How to Win at Roulette by Arnold Snyder
February 22nd, 2013 at 5:01:25 PM
permalink
The wheel must have a dominant ball drop point for it to work, otherwise it can't be done. So yes, the wheel must have a drop zone bias.
February 22nd, 2013 at 5:02:14 PM
permalink
Quote: treetopbuddyall one has to do is watch the action of the ball to know it's completely random. The person that sees order in the drop of the ball needs to go back to chasing crop circles.
Is the action of the pins at the bowling alley, "random"? Perhaps if the ball is rolled from a random spot, with varying speed and spin. However, that same ball in the hand of professional bowler, can produce pretty consistent results despite the "random" action of the pins.
I'd like to see a rigorous test.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
February 22nd, 2013 at 5:21:29 PM
permalink
Quote: TIMSPEEDBecause this is a math forum, not much gambling.
Ah, only of the trifling math which, then again, is basically synonymous with gambling in practice. Many times you win but a few more times still you lose is the same result from the theoretical view versus the practised approach.
The primary psychological reason that most gamblers come to steadfastly believe in the eventuality of a turn around... latched onto a math which they can somehow begin to intuitively understand on their own, but without the significantly broad and formal education/experience with which to put it all into a proper prospective. Precisely, by claiming that that which they are doing is more about the math than the gambling. Hence, by extension, all the crazy stuff (as viewed from anywhere else) across many of these boards.
Possibly, then, the majority of anti-gambling in general is a weak form of pro-gambling in disguise?
Those who can, do; those who can't, teach. But those who confuse the two... they wind up on the internet.
February 22nd, 2013 at 6:14:04 PM
permalink
I think we go out, buy some TV equipment and a slow motion camera. Then we buy a roulette table and claim that roulette can be beaten after 200 spins because the numbers in some quadrant show up a bit more than others.
Then we host a weekly TV show that is just fun, but the host believes that he has an advantage anyway.
In the end, people criticize the host for the lack of statistical knowledge. Other critics state that the trials mean nothing except within a real casino with a real dealer. So, the host goes to casinos and ponders what pieces of paper and pen to bring.
Sigh...
Then we host a weekly TV show that is just fun, but the host believes that he has an advantage anyway.
In the end, people criticize the host for the lack of statistical knowledge. Other critics state that the trials mean nothing except within a real casino with a real dealer. So, the host goes to casinos and ponders what pieces of paper and pen to bring.
Sigh...
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
February 22nd, 2013 at 7:55:00 PM
permalink
" One of the biggest and most respected names in gambling is saying that roulette can be beaten, mostly by dealers who can steer the ball. "
Not exactly respected by everybody it seems :
http://www.hitorstand.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-560.html
Not exactly respected by everybody it seems :
http://www.hitorstand.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-560.html
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
February 22nd, 2013 at 7:57:50 PM
permalink
Quote: KeyserI hope nobody is seriously trying to debate whether or not someone can predict where the ball will land with or without a computer.
With a computer, laser speed measurements and the known physics of the wheel/ball deflectors are you saying it can't be done?
The likely solutions to that physics problem has got to be able to rule out at least one sector of 3 possible outcomes on the wheel and that is all you need to gain an edge.
So yes, with a computer and speed measurement tools, I believe it could be done....in a lab set up.
In the casino, undetected, where the physics of the wheel may not be accessible and the laser measurement tool needs to be disguised and an offsite computer and time enough to do the calculation and get the bets placed in time.....not sure. But that appears to be what happened in London 9 years ago.
February 22nd, 2013 at 8:35:42 PM
permalink
Even the chief wheel engineer for Huxley, George Melas, recognizes that it can be beaten with or without a computer. People have used various forms of visual ballistics aka wheel watching for probably over a century. In his pdf of the Evolution of the Roulette Wheel, he documents various cases and cites them as being the reason for various changes in wheel designs over the year. During the 1970s and 1980s the casinos all over Europe were losing several millions of dollars because of the various wheel watcher teams. These players forced fundamental changes to the way the game is dealt and to wheel designs.
February 22nd, 2013 at 8:54:02 PM
permalink
Quote: KeyserThe wheel must have a dominant ball drop point for it to work, otherwise it can't be done. So yes, the wheel must have a drop zone bias.
