The wheel has a physical flaw ...
Quote: AlanMendelsonCan I add a real question here to the discussion?
If a wheel became biased, how many spins would it take to determine the bias?
Certainly you can't detect a bias in one spin, or two.
So my next question is how often do the casinos monitor or check their wheels for bias?
And is there even a chance that someone could find and play a biased wheel before the casinos know about it?
(OK thats more than one question. But I think the discussion of roulette bias is fascinating. While I don't play the game, like everyone else in the casino, I always look at the board to see what numbers are hitting.)
I am certainly no expert on the workings of a casino but guess:
1) The tips at that Roulette table would go vertical - the Pit Boss would be the first to realize that something is different.
2) The take, or hold, or whatever the casinos call the money taken in minus awarded would shrink and the computers would catch that.
3) Loud screening gamblers at the table around the clock would probably tip off security that something is different; might have to set up some of those rope lines to the table to control traffic.
4) The janitorial staff would notice a lot more trash and soiled carpet around the table.
5) The drink ladies would probably have to be doubled or tripled so the bar would know something is different.
But who knows, maybe the casino might not catch on............
If a wheel became biased, how many spins would you need to record? Potentially zero. Often times a bias is not found by tracking spins, but rather by observing the action of the ball and wheel. For example: It would take a wheel watcher team less than 30 spins to determine if a wheel had a drop zone enabling predictive play.
In roulette, they take the future and play it backwards.
Everything else is detail.
Quote: MoscaThe whole thing is really simple, these explanations are obfucsating the big picture.
In roulette, they take the future and play it backwards.
Everything else is detail.
I flunked speaking Klingon in Star Trek class; that's why I have problems with Roulette AP.....................
Quote: MoscaIn roulette, they take the future and play it backwards.
Careful. One theory in physics si that antimatter particles are actually normal matter particles running backwards in time. If you run a wheel backwards, you risk creating and anti-wheel which would anihilate a normal wheel.
Quote:Everything else is detail.
Like blowing up Vegas with a wheel-antiwheel reaction? Some detail...
Quote: KeyserIf a wheel became biased, how many spins would you need to record?
To prove bias to some maths type guy, you might have to record more spins than you would ever be interested in recording. Meanwhile you got a croupier, a floor person and several players all on the alert. They are going to suspect something exists long before its mathematically proven.
Quote: FleastiffTo prove bias to some maths type guy, you might have to record more spins than you would ever be interested in recording. Meanwhile you got a croupier, a floor person and several players all on the alert. They are going to suspect something exists long before its mathematically proven.
That's because you are thinking analytically, rather than mechanically. The prove bias to an engineer, you must demonstrate the physics and the math, not just the math. The math can fool you if you don't understand the physics as well. What the Wilson Boys did was inefficient, narrow minded, and they were lucky that they didn't lose their bankroll. Tracking raw spins alone is rather primitive. Math without physics is a poor approach to beating a roulette wheel.
Here's a good example: Thinking strictly analytically: Would you track the gas mileage on your car, looking for a statistically relevant drop in the efficiency, for thousands and thousands of miles in a vein attempt to determine if the tires were worn out and in need of replacing? While you may pride yourself in your ability to write down the mileage each day, and the beauty of your statistically calculations, it would be a rather absurd method.
Thinking mechanically: You would just look at the tires. You would check the balancing of the tires, and look for vibration, and perhaps track the mileage last.
While many of us pride ourselves on our math skills, we often overlook more efficient and effective means by which we can win in the casinos. A good example is card counting. Many people approach the game using strictly an analytical approach and take up the absurdly slow grind. All the while, more efficient ways of winning, such as hole carding, shuffle tracking, and sort play elude them. Back when we had single deck games, card counting worked and it worked well. These days, it's a rather absurd way of playing BJ, considering other options.
Quote: KeyserThat's because you are thinking analytically, rather than mechanically. The prove bias to an engineer, you must demonstrate the physics and the math, not just the math. The math can fool you if you don't understand the physics as well. What the Wilson Boys did was inefficient, narrow minded, and they were lucky that they didn't lose their bankroll. Tracking raw spins alone is rather primitive. Math without physics is a poor approach to beating a roulette wheel.
