Roulette Spin Control

This was discussed in a thread ages ago, but I decided on an experiment to see if spin control was possible.

I implemented the following rules.

1. The spins were to be completed on an empty table or "no game".
This first rule was to protect myself from accusations of collusion at work. It also made it easier to record results, and had no distractions.

2. The experiment was to consist of over 10,000 spins with both my left and right hand.
As we have tables facing both ways, I thought it only fair to try with both hands, and pick a reasonably large yet practical number.

3. A result would be recorded as a hit or a miss.
A hit would be the ball landing in the selected section, in the case of a miss, it didnt. It made it easeier to collect results, and do the maths.

4.The selected section would always be the same.
This was for ease of recording results, and to give me a consistent target.

5.The selected section would be Zero section, plus 17 and 34.
This gave me just over half the wheel to aim for. (19 numbers). Plus my favourite numbersare in this section.

The following are the results.

Right Hand.
Spins completed: 10,074
Hits: 6482
Misses: 3592
Hit percentage:64.34%

Left Hand.
Spins completed: 10,083
Hits: 5827
Misses: 4256
Hit Percentage: 57.79%

The reasons for the discrepancies in number of spins is that for the day I broke 10,000 spins I recorded all the results for that day then stopped.
The discrepancies between right and left hand I put down to my being right handed, and spending more time on right handed tables.

From this I take that I can exercise some form of spin control, although this does not prove any form of accuracy in differentiating numbers, only halves of the wheel.

This experiment does have flaws, as Im sure a good number of you will point out. I welcome this. This was a preliminary experiment leading into other experiments regarding further spin control and the narrowing of the target. However from this I have confirmed my personal belief that some limited control is possible.

I welcome anyone to analyse these numbers further and provided analysis on what this does to HA/Player Advantage and other maths I dont understand. I also look forward to reading any and all comments.

If you had a buddy working with you, and he bet $1 on each of the 19 numbers in your target zone, left handed, that would have been 10,083*19=191,577 bet. He would have won 5,827*36=209,772. The profit is $18,195, or an average of 180.45% per spin. Excellent ROI! And I'm talking about your LEFT hand!


I don't know if that's a big enough sample. I assume that it is.

FYI: This makes your spins biased. The formulas I am presenting apply equally to your experiment as it does to a normal / random spin, but on a biased wheel.



Here's the math.

Normal House Advantage is 2/38=.0526

That means the Player Expectation is 36/38=.9474

So, to overcome the House Advantage, you have to increase the Player Expectation by a minimum factor of it's reciprocal = 38/36=1.05555

So, in your example, a person who knows your target zone is 19 numbers, has to bet all 19 every time. Normal odds of being correct is 19/38=50%. To overcome the edge, you'd have to hit the target 1.05555 * 50% = 52.777%

Obviously, even left handed, you're doing great!

If you manage to refine your skill and make your target zone smaller, the formula is still simple: The normal odds of hitting the zone * 1.0555. I.E. "TZ" is the size of your target zone: ( TZ / 38 ) * 1.05555 = the minimum percent of time you need to hit it to neutralize the house edge.

That's a lot of work. I, for one, appreciate your effort.

Now the bad news: the experiment has to be repeated on at least one other wheel, prefferably on several, to rule out wheel bias. Sorry, but you asked.

The results are intriguing and do warrant further investigation. I wish some serious academic study would be done of this. I don't think anyone can control a ball and wheel well enough to hit a given number, but perhaps some dealers could choose a quadrant or even an octant.

Of course, a full-fledged study would involve a number of wheels, as I've already said, but also a number of dealers. And you'd need some form of control group, probably dealers spinning without any form of conscious control.

I did forget to mention earlier that the experiment was spread out over 4 wheels, 2 left handed and 2 right handed. I dont know if wheel bias would be too great a factor as the wheels are levelled every morning. I agree that the experiment needs to be repeated by others.

And DJTeddybear - Thanks for the maths lesson. You made that simple enough for even me to understand! But I did notice you were using 38 in your figures, whereas I was working on a single zero wheel ( which I didnt make clear).
Is that a mistake due to me not expressing myself properly or am I missing something?

What a great experiment! But how did you record 20,000 results without your boss, co-workers, or camera noticing? Weren't you nervous about getting caught?

I told a couple of people what I was doing who helped me record the results. and the reason I only used tables where no one was playing, so the Management couldnt get mad.

Quote: Croupier

And DJTeddybear - Thanks for the maths lesson. You made that simple enough for even me to understand!

No problem. I love this website - it gives me a chance to exercise my brain muscle!

Quote: Croupier

But I did notice you were using 38 in your figures, whereas I was working on a single zero wheel ( which I didnt make clear).
Is that a mistake due to me not expressing myself properly or am I missing something?