It seems unlikely that even for a perfectly unbiased wheel, all acceptable combinations of wheel speed and launch speed yield a perfectly uniform distribution.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
February 22nd, 2013 at 8:56:06 PM
permalink
" During the 1970s and 1980s " Quick Mr. Peabody, to the way-back machine.
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
February 22nd, 2013 at 9:36:40 PM
permalink
Oh dear... if you were to take a roulette wheel and straighten out the numbers it could measure about a meter in length... So the numbers are now stretched out in front of you... now an average spin of the ball will go around about 8 to ten rotations and most casinos have a 3 full spin minimum which dealers are procedurally obliged to follow... But average is about 8 to 10 rotations... now the wheel is spinning in the opposite direction to the direction the ball is spun so we can safely say the wheel will rotate about 8 to 10 times in the opposite direction before the ball falls from the rim hits the baffles and then bounces into the troughs it then bounces a few more times and lands in the winning number … So!!! Imagine all this like a bowling ally.. And the ball is rolled for ten spins (about 10 meters + the 10 meters for the wheel revolving in the opposite direction. Now some people believe a skilled dealer can spin the wheel at an exact rate and spin the ball at an exact rate so the ball will fall and avoid the baffles and the trough bouncing to land in a specific area or a specific number that measures about 2 centimeters across..?? Let me be the one to tell you that anyone who says it’s possible never really looked at the physics of the situation … It’s not possible for any one or even a computer to predict such a random occurrence.. That’s why roulette will always be so enchanting... proposing that a person can roll a ball which measures about 1 cm in diameter along a channel between 15 and 20 meters long and hit a target 2 cm across speaks for its self ..
A Riddle Wrapped In A Mystery Inside An Enigma
February 22nd, 2013 at 10:09:12 PM
permalink
Quote: montyace... proposing that a person can roll a ball which measures about 1 cm in diameter along a channel between 15 and 20 meters long and hit a target 2 cm across speaks for its self ..
I think that the idea is to be able to fairly consistently land the ball in a broad sector of the wheel -- not on a specific number.
Is it possible for someone to make the ball land on a sector that occupies a whole 3/4 of the wheel fairly consistently? If one could do so at least 13 out of every 16 spins, then one might get a slight edge. What if one could consistently land the ball in a sector that occupies 5/8 of the wheel? What about a sector that is 1/2 of the wheel? And so on... This is probably another one of those instances in which it comes down to a matter of degree.
February 22nd, 2013 at 11:05:39 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobYou mean the non sanctioned private test with
no witnesses and no official controls? Is that the
one?
You said no dealer had ever come forward. A dealer did come forward, stated a hypothesis, and tested it.
No, it's not a complete, accurate statistical test. I wouldn't say 'this has been proven'.
I would say someone has done enough to merit further investigation, if they so wished to. A proof takes a series of steps, each building on the results from previous tests. From his notes, it suggests that some effect could be found -that may not replicate an official casino spin- that a dealer can target one half of a wheel.
Some people claim to be able to forecast a pure random string of numbers better than by chance, but I've yet to see them come forward with witnesses and official controls either. Is that all myth and conjecture as well?
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
February 22nd, 2013 at 11:40:52 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspit
I would say someone has done enough to merit further investigation,
Volunteer your time, its yours to waste.. Investigate your
bum off, Sherlock..
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
February 23rd, 2013 at 12:01:03 AM
permalink
I would be the first to say that my experiment was far from scientific. The wheels I used were tested every day with a spirit level. The wheels also had quite shallow pockets, and were getting on for 10 years old. Our wheels have recently been replaced as part of a refurb and I think upgraded to these wheels . I would love to have the time to repeat this experiment, or to conduct it under stricter conditions, but thats not going to happen whilst in my current employment, as I have been spending a lot of time running the card room lately, and rarely deal any more.
personally, I reckon I just got lucky.
At the time I thought better, but the more I consider it, the less likely it seems.
personally, I reckon I just got lucky.
At the time I thought better, but the more I consider it, the less likely it seems.
[This space is intentionally left blank]
February 23rd, 2013 at 3:33:45 AM
permalink
I was on roulette yesterday and spent the last two hours aiming at specific numbers. I hit within a 4 number area about 90% of the time. I think it was a coincidence. The way I was taught to aim is to match your soon to the speed of the wheel and aim for the mark on the wheel on the opposite side where your begin the speed. If it does not hit the rivet on the wheel it can usually land where you are aiming. I think it is a coincidence though, I would not say it is sure enough to bring in a confederate to win some money, it is just something to do for fun.
