boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
September 16th, 2010 at 6:53:21 PM permalink
Ken? mrjjj? Just kidding.

Actually, Croupier (where did he go -- did he ever get back from the States?), a roulette Croupier did a controlled test and he was able to put the ball on one half of the wheel much more often than the other.

While I don't necessarily believe Keyser's claim of 1,000,000+ spins (40 spins / per hour = 25,000 hours = 12 full time years in a casino) with meticulous reasings, I do think (not that I matter) that the physics behind the game does matter and that biased results are possible.

We can make fun of mrjjj's methodology, but if anything, it could only be as good or better than any other betting scheme. If there is bias, it could manifest itself in like results.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
Keyser
Keyser
Joined: Apr 16, 2010
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 2044
September 16th, 2010 at 6:56:53 PM permalink
A dealer could shoot sections.
algle
algle
Joined: Aug 12, 2010
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 82
September 16th, 2010 at 7:02:56 PM permalink
Quote: Keyser

A dealer could shoot sections, but only if the wheel has a dominant ball drop. It's the wheel that really makes it possible, not the dealer. There is no super human skill involved there.

Please note, I'm not saying that the dealer is the only reason for the effect.

And as I noted, I have employed the help of others to record a great deal of these numbers. I have also been at it far longer than just 12 years. I most certainly do have more than a million spins.



Why collect more than a million spins when a proven formula will give you the result for n spins?
If nothing will change then I am nothing.
Keyser
Keyser
Joined: Apr 16, 2010
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 2044
September 16th, 2010 at 7:14:21 PM permalink
Maybe there was a reason for that. :)
weaselman
weaselman
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
September 16th, 2010 at 7:47:14 PM permalink
Why don't you post your data here for someone to analyze independently from you? Without seeing real data it's just talk.
Mere mentioning that you have some numbers, and have done some unspecified analysis on them doesn't make your claim any more believable than the next guy (and by "next guy" I mean mrjjj).
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
Keyser
Keyser
Joined: Apr 16, 2010
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 2044
September 16th, 2010 at 7:54:35 PM permalink
No don't think so.
weaselman
weaselman
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
September 16th, 2010 at 8:06:19 PM permalink
Quote: Keyser

1. The data streams won't fit on the screen,


I did not mean paste it into a forum post.
Upload a file to some free service (I can give you a few links if you want), and post a link.

Quote:

and I don't want to go through and edit the names of the casino locatons, etc. Too much work.



If you want to be taken seriously, you are going to have to do some work.
If a single find and replace command in a text editor or command line is "too much work" for you, I don't see how you can expect anyone to believe your claims about a decade of meticulously collecting and analyzing the data.

Quote:

2. I can possibly do screen shots, but I'd need the permission of my programmer.


If you have a programmer, just ask him to strip the text from the files, it won't be anything to call "work" for him.
No need to bother with screeshots, they are useless.

Quote:

As it is, there's too much sensative information on the screen. I also don't think it's a good idea to show everything on the screen.



What's the point of your posting here then? You are claiming that you have information, but it is too sensitive to be shared. Wel, if you don't want to share it, what is it exactly you intend to do with it then? Are you hoping to sell it here?

Quote:

3. I could just post some of the stats, but I don't know if you would accept the results as they are posted.


The "results" without underlying data are worthless. In a way, you have already posted them here, in the form of your unsubstantiated claims. I just can't stop wondering do you really expect that somebody will just take your word?
Would you?
What if I told you, that I have a billion numbers, saying that your analysis is all wrong, and in fact you should be always betting on my birth date, and that gives you a considerable advantage over the house?
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
Keyser
Keyser
Joined: Apr 16, 2010
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 2044
September 16th, 2010 at 8:15:33 PM permalink
I feel that I have provided a satisfactory amount of information given the circumstances.

Here's a small example below.

30000 trials. (This is just one wheel. Each wheel and sample varies some. Overall, the effect is real.)(Wheel make is a Huxley Mark Series with moveable fret ring). (Date 2007 to 2009)(Right handed)

Betting the last seven numbers to have hit.
Edge reduces to -1.29

Max loss run 37
Max DD 4871
--------------------------

Betting the last five numbers to have hit.
Edge reduces to -1.79


Max loss run 52
Max DD 4209

------------
Betting the last three numbers to have hit.

Edge .02

Max loss run 85
Max DD 1555
-------------

Betting the last number only.

Edge 5.17
Max loss run 85
Max DD 1555





I have explained why it can and does happen and I have provided enough information for you to make an informed decision on your own. If you feel that you need further prove, then perhaps you should go out and collect some spins on your own and test them.
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7074
September 16th, 2010 at 8:44:16 PM permalink
Quote: Keyser

I feel that I have provided a satisfactory amount of information given the circumstances.



"the circumstances" seem to be that you're unwilling and unable to learn to use Google docs, and not much more than that.




Quote: Keyser

I have explained why it can and does happen and I have provided enough information for you to make an informed decision on your own.



Your reasons were dirt and stickiness on the wheel, and croupier non-randomness. In both cases, there should be no serial correlation (let alone causation) that would make the previous 5 spins special. What does the croupier do on spin #11 that makes spin #8 more likely to repeat than spin #3? How does the dirt know the difference between spin #5 and spin #10? Wouldn't the filth or stickiness make one part of the wheel more likely to hit regardless of what the previous spins were? if 23, 35, 14, 2, and 0 are sticky but 34 just hit, aren't I hurting myself by betting on the 34 just because it's one of the most recent numbers?

*edited typo*
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
Keyser
Keyser
Joined: Apr 16, 2010
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 2044
September 16th, 2010 at 9:09:29 PM permalink
Quote:

"Your reasons were dirt and stickiness on the wheel, and croupier non-randomness. In both cases, there should be no serial correlation (let alone causation) that would make the previous 5 spins special."



-Yes, actually there is. It's easy to test, and easily proven.

  • Jump to: