 7 neighbours for 3 times still in the same direction... At least with this way you're playing a possible real bias while with distances you're not especially a possible real bias because in this case we're studying distances.

Many of those triggers will come from pure random, by observing physical facts/parameters you could excluse a part of random...

 

Well regarding distance I believe I have another opinion.
So let's talk physics.

Now to take an old known working method from Las Vegas that is known from several people being a winning method.
Its known as a working method with wheels in the past and I would not state is working with today's wheels.

But physics does not change, but conditions and wheel manufacture.
Back to distances...

Assume I stand at the very end of the wheel and only see the 12 a clock deflector.
And the wheel has two dominant vertical deflectors.

Now I watch the dealer spin the ball.
I wait for the ball to pass the release spot before I take the release number.
After that, I wait for ball making one full rotation and take a second reference number.
Again I wait for the ball making one full rotation and take a third reference number.

Now with this particular spin, the ball made 10 pockets between first and second reference number.
And between the second and third number, the ball made 12 pockets.

This indicates that you have one particular rotor speed and one particular ball speed.
The ball time difference is very small at the speed at the beginning of the spin.
We can categorize the ball and rotor speeds into slow, medium and fast.

When they change the patterns in pockets change mapping the wheel using three reference numbers.
Another spin might have 8 pockets difference between first and second reference number and 9 pockets difference between second and third reference number.

Now assume you collect and categorize only the spins with the ball/rotor combination with 10 pocket difference between first and second and 12 pockets between second and third.
Then this group of spins will manifest a true bias.
This means that each and every spin in that group will not be the same, but most of them will have similar characteristics.

This category group will tend to hit the same group of vertical deflectors and will tend to have the same ball/rotor speeds with similar distances.
You get a group of selected spins that have a higher probability and likelihood of favorizing speeds and distances to become bias because they have the same identical characteristics.

Now the clever solution to this is that you get three zones/sectors splitting the wheel into three reference numbers with pocket distance.
This means that the dominant drop zone will favorizing one zone/sector more often than the others where you can get an edge to manifest.

This particular solution only works with the particular wheel you tracking, a new wheel will create other and new categories of mapping patterns that will pinpoint out the bias.
I assume you would collect and mapping the five or ten most common patterns and find the signature with one particular pattern combination.

If people in the past is known to win using this method, then it does not prevent anyone today so achieve the same.

Conclusion

Distances are not random if you use physics and categorize each and every spin individually.
Same goes for ball/rotor speeds.

Cheers

 

Let's clarify something, i don't want to debate who's right or wrong but i can see problems in your way to do.

When you act at the begining of the spin, obviously you'll have a larger time remaining than if you act lately in the spin.

If you mistake 1 pockets in estimating rotor speed at the begining, then your mistake will be a large mistake at the end. It is a problem.

I allready clocked slow motion a ball revolution, and my conclusion is that it is not becase you got 0.600 for a revolution and in another spin 0.605 for a revolution than you'll have at the end of both spins the same revolution number of the ball remaining from that revolution clocked. So it is clearly a big problem also.

All those kind of mistakes will clearly decrease the possible edge that you could get, but at least here in the last description that you made, there are physical observations that can exclude a bit random, and even if it's definately not enough accurate to gain something IMO, it is better than simply observe distance from outcome to another which is too random.

 

You are mistaking me from using this kind of method.
Is in Laurance Scott volume 1 at the end of the book.

I can use sectors with plus or minus one pocket to left and right and still estimate the correct ball speed.
Ball speeds have larger marginal then rotor, my opinion.

You are mistaking in that mapping a wheel will give the exact same spin after spin using the same pattern with ball/rotor combination.
They don't and still, you get a bias.
If they did not work then no one would have success using this method in the past.

And that is not the case.

Cheers

 

Even if you measuring rotor speed the common known ways you might have bad skills and be one half or one pocket wrong.
And still, you win overall, because estimations match more times than not matching, bias tendency.

Even with Roulette Computer, you have an error in clicking the device and reading numbers and still, you win overall.
More results matching then not matching.

Hope my point is clear.
For example, predicting ball 9 laps before drop using the method I mention with plus or minus one pocket to left or right using deceleration pattern at the very beginning of the spin.
That is four laps that you identify the strength behind the speed.
Take a cammegh wheel with smooth declarations path and you still get more matching then not matching deceleration patterns.

For example, three spins with the same declaration pattern have 13, 13 and 12 laps during the whole spin from beginning/release to drop.
Four spins at the beginning estimate the ball deceleration pattern and from that moment you have two nine remaining laps to drop and one with eight laps to drop.
As you can see two spins out of three is matching and if you take a larger sample you will have spins that not match, but overall you will have more matching spins then not matching spins based upon that principle.

But wheels in the past made less laps overall then with todays ball/wheel combinations.
Today you can see twenty-two laps and that make the deceleration patterns and distances greater in length.
Then spin might cheat more often plus one or minus one lap than in the old days.

Cheers

 

Yes i do understand your point. But let's imagine even on an old wheel, i'm not sure that you could have played for example 1 hour like this... It must be too "messy" to take a serious advantage over the time.
For example, have you done any test on Bob Gordon 's wheel? Could you beat it (what kind of advantage)? I don't know what country you are from, but there are still pretty old wheels in the world that you can play on.

I mean, to be realist i'm not sure you can today recognize a particular ball revolution without making many mistakes in the long run which cause many loss. Many people doesn't know it but you could play with a higher negative edge than -2.7% if you play a "bad" vb system.

If you play a Vb system, then it is better to be very very accurate, or at least act very late in the spin to make less mistake when identifying ball which is now not easy.

 

Bob Gordon's video wheel is pretty easy wheel when play on two zones. The main moment at all in VB play is that players do not see a real picture of results - so not have a good starting point. Play one zone when they are two - is the biggest mistake.

Of course, must be accurate, but that is everywhere in life. Main is to understand what you do and why that you do. And of course to train at least several times per week.
Was time, when i trained every day 4-6 hours...

 

@Benas

In your opinion, could you have a concentration even if the scatter looks horrible but if you're able to spot correctly the right moment about how many laps remain for the ball before hit?

Let's imagine, you can perfectly predict how many time remains before ball hit a vertical diamond that could be a different diamond, do you think you could use those First point> final result distance to make a bet. If the dealer use to throw a quite stable rotor speed and even if the scatter look not so similar?

 

How strange you ask - what is the relationship between scattering and the ability to predict how many rotations are left?InVb main moment is the ability to compare two spins - actual which now is going and some from history which result is known.

If such, you can - no matter to others - you will be the winner. Scattering can kill the ability to win, but from several wheels - you easy will find one with predictable scattering - if you know what that is ....