Roulette physics. JAA Cross Referencing...

[Roulettebeater]

Sounds like an AI type approach. Thats how i found statistical anomalies in roulette, and its what i now do in stocks and crypto with a bot now.

Yeah, that’s a very interesting approach, I like to call it an algorithm!
The important thing is that a very standard system lose over the long run because it works as a static system against a dynamic game, an example of this is, system that bets on red lose because blacks at some point are more than than reds, let’s extend this logic to the whole game, if you built a dynamic system with many subsystems and attack the game, for example when one sybsystem is winning in streak then you can enjoy and accumulate lots of profits

[Steve]

What many players should have is software that tests a theory to see if the odds of winning change. I already published free software that does part of it.

For example, see if the odds of any number change if it won last or within a timeframe. The result is clearly NO. Not only i have tested this, so have many others. And it's clear proof concepts like repeaters and turbos theories dont work. 1 in 37 for next spin. And the next. And the next etc.

Gaming mathematicians do extensive tests and know what does and doesn't work. They do miss some things, mainly because its the wheel designers domain, but the typical fallacies are well tested. It only takes a bit of googling to understand most players are trying to reinvent the broken wheel.

[Steve]

While im at it... i get that people like to tinker and learn for themselves. I was there once too. But later i understood by looking at the wrong thing and playing fallacies, i was the perfect little casino owner's bitch. Dumb and running in circles. And i don't like being the casino owner's bitch. Id rather be their nightmare. But the reality is any AP is just a blip in the casino's hundreds of millions in profit. Even all APs barely dint a casino's revenue. Still the revenue is significant, which is why they have game protection and countermeasures.

[Proofreaders2000]

I get that people like to tinker and learn for themselves-Steve H

I realize there is no 'shortcut' learning to play effectively.  Every aspect must be
evaluated (which takes time) to know the difference bt the good-and bad information.

[Steve]

I realize there is no 'shortcut' learning to play effectively. 

There is a huge shortcut: read and learn what others have found. Like school, in a few years you learn what generations have learned. Or like reading a book, you can have the knowledge from another life.

Some things have to be learned for yourself. Other things can easily be learned from basic reading and understanding, like basic probability. So theres no excuse for not progressing quickly.

I think it took me about 5 years to get my head out my ass. That was from stubbornness. Once i got over that, and put truth before anything, i progressed very quickly - as would any reasonably intelligent person who did the same.

[Proofreaders2000]

I think it took me about 5 years to get my head out my ass.-Steve H

Kudos to being honest. 

There is also the possibility that gambling in general is
not for everyone.  There is no shame in walking away.

[Steve]

I dont see it as "gambling". I never did.

For me it started as a way to fund energy research and earn a living. Now it is part hobby, part long time obsession, part business.

It is definitely not for everyone. Most people dont have the right mindset.

If the conditions are right, its one of the easiest ways to make money. But if conditions are hard, best to just not play. Overall there are much better ways of making money. Many different ways but its not just about the amount you earn. Once you own your primary residence, and have multiple secure income streams what esle can you need? But you cant do that easily with a 9-5 job. You can achieve the financial freedom many ways without needing the hg. If you want Lamborghinis etc then thats a different road. Be more modest. Its a car. Youll get over it.

In the end you find youre chasing time to do what you want, not money. The only reason you need money is because of your own decisions.

[Firefox]

Imagine trying to run on water. Then someone whispers to you, "hey, that wont work. Youll just sink. Try on land".

You dont listen, then try something you think is different: hopping. The result is the same.

That's exactly it. People are trying to beat the game with maths. Eg Different staking systems. Or a misapplication of maths. Waiting a few spins for something to happen and thinking this will influence the next few spins in some way.

The only way you can beat the game is using physics.

[Roulettebeater]

That's exactly it. People are trying to beat the game with maths. Eg Different staking systems. Or a misapplication of maths. Waiting a few spins for something to happen and thinking this will influence the next few spins in some way.

The only way you can beat the game is using physics.

Mr Firefox

Consider that the majority of players have to bet before ball release, how the hell are you going to use physics then ?

[The General]

On my wheel there are no pocket floors or frets. It can't be taken apart. Everything is machined out of solid aluminium. Very little to go wrong. The numbers ring I think can be rotated if you take the turret off and have the right tool. I'll post some photos sometime.

  You need to take the rotor out of the bowl.  Flip it upside down and you'll find the security plate.  There will likely be 37 bolts holding the pocket compartment in the rotor.  When these pocket compartments are rotated, the bolts aren't always evenly tightened.  This will cause some parts of the compartment to rise and fall and lose direct contact with the floor of the rotor.  Sometimes these pocket compartments will breathe as well. 

On your wheel you should experiment with loosening some of bolts on a semicircle of the rotor and measure the effects.  As I recall the metal thickness of the Cammegh is thicker than the Huxley Starburst ring and does a decent job of keeping the ball bounce consistent even if there's a loose lobe. (Coefficient of restitution.)  A loose area of the wheel should remove some energy from the bouncing ball.   Taking the wheels apart and putting them back together is very easy. 

Also measure the smoothness of the number tape by placing your finger nail on the number plaques as the wheel as the wheel spins.

[Firefox]

Many thanks for your insights. I have had the rotor out and the turret off. The construction may be different to what you describe though.

I think the best thing is if I disassemble it and post some photos in another thread. I have collected data on these types of wheels in real casinos, but hats off to Cammegh, the machining seems to be very precise. As I said, it will spin for nearly half an hour on its own, and that would not happen if there was variation causing imbalance and friction.

What I was hoping for was slight imbalance in some pocket sizes but say a fraction of a % like 0.7. So this means The house has just 2% edge on that pocket. But combined with VB prediction, If I have a choice, I'd bet preferred numbers.

[The General]

I'll send you some photos.

The spinning / balance has little relevance with bias though.  Saying  a wheel is balanced is kind of a jargon like term.  Most bias has nothing to do with the balancing and has more to do with assemble defects.

[Firefox]

Mr Firefox

Consider that the majority of players have to bet before ball release, how the hell are you going to use physics then ?

Only then in methods like wheel defects, blind dealers signature play, or Steve's mysterious JAA system.

They are all physical methods. I can't really comment on the last as I don't know enough about the actual mechanics, but the first two are very marginal, and also very transitory, meaning the window for exploitation is small, and the time spent finding those  opportunities could well outweigh the benefits.

[Firefox]

I'll send you some photos.

The spinning / balance has little relevance with bias though.  Saying  a wheel is balanced is kind of a jargon like term.  Most bias has nothing to do with the balancing and has more to do with assemble defects.

My wheel is machined out of a solid block including pockets. There is a top and bottom bearing. If there is even a slight imbalance, for example some pockets being machined deeper by a fractoion of a millimetre, then will result in bias and it will result in a couple on the two bearings. Since F=(mu)R and the couple is continuous, this increases bearing friction. The rotor will only slow down due to air friction or bearing friction, so possible machining defect could result in slightly increased rotor deceleration which in turn is related to slight bias. That's where I'm coming from on this aspect.

Having said that I'm sure these type of rotors are carefully checked before dispatch , and I haven't found anything exploitable. Will def do some photos though and you can have a look.

But your comments on things such as the numbers ring are interesting with respect to my wheel, and may have an outcome on spinners which I generally have regarded as random with respect to VB fall off and landing prediction.