February 23rd, 2013 at 4:33:49 AM
permalink
Quote: BuzzardMaybe Arnold has been reading his own books lately, like Risk of Ruin !.
Did Arnold write the following or are you just hijacking the thread?
Quote: Arnold????????
7. Ownership is theft. Thou shalt share.
10. Covet whatever the hell you want to covet. Just remember, ownership is theft, so if you attain it, you must share it.
I'm not too keen on this part. Totally socialist/communist.
I'll give you two thoughts: In 'Dr. Zhivago' there is the scene where 'the people' take over a mansion, and Zhivago even says he thinks it is 'more just'. A scene or two later the furniture is all out on the street being used for firewood.
Abe Lincoln on property rights: Check out the link and go to the second paragraph and what follows "nor should this lead to a war on property"
http://books.google.com/books?id=yb-8XUNaQ4YC&pg=PA500&lpg=PA500&dq=lincoln+Property+desirable+positive+good&source=web&ots=0uCAWgCRSu&sig=bNjwdDDSOGH1OMV37TnfrlAS6Eo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#v=onepage&q&f=false
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
February 23rd, 2013 at 5:21:31 AM
permalink
Anything seems possible with someone who sees the same wheel every day for years. If a wheel is most likely to stop where it begins spinning, then dropping a ball on the wheel would have a similar effect, but I don't know the effect of the bouncing around is.
If a casino had a rule where the dealer was to not look where he dropped the ball, then this would be moot for the most part as far as I can guess.
If a casino had a rule where the dealer was to not look where he dropped the ball, then this would be moot for the most part as far as I can guess.
I am a robot.
February 24th, 2013 at 6:09:04 PM
permalink
Having been in the Casino business for the last 25 years I can assure all readers that every roulette dealer has the notion of practicing this idea of hitting sections on the wheel … our wheel in Europe only has one zero and we have French bets which as a call bet can play big sections of the wheel just by calling Voisins du zéro (neighbors of zero) this is a nine piece bet which basically betts all the number on the zero side of the wheel .. Then you have a small section called the Orphelins (orphans) this is a 5 chip bet which can be player during the spin.. And lastly we have Le tiers du cylindre (Thirds of the wheel) or Tier bet which is a 6 piece bet .. Now for many years myself and many many of my fellow dealers would spend literally hours and hours on no games trying to perfect section spinning ( as we call it .. ) Now... here is the specific bit .. we all thought we could do it simply because of laws of probability .. on a given day I would spin the ball and say Tier for sure .. !! low and behold Tier would land .. Then the next spin I would say Voisins ,, again I would hit the correct section .. This could go on for spin after spin... me getting it right time after time. Does this mean I’m a section spinner...? NO!! This means I was lucky with my prediction...( after all after doing it for so long I’m bound to get it right for extended period just as often as I would get it wrong for extended periods .. If someone told me to bet my wages on the next spin I would not do it... Why... Because even I could not explain why I could do it... there for I was just lucky on that given day... The answer here is selective memory... I remember the times when I string together 12 correct answers in a row but promptly forget the multitude of times that I don’t get a single correct prediction for hours. I’m in the business and have been for as I said 25 years... I know thousands of gaming staff and only the weirdly odd people who stand out as different claim to be able to section spin... in the business we call those staff deluded and ever so slightly stupid .. !! In fact they are in the same category as those that think if you give them 10 minutes they can rearrange the numbers on the wheel to make it better????
A Riddle Wrapped In A Mystery Inside An Enigma
February 24th, 2013 at 6:59:34 PM
permalink
Quote: Croupierpersonally, I reckon I just got lucky.
That's just it: who knows?
But the thing that bugs me no end, and with dice control as well, is that these things are eminently testable by experiment. It wouldn't even be very hard to borrow a dice table or a roulette wheel, given the connections with the gaming industry by some members of this board. Any experiments would be easily carried out and the whole matter could be settled one way or another.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
February 24th, 2013 at 7:07:40 PM
permalink
Quote: montyaceand only the weirdly odd people who stand out as different claim to be able to section spin...
I've known a few roulette dealers who claimed to be able to section spin. When I pressed them for proof, or a demonstration, they just mumbled.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
February 24th, 2013 at 7:16:43 PM
permalink
Quote: NareedThat's just it: who knows?