It was a bad assumption on my part. I missed the "just over" part of this sentence:

Quote: Croupier

This gave me just over half the wheel to aim for. (19 numbers).

Just substitute 37 whereever 38 appears in my formulas.

Therefore, for a 19 space target zone on a single zero wheel:
Normal House Advantage: 1/37=.027027
Player Expectation: 36/37=.972973
PE Reciprocal: 37/36=1.027778
Target Expectation: 19/37=.513514
Target success rate to eliminate the edge: .513514 * 1.027778 = .527778

Interestingly, this target rate is the same as for a double zero wheel.


Hmmmm... That makes me question my math. I gotta look into that more.



FYI: The ROI (Return On Investment) part of my post above remains the same.

Quote: Croupier

I told a couple of people what I was doing who helped me record the results. and the reason I only used tables where no one was playing, so the Management couldnt get mad.

They may still get mad.

Assuming my math holds up, and the results you have shown are more-or-less typical, you are now armed with info that could help anyone you partner with to beat the house.

After all, it's no rumor that a croupier with spin control can beat the house. The question always was if it exists.

Now you've said to the management, "I wanna know if I have spin control." What do you think is going to happen when they learn of your findings?

Is a croupier permitted to look at the wheel when he releases the ball? Usually he must look at a designated spot for a stated time period and then release the ball. Its not that the casinos believe the roulette dealer has any ability or can develop any ability, its simply that they don't allow the opportunity to utilize it whether it exists or not. Besides, they want the dealer looking at the chip layout anyway.

Quote: FleaStiff

Is a croupier permitted to look at the wheel when he releases the ball?

Hmmm....

That hadn't occurred to me. If the rule is to not look at the wheen when releasing the ball (and it makes sense to always watch the chips), and the test was done while looking at the wheel, that's a big factor. One that would eliminate management fears.


So Croupier, in the test, were you releasing the ball using standard procedures?

Quote: FleaStiff

Is a croupier permitted to look at the wheel when he releases the ball? Usually he must look at a designated spot for a stated time period and then release the ball.

This isnt a standard procedure where I work. Our procedure is to spin from roughly the number where the ball landed, so we generally pick up the ball and spin straight away. I cannot say that I was making any conscious effort to look either at or away from the wheel when releasing the ball. Looking into the wheel when you spin doesnt make a difference to chip security. Its when the ball lands you cannot spend too long looking at the wheel, so you normally wait for the sounds of the ball to have comepletely stopped, make a rough mental picture of the layout (especially the outsides) then look.

One standard procedure we have that I forgot to mention is that the ball and wheel must travel in opposite directions, and these directions must be reversed every new spin. I dont know if this affects anything or not.

Quote: Croupier

I cannot say that I was making any conscious effort to look either at or away from the wheel when releasing the ball.

OK. I think we're back to a point where management should be nervous.

Quote: Croupier

One standard procedure we have that I forgot to mention is that the ball and wheel must travel in opposite directions, and these directions must be reversed every new spin. I dont know if this affects anything or not.

Spinning in opposite directions is standard all over. But reversing directions? I'm not sure about that. Interesting. Now I gotta watch more closely on my next trip.

Croupier,

Thanks for your dedicated effort in conducting this experiment. For starters, I am amazed by the magnitude of what you have done. I don't play roulette, but I'm guessing that a spin requires something like 20 seconds to execute and record? So 20,000 spins requires 111 hours of effort? Did you do this 8 hours a day for two weeks, or 1 hour per day for 3 months? Or am I missing something?

I am stunned by the results of your experiment. I never would've guessed that the randomness built into the wheel design could be so effectively overcome.

To expand on some of the earlier questions: Is there ANYTHING that you did during these spins which was obviously outside the casino procedures? Wheel speed? Ball speed? If management/surveillance were observing your experiment, would it be obvious to them that you were doing something against the rules?

And a follow up: If you weren't necessarily looking at the wheel during the spin, what on Earth were you doing to control the outcome? Forgive me if I'm boorishly requesting that you reveal any secrets. I'm just trying to figure out how I would go about trying (unsuccessfully, I'm sure) to control the outcome, and every scenario I can think of requires precise, repeatable controllability AND visual feedback of the wheel status at some point in the process.

Quote: PapaChubby

Forgive me if I'm boorishly requesting that you reveal any secrets. I'm just trying to figure out how I would go about trying (unsuccessfully, I'm sure) to control the outcome, and every scenario I can think of requires precise, repeatable controllability AND visual feedback of the wheel status at some point in the process.

Ha. Just you wait until it's published in a peer-reviewed journal (anyone interesting in funding the Casino Stats and Probability Quarterly?) Our friend from England will be lambasted for not measuring his regulation casino balls down to nearest third of an angstrom, among other things ;)

Seriously, some random-seeming events are not that random when you look at them closely, or under certain well-defined circumstances. The wheel is a good example.

