visual ballistics

[The General]

Here's what an actual distance between predicted and land sheet should really look like. 

Description:

Using VB, a number prediction is made.  (The number is part of a section that is bet.)
The actual outcome is recorded and then the distance between the prediction and the outcome is measured in pockets, counting clockwise around the wheel. The difference between the predicted and the outcome number is then plotted on the STANDARD DEVIATION graph above. 

[The General]

Then so what!  Why on earth are you saying that this predicts the wheel speed on the next spin? 

This graph represent the distribution of the pockets for 10k spins.

After ball leaves track, it bounces and rest, graph represents how many pockets the ball bounces until it rest.
you can see my system has an edge, its clear that pockets range from 0 until 14  are dominants..

you can see my system has an edge, its clear that pockets range from 0 until 14  are dominants..

NO!  This is just a ball bounce plot!  This says nothing about your ability to predict where the ball will leave the track!  UNDERSTAND!?

And by the way, it's only 7100 spins, not 10k spins!

[Winner]

How many numbers do you bet?

[Roulettebeater]

Then so what!  Why on earth are you saying that this predicts the wheel speed on the next spin? 



NO!  This is just a ball bounce plot!  This says nothing about your ability to predict where the ball will leave the track!  UNDERSTAND!?

And by the way, it's only 7100 spins, not 10k spins!

[reveal]link:s://i.gifer.com/origin/6f/6f13488261359bca56bd55f2ba73d9db_w200.webp[/reveal]

[The General]

  What you're missing is the prediction as to where the ball will strike the rotor.

[Roulettebeater]

  What you're missing is the prediction as to where the ball will strike the rotor.

are you ok?   seriously

[Roulettebeater]

it seems, my system is veryyyyyy similar to steve's systemsPhysics Roulette System (Best Legal Systems)  .. see link:s://:.roulettephysics.com/#physics-roulette-system-best-legal-

[Ricky]

A hidden camera that does it all.  but it is still limited for the same reason.

Hi Bigbroben,
On an Electronic Live Dealer table if your casino has them there are three bets you can place with a single touch - "Tiers", "Voisins du zéro", and "Orphelins". What I like to do is when I think the dealer is aiming for Zero I bet the "Voisins du zéro" or if I am really confident I bet the "Jeu zéro" which is only 9 numbers but uses splits on some to maximize payout for minimum chips (split(12-15)-split(32-35)-split(3-0)-26). When Im on a roll it is a very effective play. But the frustration lies in when the dealer is mixing it up with no obvious pattern. So like any VB play you need to pick your table and your dealer.

Cheers,
Ricky

[The General]

are you ok?   seriously

YES.

The fundamentals, they're missing.

1. Dominant drop points...You don't seem to think they even exist, so you're obviously not taking them into consideration.
2. Wheel speed, you seem to think that you can measure it based on what the speed was on the past spin.
3. In the past you've said that you can't win flat betting because it's impossible to win without an up as you lose progression.  This further indicates that you don't know what you're doing.
4. Then you post a scatter graph of the ball bounce saying that it's prove that you have an edge just betting on the best scatter.
5. Tell me, are you even taking into consideration the direction that the wheel is spinning at each spin?

[Steve]

RB it's a bit presumptuous to say its like my system. It looks like you took some of my statements and attempted to reverse engineer it. Understanding the basics is not hard but there's a lot more. You need to overcome the changing variables, and knowing when you do or dont have an edge. One version of my system directly uses scatter, and the other only considers scatter as part of an assessment.

The best way to explain what my system does is rather than a system, it's more an analysis method that considers variables and cross references for anomalies. And when conditions change, you need to model those changes, otherwise you'll miss anomalies.

[Roulettebeater]

General

Don’t be delusional!

You are repeating the same BS, obviously you have no important tricks or tips to say,  all what you good at is opposing and sitting high on the horse !

[Roulettebeater]

RB it's a bit presumptuous to say its like my system. It looks like you took some of my statements and attempted to reverse engineer it. Understanding the basics is not hard but there's a lot more. You need to overcome the changing variables, and knowing when you do or dont have an edge. One version of my system directly uses scatter, and the other only considers scatter as part of an assessment.

The best way to explain what my system does is rather than a system, it's more an analysis method that considers variables and cross references for anomalies. And when conditions change, you need to model those changes, otherwise you'll miss anomalies.

Steve

You make me laugh when you keep repeating the same talk.

Do you think I do all the complex calculus in my head ? Not at all
I use algorithms that works dynamically, it detects any change in behavior of ball and wheel

[Steve]

You make me laugh when you keep repeating the same talk.

Truth changes, right?

Do you think I do all the complex calculus in my head ? Not at all
I use algorithms that works dynamically, it detects any change in behavior of ball and wheel

Based on your mistakes, you actually have a while to go. Its not an insult. Keep going.

[Roulettebeater]

Steve,

I have nothing against critics and constructive talks

But I don’t accept blabla talk which leads to nowhere, you might have a valid point, but you can’t judge my work without proof.

All what you were saying is already well known, the variables you mentioned are being measured dynamically, one last thing, don’t think that you are the only one who has invented systems and computers,  there are lots of people worldwide have reached High level with their innovated systems.

Cheers

[Steve]

Sure i know others can beat roulette too. Computers easily beat any other method. Show me a better computer than my hybrid.

But I don’t accept blabla talk which leads to nowhere, you might have a valid point, but you can’t judge my work without proof.

Touch a hot stove. Now imagine someone telling you it wont hurt. You know better, right? 20+ years almost every day. Really, i dont think anyone knows roulette better than me. Its not to say it isnt possible or that i know everything. Theres always more to learn. But i can at least recognize inaccurate claims. What i judge is what you say, and what i know to be true or false from my experience. You are where i was at about 18 years ago, but remember ive been doing this almost every day.

Anyway if you know better, good on you, go win.