Here's a good example: Thinking strictly analytically: Would you track the gas mileage on your car, looking for a statistically relevant drop in the efficiency, for thousands and thousands of miles in a vein attempt to determine if the tires were worn out and in need of replacing?
Thinking mechanically: You would just look at the tires. You would check the balancing of the tires, and look for vibration.
While many of us pride ourselves on our math skills, we often overlook more efficient and effective means by which we can win in the casinos. A good example is card counting. Many people approach the game using strictly an analytical approach and take up the absurdly slow grind. All the while, more efficient ways of winning, such as hole carding or sort play elude them. Back when we had single deck games, card counting worked and it worked well. These days, it's a rather absurd way of playing BJ, considering other options.
Gobbledygook.
So in order to realize the brilliance of Roulette AP math, physics, and logic must be thrown out; it can't be used.
Do you Roulette AP guys really believe we are so foolish?
Apparently so........
Quote: MauisunsetDo you Roulette AP guys really believe we are so foolish?
I believe you already know the answer. But just in case, yes.
When Einstein say you have to steal from the dealer - that is foolish ...
Then what does that make mortals - have no clue ...
Physics is the only solution if you decide to play the game ...
Quote: AverageJOEFoolish ?
When Einstein say you have to steal from the dealer - that is foolish ...
Then what does that make mortals - have no clue ...
Physics is the only solution and i could even teach a monkey the high probability area where the ball will land.
So Nobel laureates are too smart for Roulette AP?
Oh I get it, dumber is better.
Well judging from the federal government's running of our public school system there should be millions of Roulette AP players at the tables right now.......
Lets see what is so difficult to understand.
1) The spin of the ball is not random.
2) Rotor timings is not random.
3) Degree of tilt is not random.
You just have to rap the physics around it and understand what is what.
"Well judging from the federal government's running of our public school system there should be millions of Roulette AP players at the tables right now....... "
-
Not true and very naive statement - this just show us wish level you are at understanding the game.
Guess what i did - one experiment - i post a easy way to show people how they could know in wish area the ball would end up in (the high probability area) - at local forum in my country - after explaining some physics parameters why it work - the topic die.
No one understand jack shit - so i assume people have to start from scratch - first learn how to walk before attempting anything.
Quote: MauiSunsetSo Nobel laureates are too smart for Roulette AP?
Without talking about the particular subject, it's been shown many a time that being a Nobel Laureate doesn't mean you are qualified to speak on an area outside your speciality. Appeal to authority (especially a misplaced appeal) is not a good argument (either way).
Cheers.
Quote: AverageJOE-
Lets see what is so difficult to understand.
1) The spin of the ball is not random.
2) Rotor timings is not random.
3) Degree of tilt is not random.
You just have to rap the physics around it and understand what is what.
Tilt - I check each table I sit down at for tilt - most gamblers are in such a hurry to lose money that they never look for the compass/bubble built into every Roulette table and probably required by the local gambling control board. If you want tilt at your table just lift up one of the legs and shove a chip under - see what happens.
I have no idea what a "rotor timing" is - probably a made up AP term to describe something that doesn't exist in the first place and has no name.
The spin of the ball is random - the dealer doesn't look and the wheel is slower/faster now than the last time the dealer spun the ball.
Next arguments please........
Quote: thecesspitWithout talking about the particular subject, it's been shown many a time that being a Nobel Laureate doesn't mean you are qualified to speak on an area outside your speciality. Appeal to authority (especially a misplaced appeal) is not a good argument (either way).
Cheers.
True, but I bet Einstein was talking about math or physics or theoretical physics and not growing onions or other topics he knew nothing about.
Math tells us that the best you can do playing Roulette is losing the House Advantage, personally I believe it's a lot worse than that but I'm no Einstein....
Quote: AverageJOE-
Guess what i did - one experiment - i post a easy way to show people how they could know in wish area the ball would end up in (the high probability area) - at local forum in my country - after explaining some physics parameters why it work - the topic die.