Years ago a team of physicists figured out they could predict with a fair degree of accuracy in which octant (an eighth of the wheel) a ball would alnd on if they knew the ball speed and the wheel speed. They even thought up and built a portable (sort of) somputer they could use to actually cheat the casinos.

The scheme dind't pan out but only because their computer gear was too primitive for the task. They used electromagnetic solenoids to signal numbers by pressing them onto the player's skin, for heaven's sakes. These days it would be easy, but very expensive, to build something the size of a cell-phone, with IR laser and sensors embedded in a pair of glasses, reporting the octant through a bluetooth earpiece. To my knowledge no one has tried this yet.

Except on TV. A CSI ep had a team cheat a casino just like that. And an ep of the old Mission Impossible series did them one better: They could predicit the exact number 100% of the time, with a computer compact enough to fit in Cinnamon's purse, and the result was displayed in the date portion of an analog watch. But that's TV for you (Ironically in another ep, remember this was in the 60s, they required a monstrously large device to hide a TV camera).

Oh, should people try the prediction method, the casinos could easily counter it by calling "No More Bets" before the dealer releases the ball.

Quote: PapaChubby

Croupier, Thanks for your dedicated effort in conducting this experiment. For starters, I am amazed by the magnitude of what you have done. I don't play roulette, but I'm guessing that a spin requires something like 20 seconds to execute and record? So 20,000 spins requires 111 hours of effort? Did you do this 8 hours a day for two weeks, or 1 hour per day for 3 months? Or am I missing something?

I did it over the course of about 3 hours a day for roughly a month. The length of each run of spins varied due to the fact that I didnt want to do it if people were playing, both to protect myself, and for fairness to the customers. It also depended on the pit boss, as they decide which table you go on when, so I spent time dealing BJ and 3 Card too, which slowed down the process.

Quote: PapaChubby

To expand on some of the earlier questions: Is there ANYTHING that you did during these spins which was obviously outside the casino procedures? Wheel speed? Ball speed? If management/surveillance were observing your experiment, would it be obvious to them that you were doing something against the rules?

The only thing I did was try to keep the speed of the wheel and the ball fairly consistent over the course of the number of spins. I dont think this is against the rules as such, but dealers are encouraged to vary the speed of the wheel and the ball. AS I said earlier, surveillance and management are not too much of a problem. If pulled up on it I would explain that I was simply playing a game with myself.

Quote: PapaChubby

And a follow up: If you weren't necessarily looking at the wheel during the spin, what on Earth were you doing to control the outcome? Forgive me if I'm boorishly requesting that you reveal any secrets. I'm just trying to figure out how I would go about trying (unsuccessfully, I'm sure) to control the outcome, and every scenario I can think of requires precise, repeatable controllability AND visual feedback of the wheel status at some point in the process.

Like I said, to try and keep some form of control all I did was try and keep the ball/wheel speed consistent. Everything else was done the way I woudl do it in a normal game. So while I may have been taking visual clues this was being done subconsciously, if at all.

Bravo! That was an outstanding experiment. Can you tell me the average number of times the ball circles the wheel before hitting the frets? Do you factor in the speed of the wheel when choosing when and how fast to release the ball, or do you try to keep the wheel and ball speed as consistent as possible every spin? Given your impressive results, why do you think we don't hear about player/dealer collusion in roulette more often? I've heard the theory that a player can gain an advantage even without collusion by looking for a bored dealer who spins with the same speed every time. Any thoughts?

Are you saying you did this while you were assigned to a roulette table, but when you simply happened to have no gamblers sitting there?

So, to the casual observer, you were simply spinning the ball as a distraction, while you had nothing else to do?

Wow. Hard to believe the management allowed you to do this. Then again, they probably weren't expecting the kinds of results you saw.

Quote: PapaChubby

If you weren't necessarily looking at the wheel during the spin, what on Earth were you doing to control the outcome?

Actually, I think I can tell you, even if Croupier doesn't realize what he did.

After years as a Routette croupier, you develop a certain consistancy. You push the wheel with a relativly consistant speed. You release the ball with a relativly consistant speed. You can even get the duration between the push and the release to be relativly consistant.

In Croupier's case, where they change the direction of the wheel every time, it shouldn't be too hard to slow the wheel, then stop it in the same position, so that when you do shove the wheel then release the ball, the wheel orientation, wheel speed, and ball speed are almost always the same, every time the ball is released.

That being the case, it's not hard to see how, given a target of half the wheel, he's hitting the target well more than half the time.

I'd even go so far as to say that if he were to develop the skill to the point where you did all those thing EXACTLY the same way every time, he'd be hitting the same number every time. Of course, getting that degree of precision is unlikely, but it's still interesting.