But the thing that bugs me no end, and with dice control as well, is that these things are eminently testable by experiment. It wouldn't even be very hard to borrow a dice table or a roulette wheel, given the connections with the gaming industry by some members of this board. Any experiments would be easily carried out and the whole matter could be settled one way or another.
There was a challenge involving Stanford Wong and the shooter Little Joe cleaned the clock of some sceptics. Even though they won the challenge, it was very far from settling the argument because of arguments about whether the conditions were representative, the SRR wasn't statistically strong enough etc etc.
I remember reading the discussions of the various people involved. It was obvious from the start nothing was going to be determined decisively.
Scientific tests do not resolve as much as you might think. There have been many false positives and false negatives, for example there was an experiment many years ago that "proved" the existence of telepathy. The problem is that you can argue endlessly about the parameters of the test and what inferences can be drawn from the data. There are also biases caused by peer group pressure and money.
February 24th, 2013 at 7:26:42 PM
permalink
Quote: GBVThere was a challenge involving Stanford Wong and the shooter Little Joe cleaned the clock of some sceptics.
I lost $2,000 on that to Bob Dancer. However, I'd bet it again as fast as I'd bet the "no safety" on the next Super Bowl.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
February 24th, 2013 at 7:32:40 PM
permalink
Quote: GBVScientific tests do not resolve as much as you might think.
It depends on what you want to test.
Take dice control. I'd be ok with having a regulation table, perfectly flat, without worn felt, in a quiet room, no pressure, no actual bets, and just see if the people who claim they can control dice can actually do so. If that checks out, then I'd be glad to follow up with tests under actual field conditions.
Look, suppose we were arguing whether a man can hit a ball traveling very fast with a rather slender club. Why argue about it, when you can test real world example (even if you have to be willing to be bored half to death first)?
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
February 24th, 2013 at 7:56:08 PM
permalink
Quote: NareedThat's just it: who knows?
But the thing that bugs me no end, and with dice control as well, is that these things are eminently testable by experiment. It wouldn't even be very hard to borrow a dice table or a roulette wheel, given the connections with the gaming industry by some members of this board. Any experiments would be easily carried out and the whole matter could be settled one way or another.
It’s been done time and time again in many many casinos by literally thousands of dealers... And its why roulette remains in a Casino till this day... if it was discovered to be anything other than chance it would be disallowed in casinos... incidentally... a young dealer in Moscow told me he could spin sections and he also claimed he could hit numbers within 2 number of the target... the following weekend he was dealing on a game with a big player and he hit a bet which had a max payout of 392 by $100 so $39,200 pay out ? I called him to the office and I asked him to explain, since he told me he could spin numbers at will … he said he was dealing randomly today..??? I sent him home and told him not to come back... not because I thought he was colluding with the player but because he was a dumb ass and I don’t need dumasses working in my casino!!
A Riddle Wrapped In A Mystery Inside An Enigma
February 24th, 2013 at 8:59:37 PM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
February 24th, 2013 at 9:52:44 PM
permalink
Quote: montyaceincidentally... a young dealer in Moscow!
Moscow in Russia? Or there's a couple Moscow's in the States..
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
February 24th, 2013 at 10:11:26 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobMoscow in Russia? Or there's a couple Moscow's in the States..
Lol .. Russia .. ( i forget how big your country is !!! )
A Riddle Wrapped In A Mystery Inside An Enigma
February 24th, 2013 at 11:59:12 PM
permalink
Quote: montyaceLol .. Russia .. ( i forget how big your country is !!! )
So you're saying you work in a casino in Russia. Right?
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
February 25th, 2013 at 12:25:52 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardI lost $2,000 on that to Bob Dancer. However, I'd bet it again as fast as I'd bet the "no safety" on the next Super Bowl.
I think there are quite a few of us who would like the action but unfortunately on the same side as Wizard. The March 17th side taking the action [only the shooter] has said no more bets!
I can't figure out why Dancer would make this bet. He seems to be skeptical about a lot of stuff and I could swear I've heard him diss dice control too.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
February 25th, 2013 at 12:33:14 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobSo you're saying you work in a casino in Russia. Right?
Quote: His Profile
Age: 42
Location: Philippines
Occupation: Casino executive
Hobbies: Not specified
Favorite Casino(s): Mine
Favorite Game(s): Black Jack
Favorite Monopoly Piece: Dog ..