Post it here, some will be glad to take a look
at it.
Quote: NareedCareful. One theory in physics si that antimatter particles are actually normal matter particles running backwards in time. If you run a wheel backwards, you risk creating and anti-wheel which would anihilate a normal wheel.
Like blowing up Vegas with a wheel-antiwheel reaction? Some detail...
E pur si muove.
First you should get one thing right - i don't argue or have arguments - i only tell the facts based upon physics.
My kid is 9 and she can tell when the ball has early or late 11 second to drop (the ball leave the ball track and hit one deflector) she can make sloppy, medium or hard spin, does not matter.
She also know that 2 and 3 pin game is the same as 1 pin game.
This is woody for you and hard core physical facts for others with insight.
So don't waste my time with arguments that the spin development is random.
Rotor timings = i know the exact speed the rotor has each time.
Quote: AverageJOE-
Lets see what is so difficult to understand.
1) The spin of the ball is not random.
2) Rotor timings is not random.
3) Degree of tilt is not random.
You just have to rap the physics around it and understand what is what.
Do you think you've made some spectacular discovery, or that you're the first to have these thoughts? I'm not sure what the purpose of your writing is.
Doyne Farmer and the Projectors solved the "beating roulette with physics" problem in the mid-1970s, their efforts memorialized in the Thomas Bass book "The Eudaemonic Pie". They, in turn, were familiar with the work of Edward O. Thorp who wrote the following prescient words at the end of "Beat The Dealer":
Quote: Thorp, Edward O., "Beat The Dealer", 1962, pp. 192-193At the turn of this century, the great mathematician and physicist, Henri Poincaré, considered the possibility of predicting the outcome of a trial of roulette by physical, rather than mathematical, methods. He concluded that this was impossible via an argument based on the mathematical concept of a continuous function. However, the concepts involved illustrated certain philosophical concepts in science. Also early in this century the great English statistician Karl Pearson spent many years analyzing the records of certain roulette wheels. However, for more than forty years there seem to have been no successful scientifically based attempts to devise winning gambling systems.
The modern high-speed computer, essential to a careful analysis of blackjack, has been widely available only for the last five or ten years; without the help of such a computer the analysis which led to this book would have been impossible. With the very rapid, continuing increase in the number of scientists and engineers, and the rise of fantastic new scientific tools, the interest in the possibility of winning gambling systems is increasing.
We predict that scientifically based winning systems for other games will appear over the years, probably more and more frequently, and that the casinos will ultimately be forced to supplement their traditional reliance on an empirical cunning by "fighting science with science."
Here, Thorp doesn't use "system" to mean something as trite as the Martingale but rather exactly what Farmer and team developed. And rumor has it they weren't even the first.
Quote: AverageJOE-
First you should get one thing right - i don't argue or have arguments - i only tell the facts based upon physics.
My kid is 9 and she can tell when the ball has early or late 11 second to drop (the ball leave the ball track and hit one deflector) she can make sloppy, medium or hard spin, does not matter.
She also know that 2 and 3 pin game is the same as 1 pin game.
This is woody for you and hard core physical facts for others with insight.
So don't waste my time with arguments that the spin development is random.
Rotor timings = i know the exact speed the rotor has each time.
Physics - but what universe are you talking about?
In the 200+ year history of Roulette no documented case can be found where someone "beat Roulette" and could demonstrate it over and over again.
Sure there are lucky folks who can do well at the table - I've seen them. But they show up the next night and lose it all.
The best you can do at playing Roulette is -5.26% for an American wheel (2/38) and -2.7% for a European wheel (1/37); in the long run of thousands of spins. Personally I believe it's much worse than that but I'm still working on the math for that..............
Quote: KeyserTell that to the chief wheel engineer at TCS Huxley.
So the entire believably of Roulette AP rests on a guy who works at the place that sells defective Roulette wheels to the gaming industry.
Somehow I knew this is where it would wind up.............