The next step would be very hard to get away with: Recording every outcome.

To really exploit this, you're going to have to be sure that the number in the middle of your target is the one that you hit most often. If it's not, then you'd have to adjust the position on the wheel where your finger is when you give it the push. Or adjust your target zone.

Hmmm... Now that I think about that part, maybe the "0" at the center of your target became your favorite number because you've subconciously realized that you're hitting more often than other numbers. Maybe you've been controlling the spin in this manner all along without realizing it.

Quote: Wizard

Bravo! That was an outstanding experiment. Can you tell me the average number of times the ball circles the wheel before hitting the frets? Do you factor in the speed of the wheel when choosing when and how fast to release the ball, or do you try to keep the wheel and ball speed as consistent as possible every spin? Given your impressive results, why do you think we don't hear about player/dealer collusion in roulette more often? I've heard the theory that a player can gain an advantage even without collusion by looking for a bored dealer who spins with the same speed every time. Any thoughts?

The ball generally circles the wheel between 8 and 10 times. I just tried to keep the wheel and ball consistent. I did try when landing in the opposite section spinning the wheel and ball at different speeds to get back into my target section.

I think you dont hear about player/dealer collusion as most dealers that take the time and effort to figure out they could do this would be smart enough to realise they would get caught eventually, and its really not worth losing your job or getting prosecuted over.

I would definately believe the theory about bored dealers spinning the same, and that is speaking from experience. I would also reccomend dealers who look harried, rushed or uncomfortable. For newbies, or people out of their depth, varying the spin is usually the last thing on their mind.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Are you saying you did this while you were assigned to a roulette table, but when you simply happened to have no gamblers sitting there?

So, to the casual observer, you were simply spinning the ball as a distraction, while you had nothing else to do?

Wow. Hard to believe the management allowed you to do this. Then again, they probably weren't expecting the kinds of results you saw.

Management tell us to spin the ball while at an empty table. It helps encourage people over if their numbers are hitting.

Quote:

Actually, I think I can tell you, even if Croupier doesn't realize what he did.

After years as a Routette croupier, you develop a certain consistancy. You push the wheel with a relativly consistant speed. You release the ball with a relativly consistant speed. You can even get the duration between the push and the release to be relativly consistant.

In Croupier's case, where they change the direction of the wheel every time, it shouldn't be too hard to slow the wheel, then stop it in the same position, so that when you do shove the wheel then release the ball, the wheel orientation, wheel speed, and ball speed are almost always the same, every time the ball is released.

That being the case, it's not hard to see how, given a target of half the wheel, he's hitting the target well more than half the time.

That sounds plausible. Ill run with that.

Quote:

I'd even go so far as to say that if he were to develop the skill to the point where you did all those thing EXACTLY the same way every time, he'd be hitting the same number every time. Of course, getting that degree of precision is unlikely, but it's still interesting.

I agree, but I would say it definately warrants possible further investigation.

Quote:

The next step would be very hard to get away with: Recording every outcome.

To really exploit this, you're going to have to be sure that the number in the middle of your target is the one that you hit most often. If it's not, then you'd have to adjust the position on the wheel where your finger is when you give it the push. Or adjust your target zone.

Hmmm... Now that I think about that part, maybe the "0" at the center of your target became your favorite number because you've subconciously realized that you're hitting more often than other numbers. Maybe you've been controlling the spin in this manner all along without realizing it.

Well, 0 section is my favourite because it contains the numbers 3 and 12 for my birthday, and 15 and 4 for my wifes birthday. Its also the biggest section on the wheel. But you may be right.

Quote: Croupier

Management tell us to spin the ball while at an empty table. It helps encourage people over if their numbers are hitting.





That sounds plausible. Ill run with that.



I agree, but I would say it definately warrants possible further investigation.



Well, 0 section is my favourite because it contains the numbers 3 and 12 for my birthday, and 15 and 4 for my wifes birthday. Its also the biggest section on the wheel. But you may be right.

Just to be clear, this isn't a April Fool's Day joke from across the pond, is it?

Quote: cclub79

Just to be clear, this isn't a April Fool's Day joke from across the pond, is it?

Crap.

Although that first post was at 4:09pm Vegas time, that's 12:09 in England - where Croupier is from!



Man, if this is an April Fool's joke, ya got us good!

But we (or at least *I*) got sucked in because I saw it before midnight last night!

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Crap.

Although that first post was at 4:09pm Vegas time, that's 12:09 in England - where Croupier is from!



Man, if this is an April Fool's joke, ya got us good!

But we (or at least *I*) got sucked in because I saw it before midnight last night!