Other Info: Not specified
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
February 25th, 2013 at 12:34:01 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobSo you're saying you work in a casino in Russia. Right?
Right... Several casinos in Russia ... hungry, Rumania, turkey, Greece, Israel... South Africa... Tanzania, Seychelles... I’m presently in the Philippines...
A Riddle Wrapped In A Mystery Inside An Enigma
February 25th, 2013 at 6:58:36 AM
permalink
Quote: montyaceI called him to the office and I asked him to explain, since he told me he could spin numbers at will … he said he was dealing randomly today..???
So you were expecting the dealer to cheat the player?
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
February 25th, 2013 at 10:23:36 AM
permalink
Quote: montyaceRight... Several casinos in Russia ... hungry, Rumania, turkey, Greece, Israel... South Africa... Tanzania, Seychelles... I’m presently in the Philippines...
How do you deal with AP's in Russia. Kick them out
or break their legs. I've heard stories..
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
February 25th, 2013 at 10:28:21 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobHow do you deal with AP's in Russia. Kick them out
or break their legs. I've heard stories..
I thought living in Russia was punishment enough
A flute with no holes is not a flute, a donut with no holes is a danish
February 25th, 2013 at 11:06:45 AM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitI can't figure out why Dancer would make this bet. He seems to be skeptical about a lot of stuff and I could swear I've heard him diss dice control too.
He has very solid faith in Wong. I've never heard him diss dice setting while Wong was supporting it.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
February 25th, 2013 at 6:26:14 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobHow do you deal with AP's in Russia. Kick them out
or break their legs. I've heard stories..
Most are politely asked to leave with empty pockets ... but if you come back and you’re recognized don’t expect politeness this time... Russia just gives you a good beating... but Turkey they will put your hand on a concrete block and smash your fingers with a heavy metal bar... It tends to get the message across and we didn’t get very many attempts at all surprisingly enough...
A Riddle Wrapped In A Mystery Inside An Enigma
February 25th, 2013 at 6:27:58 PM
permalink
Quote: Gabes22I thought living in Russia was punishment enough
If you have money Russia is an amazing place to live... everything and anything is available and possible and i mean anything and everything...
A Riddle Wrapped In A Mystery Inside An Enigma
February 25th, 2013 at 6:37:48 PM
permalink
Quote: NareedSo you were expecting the dealer to cheat the player?
If you read the thread you would see that I know 100% that dealers can¡¦t influence the ball for the good of the casino or the player... But if the guest hears from the stupid dealer that he thinks he can, he might be believed by innocent players... so having dealers who stupidly think they can section spin leads me to question their mentality and stability .. not good to have mental unstable staff in any job .. ƒº
A Riddle Wrapped In A Mystery Inside An Enigma
February 26th, 2013 at 9:23:31 AM
permalink
Quote: NareedIt depends on what you want to test.
Take dice control. I'd be ok with having a regulation table, perfectly flat, without worn felt, in a quiet room, no pressure, no actual bets, and just see if the people who claim they can control dice can actually do so. If that checks out, then I'd be glad to follow up with tests under actual field conditions.
Look, suppose we were arguing whether a man can hit a ball traveling very fast with a rather slender club. Why argue about it, when you can test real world example (even if you have to be willing to be bored half to death first)?
You kind of illustrate my point here. You mention "worn felt". I've seen a lot of worn felts in casinos. Advantage play depends on the existence of unusual, exploitable conditions. Already we are getting into subjective territory. A lot of people think that AP should pass some kind of generic laboratory conditions, but even well-known plays like card counting aren't effective under normal conditions without game selection. AP is by nature opportunistic.
There have been many "kitchen table" experiments which yielded impressive sevens to rolls ratios. No one seems to think that has any bearing on actual casino craps.
You see in this thread the difficulty. There was a challenge, the sceptics lost, yet they didn't and don't accept the result as proof of dice control. You may say, we need statistically significant results, as I did at the time: but it was the responsibility of the participants to determine that not bring that up retrospectively if they didn't like the result. Those in both camps seemed more interested in making bets with each other than actually determining anything of scientific value.
February 26th, 2013 at 6:34:24 PM
permalink
Quote: GBV... some kind of generic laboratory conditions, under normal conditions.
Strictly speaking, controlled laboratory conditions aren't all-purpose, normal conditions. Don't twist the argument around to read that one is lab capable if and only if an AP.
Those who can, do; those who can't, teach. But those who confuse the two... they wind up on the internet.