Quote: MauiSunsetThe best you can do at playing Roulette is -5.26% for an American wheel (2/38) and -2.7% for a European wheel (1/37); in the long run of thousands of spins. Personally I believe it's much worse than that but I'm still working on the math for that..............
Pardon me? How can it be worse?
Quote: AverageJOE-
- i only tell the facts based upon physics.
Does that mean you'll post your 'experiment' here,
like you did on the other forum? I completely understand
if you don't want to, nobody likes to be laughed at.
I feel you should stick with slots and steer clear of the card games and wheels. Slot are relaxing and you can get plenty of comps.
And now Thorp ...
Well i have some material that never will see daylight wish springs out from some hard core discussions regarding bias.
So far so good ...
But i also know that some genius also can be pretty stupid some times or i take that back.
I say they have lack of understanding and knowledge regarding some things and speak about them in public as they did know all the facts.
I can tell you thing about Thorp - he would argue or say that dealer signature is fiction and does not exist.
That is true to certain degree but is not the hole truth.
Wheel signatures exist and can let you aim for the high probability area each time the dealer spin the ball.
That is physical facts and the true story about signatures.
Thorp would argue that the spin is random and that the dealer can not influence the spin.
He would also argue that there is no way to measuring different physical parameters wish would tell or estimate where the ball would end up during the spin-development.
That girls and boys is nonsense.
Quote: thecesspitPardon me? How can it be worse?
I believe that using the 200+ year old stated odds table incorporates the Gamblers' Fallacy - it's a theory of mine that I've published.
It's too early to tell if I'm right but I believe this could be the case. Instead of -5.26% for an American wheel I believe it's closer to -16%.
If you have any interest in this topic just do a Google search of my name and Roulette and you can read my theory and debate it there. But I don't want to hijack this thread with my theory.
Quote: thecesspitWithout talking about the particular subject, it's been shown many a time that being a Nobel Laureate doesn't mean you are qualified to speak on an area outside your speciality. Appeal to authority (especially a misplaced appeal) is not a good argument (either way).
Quite true. besides, I've suggested a hypotheses regarding Einstein's famous... Well, read for yoruself:
Quote:Speaking of physics, Einstein got it wrong. Another way to make money on roulette is to past-post your bet when it hits. Well, not that Einstein was wrong, but his Theory of Universal Roulette Winnings was incomplete.
If I could persuade a physicist to write a paper about it, including the optical tricks needed to fool casino security, I'm sure we could get an Ignobel Prize. That has to be worth something, say a dime more than a betting system (meaning it has to be worth a dime).
Quote: MauiSunsetIt's too early to tell if I'm right but I believe this could be the case. Instead of -5.26% for an American wheel I believe it's closer to -16%.
If I bet $1 on each of the 38 inside numbers of an American roulette wheel, I lose $2 every spin regardless of which number comes up. -$2/38 = -5.26%. How do you get -16%? You're not mistaking hold with edge, are you? Those numbers are only equal for slots or electronic games which properly count total handle (as opposed to drop).
Quote: MathExtremistIf I bet $1 on each of the 38 inside numbers of an American roulette wheel, I lose $2 every spin regardless of which number comes up. -$2/38 = -5.26%. How do you get -16%? You're not mistaking hold with edge, are you? Those numbers are only equal for slots or electronic games which properly count total handle (as opposed to drop).
That's pretty much my take-away.
Plus then there's some barely explained stuff about the law of thirds... which is merely stating emergent behaviour about a 1/38 chance over 38 spins. There maybe more explanation deeper into the site, but that's for another debate.
Quote: MathExtremistIf I bet $1 on each of the 38 inside numbers of an American roulette wheel, I lose $2 every spin regardless of which number comes up. -$2/38 = -5.26%. How do you get -16%? You're not mistaking hold with edge, are you? Those numbers are only equal for slots or electronic games which properly count total handle (as opposed to drop).
You could be right, it's only a 2-week old theory I've come up with....
Quote: MauiSunsetIt's too early to tell if I'm right but I believe this could be the case. Instead of -5.26% for an American wheel I believe it's closer to -16%.