No disrespect Croupier, I enjoy your posts. If it's not a joke, there's another reason to do away with this silly tradition. I've already had to read 100 fake updates on facebook, deal with text versions of videos on youtube, and I had to Topeka (http://www.google.com) the answer to a co-worker's question.

No offence taken. I wish I had the foresight and imagination to make it up as an April fools joke.

Just a case of unfortunate timing.

OK. You're forgiven.

Now I won't have to come over there and kick your ass.




Yeah, that's right. Payback for an April Fools joke, and I'm on a plane. Exploiting your skill is something that I'll pass on.

I like your priorities.

Am I the only one thinking 20,000 trials could be insufficient? I'm surprised someone hasnt confirmed this, or not. Dickering with wincraps has me increasing dramatically what I used to think was enough trials.

I accept that 20,000 trials is far fewer than the millions or more that could be run with computer simulation. However I am not a computer. I am constrained by 8 hour shifts, the pit bosses decisions on which table I go on, and whether or not people were playing (due to my self imposed rules).

I would love to be able to get this up to the millions, but for me it is just not practical. I freely admit that this was not cuducted under strict scientific rules, and that it is a small sample size. I just wanted to see if I could do it. If I had my own wheel I would happily try and get a higher sample.

I think this could go the same way as the dice control threads, with those who believe and those who dont. I have no problem with this. I just wanted to try this, and see if it could be done. I am not trying to convince, but I did want to put the (small amount) of numbers out there for people.

EDIT - I apologise for my defensive stance here, but I did put a lot of time and effort into this. Having re-read my post, I think I sound like a bit of a tool.

20,000 trials is perfectly sufficient, given the results you obtained, to certify that you didn't just get lucky. The standard deviation for your experiment is approximately 50 "hits". It would be virtually impossible to obtain these results with a fair, random wheel and lucky outcome. The odds would have to be in the millions against it.

Quote: Croupier

EDIT - I apologise for my defensive stance here, but I did put a lot of time and effort into this. Having re-read my post, I think I sound like a bit of a tool.

I don't see anything wrong in what you wrote, or how you stated it. You pretty much wrote what you did, and what the results were. It was left up to the reader to draw their own conclusions. I admire the way you went about the experiment. Doing it with players on the table would not have been fair, to either the players or your employer, regardless of whether or not you are having a true influence on the outcome.
We all recognize that this is a small sample, and this just could be a normal skew of randomness. I'm not sure how this can be simulated on a computer though, since it involves physical dexterity of the dealer.

The only thing that this experience has done for me though is make me wonder on those occasions where you will see one number hit 4 out of 6 times, if the dealer was trying to do that on purpose?
Oh, it has done one other thing for me too. I was not inclined to play roulette before, and I am even less so now.

Quote: Croupier

No offence taken. I wish I had the foresight and imagination to make it up as an April fools joke.

I should have suspected that. You really would have had me. I'll check back tomorrow, just to make sure.

Quote: Croupier

I implemented the following rules.

1. The spins were to be completed on an empty table or "no game".

2. The experiment was to consist of over 10,000 spins with both my left and right hand.

3. A result would be recorded as a hit or a miss.

4.The selected section would always be the same.
This was for ease of recording results, and to give me a consistent target.

5.The selected section would be Zero section, plus 17 and 34.
This gave me just over half the wheel to aim for. (19 numbers). Plus my favourite numbers are in this section.

The following are the results.

Right Hand.
Spins completed: 10,074
Hits: 6482
Misses: 3592
Hit percentage:64.34%

If the spins were truly random, the expected number of hits would be 19/37 x 10,074 = 5,173 for the Right Hand with a standard deviation of 50.17. The probability of Croupier getting 5,360 successes or more is 0.01%. The probability that Croupier gets more than 5,557 successes is about 0.0000000000001%

The probability of Croupier getting 6,482 hits or more is ZERO. Therefore there is bias in his spin.

Quote: Croupier

I apologise for my defensive stance here, but I did put a lot of time and effort into this. Having re-read my post, I think I sound like a bit of a tool.

no offense taken, maybe I should apologize for bluntly stepping on your thread, but I knew we could flush out some answers on what I thought needed to be asked.

Something I read some time ago about human relations pointed out that "asking a question" unavoidably creates a tension and often unintended friction. I can see I should have softened my tone a bit, sorry, this is a fascinating thread.

>fascinating thread...
yes indeed.
I think it was established decades ago, as recounted in the Eudaemonic Pie, that roulette wheels were often slightly biased and that janitorial vacuuming of the casino carpeting or other administrative actions often involved moving the roulette wheel without any subsequent testing for its being level. The physicists who were about to publish their results were contacted by academic types whose interests were more financial and who claimed to have been making rather good money at roulette wheels.

Now ofcourse we have more modern and reliable wheels.

