1. Welcome to the #1 Gambling Community with the best minds across the entire gambling spectrum. REGISTER NOW!
  2. Have a gambling question?

    Post it here and our gambling experts will answer it!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Discussions in this section are assumed to be EV- as they are outside of the Advantage Play section. For EV+ discussions, please visit the Advantage Play section.
    Dismiss Notice

Roulette What do we think of the Zuma Roulette Tester?

Discussion in 'Roulette Forum' started by TwoCatSam, Mar 12, 2015.

  1. TwoCatSam

    TwoCatSam Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Likes:
    11
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Greetings

    Soon I hope to begin a test of a system which uses the American 00 wheel. I am planning to use the Zuma 15,000-spin test book for my spins.

    Could I get some opinions on this book, if there are any. Like, was it really recorded by hand at a B&M casino? For all I know, it could be the child of some ancient number generator.

    Anyone?

    TwoCat
     
  2. tomla

    tomla Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    Likes:
    10
    hi two cat the guy from texas says they are real but who knows?




    I use it for quick testing a lot
     
  3. TwoCatSam

    TwoCatSam Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Likes:
    11
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    So, tomla, let me put you on the spot.

    If you tested a system through the entire 15,000 spins and it showed a reasonable percentage of profit from the investment, would you believe in the system and play it for real? You would be placing your bets based on the Zuma.

    Thanks for your reply.

    Samster
     
  4. tomla

    tomla Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    Likes:
    10
    sam I would think so,, but it is your green ,,,,,,, I randomly test 30 spin sections and it has held up in casinos ,,, but you know roulette!!!!!!!
     
  5. Spider

    Spider Active Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2014
    Likes:
    79
    Hi Sam, I guess the answer is that it's impossible to tell 100%. However, as you know, it has long been considered that Zuma is the one to beat. If I had a reasonable percentage profit after 15,000 spins of "whatever". (It's still random to some degree) I'd consider that a win!
     
  6. albalaha

    albalaha Active Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Likes:
    122
    Occupation:
    player
    Location:
    India
    I have used American roulette Zumma testers book very extensively. It is merely a piece of a random session of 15,000 spins. Another one can be entirely different from this.
    15,000 spins are not enough sample for concluding any method as winner or loser but for outside bets it can indicate something.
    15000 spins taken from random.org or even generated via excel RNG formula will do the same.
     
  7. TwoCatSam

    TwoCatSam Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Likes:
    11
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Thank you.
     

  8. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    I just noticed this post - my issue is that working with the same list of spins in order to test something is always a bad idea (using the same list over and over) because eventually you will find something that works against it. Then when you take another list it will fail. Also it's too easy to 'reverse engineer' a method that will beat any set of spins and then claim you have something. I always use RX to test systems, I try to use actuals that are easy to download through the program from various casinos as they happen or once per day, etc. I would be certain that using 15,000 of these kinds of spins to test something would give more accurate results than a list that has been used over and over to test systems. My opinion of course. Have these spins been put into a tester (RX or other) to see how accurate a sample this is ? I would be curious to find out. If it returns a bias wheel result or 5 deviation from the norm, etc... then why test a system against conditions you will never face. It may be unbeatable under those circumstances and that makes it useless. Like testing a car to go up a 90 degree side of a wall - you'll never be able to do it, but then again you'll never face that situation and even if you made a car that could do it, it would be useless. Grins.
     
  9. albalaha

    albalaha Active Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Likes:
    122
    Occupation:
    player
    Location:
    India
    Beating a particular set of spins is of no use. If you are beating it without looking into its downsides and without using cherry picking, the same concept should work on any other random model too. Zuma got famous due to being used by various system sellers. They made it a benchmark, be it american or european roulette books or baccarat books. They exploited it as well by reverse engineering. Methods doing great on Zuma by them clearly fail in a random session. Why? Because they make it specifically for them.
    It can although be used by a layman who knows zero coding to hand test any method.
     
  10. Spider

    Spider Active Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2014
    Likes:
    79
    Hi Turbo. I agree with everything you say. That's why I used the word " considered". I, like you, use RX, then if something appears to be going well, I'll test it in an online casino.
     