Maui,
How is it that you have a website dedicated to roulette, and you pretend to be an aerospace engineer, yet you believe the edge on an American wheel is -16%?
Also, why do you have a website dedicated to roulette?
Quote: KeyserMaui,
How is it that you have a website dedicated to roulette, and you pretend to be an aerospace engineer, yet you believe the edge on an American wheel is -16%?
Also, why do you have a website dedicated to roulette?
I have a diploma from St. Louis University that says "Aerospace Engineer" - I don't think I spent 4 years in Russian Studies but I will check that again.
I like Roulette and it's entertainment for me - I pay for all my entertainment and don't expect it to be a revenue generator.
I build websites now for a living - have 30 of them and make my money advertising - except for the Roulette website - that's just to warn all those folks who I see come by and do some really dumb things at the table and warn them of the loonies out there and the folks who sell Roulette systems.
I come up with theories all the time on lots of things - I enjoy debating, it's entertainment.......
EvenBob - You wrote:
"Does that mean you'll post your 'experiment' here,
like you did on the other forum? I completely understand
if you don't want to, nobody likes to be laughed at."
-
And i don't mind deal with low life statements - wish twist what i wrote.
You more response i get you more childish is the replies.
I wrote that the forum i test was the experiment - to see if some readers could understand simple physics.
I did honestly try to teach them one simple solution based upon hard core physics - so they always could aim for the high probability area each spin when they play.
I got some response where almost every one misunderstood the fundamental basics.
I admit do - i could have tried harder - but lost interest to save does lost souls.
I hate folks who hijack a thread and don't want to be one of them and I am not here to drum up any free press.
Quote: MauiSunsetI'd be glad to on the other site.
I hate folks who hijack a thread and don't want to be one of them and I am not here to drum up any free press.
I started a thread here.
And Maui- you are losing all credibility when you show you don't understand how to figure out a house edge on a game as simple as roulette... Why are you looking for something to replace the EASILY calculable 5.26%???
That's like saying, "If you can win by counting cards or playing poker then WHY ARE YOU WASTING YOUR TIME posting here instead of playing!!!!!!
Quote: KeyserSoopoo,
That's like saying, "If you can win by counting cards or playing poker then why are you wasting your time here when you can be playing?"
Not exactly. Mr. Average Joe has not given any example of his winnings that we can discern and ananlyze. Nor any explanation as to what he is actually doing. If I said that "I count cards and thus win" without anything more, what is the point? If I say "I count cards, and when there are more face cards left in the deck, I raise my bet, and thus over the course of infinity hands I'll average a 1% edge over the house" ( as well as some more details) Then we can intelligently analyze and discuss that plan. Some buffoon just saying "I use physics to win" without telling us HOW is a waste of all of our time. Not only hasn't he told us how, he hasn't even made a claim as to how good he is at 'beating roulette'. I'm waiting for his eventual outlandish claim, and my requisite challenge to see him do it, and his eventual refusal..... It happens all the time here....
There isn't a single thing that anyone can write that will convince me that the edge isn't what the math says it is. Not here, not in craps, nowhere.
You want to search out a biased wheel, why not the Big Six Wheel? Those gotta be easier than roulette. Find a biased wheel, act like you're drunk and tossing a black on the way out the door. BOOM! None the wiser!
Quote: MoscaY'know what I love about these threads?
There isn't a single thing that anyone can write that will convince me that the edge isn't what the math says it is. !
Don't you mean nobody can convince you that
somebody can do better than the edge says?
edge long term.
But no, I don't believe you can beat the edge long term. I don't mind if someone else believes it; no skin off my nose, after all. I absolutely believe that with the huge numbers of people who play, that there will be players who will consistently win, who will win for a lifetime, and who will believe that the reason they won was because they figured out something. I believe the reality is that they got lucky. Hey, it happens. It's cool with me.
But the numbers are what they are, and that's why the house wins. It would be easier to hit the players over the head, steal their money, and throw their bodies in the creek... but the edge is legal and carries no risk of punishment.