I do know that the wheel and the ball travel in opposite directions and I do agree that the most vital time for the croupier to keep his eye on the chips rather than the wheel is when a player will attempt a past-posting to add chips on a winning bet or move chips to a winning number. However, I believe that casino procedure manuals do in fact require the croupier to look at a specific spot when releasing the ball rather than permitting him to look at the wheel.

I also know that most people who speculate or experiment about roulette wheels generally settle on an octet as the target area. All prior experiments or claims of control over the wheel's results will focus on octets. Therefore I would have hoped that our croupier would have done that.

In many American casinos a croupier at an empty table is indeed encouraged to spin the wheel so as to appear inviting to passersby who may stop out of simple curiosity and then later decide to play. Its also the reason that the electronic annunciators that give the recent results are so highly visible to passersby rather than just those actually playing the game.

One croupier joked about his maiden spin having resulted in the ball landing in an attractive young lady's cleavage and the croupier's friends having immediately used the referee's signal for "field goal". So we must bear in mind that a lot of strange things can routinely happen at a roulette wheel. I would like to inquire of our poster if in the UK a roulette wheel's little white ball actually comes in two sizes and is often switched in and out of the game? This might have an effect on play in the USA where I understand that it is common for the croupier to switch between a smaller ball and a larger one. I do not recall the wheel being spun in alternating directions however.

The one obvious problem that I wish to point out is experimenter's bias. Observing the outcome and recording the outcome generally involve inescapable errors and a motivated experimenter can become subject to the biases imposed by his expectations and desires. That is why it is often best to have one person spinning the wheel and another observing the outcome. Unfortunately this is not always possible. When Persi Diaconis of Stanford was testing the notion that a coin toss was fair, he found that his graduate student assistants made many errors because the task was boring to them. The result of his experiments were that a tossed coin was biased 51 to 49 percent rather than being unbiased. Yet we still utilize coin tosses for sporting events, elections and bar room games. Perhaps it will be the same with roulette wheels. They may be biased but are sufficiently unbiased that the casino doesn't care.

As to octet betting: it is a recognized "system" used by roulette players and therefore anyone with knowledge of a specific target number could easily make octet bets to cover his actions and delay any intense scrutiny by surveillance and floor personnel since casinos usually love system players.

Persons who write down roulette wheel results and see trends or biases often leave casinos broke but if Croupier conducted his experiments on a dead game when there were no players present then no one would have been concluding that there was any target number.

I have a question about this study, which btw I find very consistent with my own observations:

Would it be possible to take your data to the level of 4 sectors? If so, have you done that as of yet?

In my own Roulette experiences, I've found there are 'days' and 'dealers' for whom a 9-number sector becomes predictable, and betting much easier as a result. Thoughts?

I am currently attempting a second study into this, where I am narrowing down the target field to 9 numbers. I completed the first few hundred spins of this trial today. I will post the further results here when I have them.

Quote: Croupier

I am currently attempting a second study into this...

I tip my hat to your employers for not getting on your back about this. They could have accused you of planning collusion with players unknown, couldnt they have? Oh, and btw, when I am in England how do I find you [g]?

Actually, I found myself fantasizing about it, and had to snap out of it. It would be quite tempting to think of this as legal, as in card counting, however unwelcome. Further thought has me thinking nay, and shame on me or anyone else for pondering collusion. Nonetheless, there are going to be people out there who would jump at it I think.

If you were able to find a dealer who unintentionally was favoring sectors, I would say that player should be held blameless for betting accordingly.

As I stated in a past post, you might have gotten lucky with your first test. Your choice of zero as the middle of your half wheel zone seemed arbitrary.

Assume that you DO tend to hit the same zone. If zero had, by chance, been on the divider between the good and bad halves of the wheel, your first test would have been absolutely inconclusive with near even results.

So instead, assume that the zero was NEAR the middle of your zone. When you go for quadrants, zero may be on the line and you'd get bad/incorrect results. Therefore, don't shoot for quadrants.

Just shoot for the zero as you had before, and record every result. You might even want to keep FOUR sets of results: Each hand, and each direction. Then plot the results, creating a bar chart in the sequence of the numbers on the wheel. Your results will look like a bell curve, with zero near the top of the bell.

Quote: odiousgambit

Actually, I found myself fantasizing about it, and had to snap out of it. It would be quite tempting to think of this as legal, as in card counting, however unwelcome. Further thought has me thinking nay, and shame on me or anyone else for pondering collusion. Nonetheless, there are going to be people out there who would jump at it I think.

If you were able to find a dealer who unintentionally was favoring sectors, I would say that player should be held blameless for betting accordingly.

Right. Collusion is a kind of cheat, which is illegal and immoral. Noticing a bias, either a "natural" wheel bias or a dealer bias, is making use of available information.