February 26th, 2013 at 7:03:21 PM
permalink
Quote: LexingerStrictly speaking, controlled laboratory conditions aren't all-purpose, normal conditions. Don't twist the argument around to read that one is lab capable if and only if an AP.
I'm not twisting anything, I'm explaining the problems involved here. Actual casino AP conditions are often unique. Even if the will were there, and it clearly isn't, you can't test every scenario.
Be aware that a lot of preliminary research has already been conducted into roulette and craps already and some of the questions that are being asked in this thread have already been resolved. Fifty years Ed Thorp stated that human wheel prediction was possible, and that approximate calculations yielded a 15% advantage. Much of this information is buried in technical journals and most people are unaware of it.
February 27th, 2013 at 4:04:57 PM
permalink
Quote: GBVActual casino AP conditions are often unique.
Then there is no experiment to test, if such is not replicable.
Quote: GBVBe aware that a lot of preliminary research has already been conducted into roulette and craps already and some of the questions that are being asked in this thread have already been resolved. Much of this information is buried in technical journals and most people are unaware of it.
No matter, most of that material is its own form of S (cheap simulation) and M (overly-zealous math). Lacks the level of feel or originality required to advance something as fluid for a professional gambler. Like a shrink who "tells" a patient who tries to turn every decision into a probability or a matter of physics and chemistry, "You really do that?" Because, one can find reference to just about anything in such journals, but no one can prove that even everything is possible. So, you may carelessly embark, and thus invite others to join you, on journeys without end, let alone profit. On the other hand, though I can't decisively prove that roulette is, for all intents and purposes, a big waste of time, I can simply firmly deduce something to that effect. Consider that the best super-computer models of whole ocean currents will degenerate to chicken scratch within four to five days over a partial cycle. Yet, someone working in scientific obscurity, eg, from the gambling industry, declares, inadvertently by simple analogy, that he can predict an isolated and localized bit of such current, ie, small light ball, over many cycles, ie, spins. Even when it works, the math is overrated, as it seems to account for hopelessly less than a per cent of the questions put to it to date.
Similarly, it would have been fun to reply to, eg, that "chance of two cards side by side in a deck" thread with some fresh and potentially-profitable approximation theory (to follow on the original internet solution posted on the ehow site), but alas, not everything is in or comes from a book. Sorely out of place and scope. If you want to earn the big bucks at just about anything, then you'll have to venture off the straight and narrow at some point.
Those who can, do; those who can't, teach. But those who confuse the two... they wind up on the internet.
February 27th, 2013 at 4:39:18 PM
permalink
Quote: GBVFifty years Ed Thorp stated that human wheel prediction was possible, and that approximate calculations yielded a 15% advantage. .
It Thorp's day the wheels had inclines that the
ball would race down, and frets between the
pockets that would snag a ball like a Venus
Flytrap. The wheels now are flat hubcaps with
scooped out indentations for pockets and no
frets at all.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
February 28th, 2013 at 2:40:33 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBob... the wheels had inclines that the ball would race down, and frets between the
pockets that would snag a ball like a Venus Flytrap.
Aside from biases in design and/or maintenance, doubt that other things matter. Everything tends to take the path of least resistance, so that trading one proper design aspect with another should mean that the new design inherits the same degree of overall randomness to allocate across all aspects. I'm sure that this property can be rephrased in a more technical manner in other ways, not my specialty.
Perhaps the specific changes are more about fashion, or the manufacturing technology of the time. Cars are supposed to be more aerodynamic, etc, as a selling feature, but I doubt that is really the case. Most people are easily sucked into cheaper revamped stuff. Gamblers like to interpret such changes as a hidden meaning that the casinos are somehow afraid of losing big.
If roulette computers worked in a legitimate way, then mass produced... the price would fall instead of exponentially increasing with each new gimmick added.
Those who can, do; those who can't, teach. But those who confuse the two... they wind up on the internet.
March 5th, 2013 at 11:31:05 AM
permalink
One major point that Arnold Snyder does not mention is how many dealers can do this ball steering. He seems to indicate that the % of dealers than can do is not negligible.
It is a very different thing to say than 1 in a thousand dealers can do it or 10% of dealers can do it.
I have great respect on Snyder, but on this point I am highly skeptical.
I accept that there might be dealers that can do such a thing but if there are there would be in the 1 in a thousand or less ratio and finding such a dealer as he suggests would be extremely difficult.