    TurboGenius likes this.
  11. Alan Yasutovich

    Alan Yasutovich Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2015
    Likes:
    0
    I think that 15000 results is a pretty good sample to hold up under.
    Real or not. And depending on how catastrophic a system bust might be,
    or how meager the session wins are that you are closing sessions with,
    it would be really hard to go on a tear against success with that sample.

    My "sample" is usually 50 spins....... Real life, of course.
     
  12. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    I agree, but only if they are realistic numbers. If someone made a list that didn't follow along with reasonably expected results, then testing a system against those numbers is useless.
     
  13. Alan Yasutovich

    Alan Yasutovich Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2015
    Likes:
    0
    Ha Ha. Well I just sent email kind of related to this to someone.

    The question involved real vs electronic results. If I gave you a list of craps or
    roulette results I guess you'd call it random. If gave you a list from an electronic game
    then on what basis could you state that they were not random. Other than not having
    the "hand of fate" on them? You couldn't, because there is no basis.

    On the same line, someone (might have been you) said something about the sample being
    small, and the next one being different, blowing it out of the water. I kind of feel like
    a 15000 sample is big enough to (per the infinity laws that calculus uses) to encorporate
    a enough possibilities to sufficiently cover it. Certainly not calling anything foolproof.
    But viable.
     
  14. albalaha

    albalaha Active Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Likes:
    122
    Occupation:
    player
    Location:
    India
    A random result is random and no one can distinguish between real casino sessions vs RNG stuff. Many conspiracy theories around Zumma. What matters is, it is a nicely presented database. Good enough for a sample. If you have a methodology that bets it fully and beats it betting every spin, it is worth something. You can code a similar one in Excel and produce as many random sessions of american, european or no zero roulette as you want.
    Zumma is not out of world. It is only one among many.
     

  15. Nathan Detroit

    Nathan Detroit Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2014
    Likes:
    2,088
    What`s next ? VOODOO ?
     
  16. Rona

    Rona Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2015
    Likes:
    91
    If you beat 15K spins it is worth a try with real money. Period.
     
  17. Nathan Detroit

    Nathan Detroit Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2014
    Likes:
    2,088
    Rona,


    Don`t forget the chicken blood.
     
  18. oasislv

    oasislv New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2022
    Likes:
    0
    Location:
    albuquerque, new mexico
    um, in the 90's in las vegas I discovered it at a Gamblers Book store and was enamored by the quality and detail. I bought the book and entered it into my computer because like yourself I was interested in testing systems. The link below has my Amazon review of the tester, which includes my personal computer analysis. roulette system tester.jpg
     

    Attached Files:

  19. Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone

    Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone Well-Known Member Lineage to Founders

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Likes:
    935
    Occupation:
    Shoe Cobbler
    Location:
    Merica
    As I recall, I tested the data and found several sequences of duplicated data. If you need live wheel data, I've got real data.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2022
  20. oasislv

    oasislv New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2022
    Likes:
    0
    Location:
    albuquerque, new mexico
    Yeah, grab a book of 15,000 spins, or write your own, or use a 'successful' system, or, or, or. Doesn't really matter! Why? Because the American roulette system of 38 numbers generates 38 factorial non repeating numbers.

    Google 38 factorial: 5.230226174666E+44. Trillions upon trillions. ALEXA when asked what is 38 factorial replied 'it is approximately 523 million trillion trillion trillion. NOT manageable either with our brains, time, or technology. lol.

    um, but... for the comparatively short time one has to live and breath, lol one may simply work with the science of probabilities good ol 38 to 1 odds.

    If the math is right you can sleep at night that its alright, lol

    I'm saying too much now, but look at the graph below for example. I noticed that systems that protected against zeroes worked significantly better than those without protection. So I once wrote a program that only bet the zeroes. Right, and then when I compared it to my randomly generated 15000 spins you see the problem. As you can also tell from my amazon review, ANY set of random numbers will (randomly) have its own dominate numbers.... sigh
     

    Attached Files:


Share This Page