Either way, it would be relatively easy for the casinos to end both. The first alternative that comes to mind is an automated roulette wheel, where the dealer pushes a button and the wheel does the rest. The weheel speed, ball release point, ball direction and ball speed would vary randomly. Then the dealer collects and pays bets.

Second,a nd much simpler, would be to semi-automate the wheel. dealer pushes a button and the wheel spins with a random direction and speed. Anotehr RNG chimes or turns on a light which tells the dealer to release the ball in a given direction.

good for the casinos, but players would then begin to suspect the wheel of being fixed not to pay off frequently. Oh, well, win a few lose a lot ;)

Quote: Croupier

I am currently attempting a second study into this, where I am narrowing down the target field to 9 numbers. I completed the first few hundred spins of this trial today. I will post the further results here when I have them.

Awesome news. I've been around Roulette in a semi-serious way for the past couple years, and I'm convinced that SOME dealers have SOME degree of wheel control available to them, down to the sector level. I'm not suggesting they can hit a sector of their choosing every time, but that such dealers can overcome true Randomness when they opt to do so.

And then, the observant player may take potential advantage.

This is a simplified explanation as to how dealers can do effect the outcome via intentional or unintentional sector shooting.

DS does not work because the dealer is super human or extremely skilled. It happens because the wheel enables it to happen and the dealer is basically lazy.


There is actually quite a bit of confusion about Dealers signature. It's not so much that a dealer even really has a particular skill, but that the wheel is ideal for it. The wheel speed and a dominant drop is what makes it look as though the dealer is "super" skilled. It has more to do with matching up the "frames" or sections of the wheel that are most likely to pass under the dominant drop when the ball is present.


For example: Let's say the dealer "shoots" the ball and that the ball makes 17,18,19,20,21 revolutions over a series of different spins. At a certain wheel speed, the dealer may have the same chance of hitting a specific "frame" or section of the wheel on more than one ball pass. In some instances, the dealer may have as many as three chances at a section of the wheel, if it is traveling at the ideal speed. (Of course ball track fitness and ball health play a big roll since these can lead to irratic ball decay chatter and slop on the track.)

(This is a very rough explanation)

At wheel speed X the dealer may have the opportunity to hit the same section of the wheel from the ball release number on ball rotation 17,18, and 21

At wheel speed Y the dealer may have the opportunity to hit the same section of the wheel only on ball rotation 17, and 19.

At wheel speed Z the dealer may have only one opportunity to hit the same section as the previous spin, if the ball drops on ball rotation 19 only. Understand?


That's why I use to call it "framing"- (looking for the best wheel speeds for the largest number of opportunities of a sectional hit). The above example is ONLY an example. It leaves out so much information. There are actually more variations to it. If you want to really grasp the concept, you need to film a wheel. The above example is really to illustrate how a dealer may hit the same section of the wheel, even if the ball makes an additional rotation.

I have already tested this method to several thousands of spins. Would you like to see some of the real test results?-See below. I did not segregate by wheel speed. I did not want to curve fit the trials. I also wanted to measure the raw effect over more than one dealer. The biggest difference the dealers made, were spinning their wheels at a less than optimal speeds. The advantage of the method still emerged even in the raw trials.

When I tested this method on wheels that had completely random drops the edge evaporated.

The two steps that you MUST include in your test for it to work is:

1. Compare only the change in travel yardage between every two spins of the dealer. Compare only spin 1 travel yardage to spin 2 travel yardage etc.,... The reason is that the dealers will continually fine tune each spin and the wheel speed continually drifts throughout a session. The signature is therefore perishable.
This also removes any doubt that the test results were some how "peak picked" or "curve fit".

2. A wheel with dominant drops.



If I would have cut and pasted the Excel program it would have looked all screwed up, so I have posted only the totals and the test results. I tested this years ago on Mark4,5 Huxleys, and Paul-sons. The chi square and the standard deviation results were impressive.

These numbers represent the change in the dealers travel yardage between consecutive spins only.

For example: spin 1 the dealer releases the ball from a specific number and the ball lands 10 pockets from the release number. The travel yardage for spin one is 10 pockets.

Spin 2 the dealer releases the ball from a specific number and the ball lands 12 pockets from the ball release number. The travel yardage for spin two is 12 pockets.

Now this is how you determine how accurate the dealer is:

Measure the change in travel yardage between every two sets of spins. In the above example the change in travel yardage is Spin 2 - Spin 1 = change in yardage of +2 pockets. Understand?
Spin 2 is 12 pockets. - Spin 1 is 10 pockets = a change of yardage of +2 pockets.