Also I think that it might be possible to overcome the HE (especiially on European wheels) with these visual techniques just before the ball lands (ie 2-3 round before it falls). The reason being that the initial velocity of the ball is irrelevant as you can determine the velocity of the ball in the last few rounds and the deceleration of that velocity round after round (in the last few rounds). Whereas the dealer steering from the beggining means very accurate initial conditions of both the ball and the rotor with smal differences in the initial conditions being magnified because of the big number of rounds the ball goes around. (ie the butterfly flapping its wings and causing a hurricane analogy often used in systems where small changes in initial conditions create big differences in final outcome making the system impossible to predict).
I have no idea how these visual techniques work in practise but many years ago when I first read about such techniques, I spent some time observing how the ball falls on the roulette (just to staisfy mu curiosity) and to my surpise I found that I could more or less predict where the ball falls from about 2-3 rounds before the ball falls (which quarter of the table the ball will fall using the green zero as the visual sign). I am talking about where the ball initially falls (ignoring the scattering created with the diamonds and with the ball rolling forward or backwards after it falls). The scattering created by the diamonds and by the ball rolling forwads or backwards creates randomness but I suppose there is still predictability remaining if you can predict where the ball will initially fall (which I think is doable) and these visual techniques explore this. But I also believe that it requires a lot of practise to perfect such skills, something that I was not willing to do at the time having much better opportunities in BJ and other games.
It is a very different thing to say than 1 in a thousand dealers can do it or 10% of dealers can do it.
I have great respect on Snyder, but on this point I am highly skeptical.
I accept that there might be dealers that can do such a thing but if there are there would be in the 1 in a thousand or less ratio and finding such a dealer as he suggests would be extremely difficult.
Also I think that it might be possible to overcome the HE (especiially on European wheels) with these visual techniques just before the ball lands (ie 2-3 round before it falls). The reason being that the initial velocity of the ball is irrelevant as you can determine the velocity of the ball in the last few rounds and the deceleration of that velocity round after round (in the last few rounds). Whereas the dealer steering from the beggining means very accurate initial conditions of both the ball and the rotor with smal differences in the initial conditions being magnified because of the big number of rounds the ball goes around. (ie the butterfly flapping its wings and causing a hurricane analogy often used in systems where small changes in initial conditions create big differences in final outcome making the system impossible to predict).
I have no idea how these visual techniques work in practise but many years ago when I first read about such techniques, I spent some time observing how the ball falls on the roulette (just to staisfy mu curiosity) and to my surpise I found that I could more or less predict where the ball falls from about 2-3 rounds before the ball falls (which quarter of the table the ball will fall using the green zero as the visual sign). I am talking about where the ball initially falls (ignoring the scattering created with the diamonds and with the ball rolling forward or backwards after it falls). The scattering created by the diamonds and by the ball rolling forwads or backwards creates randomness but I suppose there is still predictability remaining if you can predict where the ball will initially fall (which I think is doable) and these visual techniques explore this. But I also believe that it requires a lot of practise to perfect such skills, something that I was not willing to do at the time having much better opportunities in BJ and other games.
March 5th, 2013 at 1:50:12 PM
permalink
Humans are linear thinkers, we tend to think in a straight
line. We even try to beat roulette that way, by reason and
logic. But random doesn't happen in a linear fashion, so it
can't be beat with linear thinking.
"Lateral thinking is solving problems through an indirect and
creative approach, using reasoning that is not immediately
obvious and involving ideas that may not be obtainable by
using only traditional step-by-step logic." Wiki
Using lateral thinking on random outcomes is a different
matter. It changes the game entirely.
line. We even try to beat roulette that way, by reason and
logic. But random doesn't happen in a linear fashion, so it
can't be beat with linear thinking.
"Lateral thinking is solving problems through an indirect and
creative approach, using reasoning that is not immediately
obvious and involving ideas that may not be obtainable by
using only traditional step-by-step logic." Wiki
Using lateral thinking on random outcomes is a different
matter. It changes the game entirely.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 5th, 2013 at 1:53:02 PM
permalink
I am very skeptical that you can beat a double zero roulette wheel. Casinos watch dealers and players like hawks. If one roulette table or dealer was constantly getting beaten, I would have to believe they would investigate it further. I think people tend to underestimate the casinos when it comes to guarding their profits from players and unethical dealers.