Here is how the plot looked on Wheel 1 (only 623 spins). I actually have tracked and recorded just over 7800 spins on a few different Mark4's and 5's to test dealers on these wheel designs with dominant drops. I will post those as I find them. This plot is actually 4 different dealers over the course of a few days. The relative positions that we are most interested in are of course, for relative positions -1,0,+1.
This three number sector was already over 4.28 st dev. at only 623 spins.
The chance of randomness for the twelve pocket sector was quite impressive.
While the standard deviation could be considered random given the small trial, what makes it significant is that it is where we would predict it to be. Understand?
The scatter out to the left and right of relative position 0 is also interesting considering the location of the ball deflectors.

When the sum of the neighbor 5 and 10 are examined the signature is quite obvious. There is also other frequencies that should be tested. I have software that does the work for me.



relative position

-18-7 hits
-17-15
-16-15
-15-11
-14-16
-13-17
-12-12
-11-21
-10-23
-9-12
-8-11
-7-20
-6-13
-5-23
-4-16
-3-13
-2-15
-1-28
0-26
+1-24
+2-13
+3-13
+4-22
+5-15
+6-19
+7-25
+8-15
+9-20
+10-12
+11-14
+12-16
+13-12
+14-17
+15-13
+16-16
+17-11
+18-17
+19-15

(Sorry, I don't know how to post my program graphs on this website.) On some of the wheels we tested, the standard deviation for the five pocket section were well above four and five standard deviations after just a few thousand trials. Again, we are only interested in the results for one specific location on the graph, the zero change in yardage region.)


While this method is interesting and does provide you with a real edge, there are better ways to play using real VB.
Please note, I'm not selling anything and I'm not the international spokesman for anything that is for sale.

When testing your results, collect statistically relevant sample sizes. Start by collecting at least 1000 spins for your tests. (Measuring just 10 or 20 spins is meaningless).

In my view, DS indeed occurs due to dealer laziness. I also, however, believe that a highly experienced Dealer can initiate his drop within a very few slots of a target drop number. And I further believe a highly experienced Dealer can spin the wheel at a 'familiar' speed, and as well release the ball at a 'familiar' speed, TO HIM/HER. As a result of combining his 'familiarity' with these three variables, the highly experienced Dealer may AT TIMES excercise sector-control on the wheel. Not ever single time, but enough to cheat randomness.

An analogy is dice control at the craps table.

Quote: midwestgb

An analogy is dice control at the craps table.

I've never met anyone who made money from dice control at the craps table. I've only met those who make money selling seminars about dice control.

Take a look at the Wizard's discussion over at wizardofodds.com relative to dice control. I don't question that there are virtually no 'professional' roulette or dice players. I do question those who categorically state that dice control is impossible. And I also question those who state that no such thing as intentional Dealer 'control' in the game of Roulette may exist. I think our thread-starter here has gone a long way to dispel this latter presumption. IMO.

Hi,
I just found this interesting article and experiment on Spin control. I for one don't believe that any dealer can control the ball to the degree required to hit a specific number or section. If it were really possible to do this, then the game of roulette as we know it simply could not exist. And that for me is a very simple proof showing that spin control is all in the dealers head.
I started in the casino business at a major London casino, and the standard spin was very slow, only about 4 or 5 times around the wheel, and also with the wheel just turning at a fairly leisurely speed. The idea was to get as many spins in a day as possible. We never reversed the spin either and it made not a whit of difference in anyone's ability to predict the number. I was surprised when I started work at another casino and discovered the dealers whacking the ball around at a hundred miles an hour!
Secondly I would like to point out the magnitude of the claimed experiment by "croupier". It is stated that he performed over 20,000 spins in total. If we assume that a spin and logging of the resulting number takes about one minute to perform, then 20,000 spins would obviously take about 20,000 minutes. 20,000 minutes is over 333 hours! Working solidly, and without a break, for 8 hours at a time - and with no days off, it would therefore take over 41 days to complete this experiment! Even if we assume only 30 seconds per spin it would still take over 20 days. Did the game remain dead and management really put up with this for several weeks at a time? I don't think so. I call humbug, I think someone is 'aving a laugh!
In addition, actually your results are not as impressive as they would appear. Remember that when one of your 19 numbers is hit you are paid 35 chips, but you also lose the other 18 chips,(assuming you place a chip on each of the numbers in your section) so your profit is only 17 chips. BUT when you lose, you will lose all 19 chips. I think your "hit" percentage would have to be a lot higher for you to be a winner.
Ray

Was in a casino some years back, nobody playing a roulette table, ball lands on zero, dealer then says, "I'm now going to spin 007, because it has been a few years since I have done that". Second spin, zero, third spin, misses the 7 by ONE pocket, yes ONE pocket. Older Huxley wheel, from reading this thread. some of you need to bet bigger on the roulette tables, then you will see what really happens, then you wake up and smell the coffee.

Buy the coffee before going to the Roulette table !