System testing & accuracy

[Loc]

Hi, last few months i was working on my software for roulette, i can't afford my own, so i was creating it myself.
Current status is only for online play, because it's for windows system, but i can convert and move the code to a phone version.
I already know the limits for online, but i wanna try it anyways, also i have some people, who can "loan" me the accounts, so i can avoid detection longer.

I am gonna show you the accuracy of the source predictions now, so this is the image of something like 2 weeks ago, the predictions was useless, and random, probably because of "no input correction", also the deceleration measurement had a lot of errors, and incorrect assumptions.

[/url]

Those are the images after i fixed some issues (The deceleration system wasn't fixed at all)
[/url]
[/url]

This one is after i fixed the deceleration measurement issue & adjusted it.
[/url]

My system have already scatter by diamonds, by directions, by rotor speed, but rotor speed need more work. Also, it collects the diamond hits, and then calculate what diamond is more likely to get hit, i am gonna add also diamonds hits by direction.
I use two systems for the source of prediction, and the user can change it. I have beeps for both rotor and ball, so you can see if they fit the real ball position, also they are accurate, occasionally the system is off by quarter revolution. If i predict at 600 less, then it happened the system is off like half revolution, good configuration almost never allows at this point 1 full revolution, but once for maybe 20 spins it can happen, but the simulation is fitted with beeps, the ball just travel some more distance.

That's all what i wanna say, i don't expect any help, also i don't need it. I just wanna talk about it, i feel alone on this stuff, i have friends with me, and we wanna make some money on roulette, but they can't program, and when i talk with them, they have not much clue what we are talking about. Instead of just playing blackjack in casino, i convinced them roulette can be beaten too. We all know each other from blackjack or pure gambling interests.
I wanna know your opinion on current results, the system is not done yet, so it will be better.

[Steve]

I assume you are trying to build a roulette computer, with predictions after ball release, right?

First check your method of timing input is accurate. With something like .NET framework, the timing accuracy is not real-time so you need a workaround. With some phones, the timing input is interrupted by operating system processes and can have a massive 200ms+ error. There's not much to building a simple computer - it can be done in a few hours. But there's a lot more than you'd expect to making it suitable for most modern conditions.

[Steve]

Also if you have motivated friends, and are in suitable position for play, why not just join my teams? It doesn't cost anything except for your equipment, which you'd need for your own computers anyway.

See link:://:.roulettephysics.com/computer-service/ but keep in mind the red text at the top. My private teams are pretty full but I do make some exceptions. You'd need to be well-funded though. The other option is you join one of my players' teams - basically someone who purchased one of my computers and is looking for organized teams. They all meet each other at :.rouletteforum.net but you need to be a verified player with the equipment to post there.

The two main computer's you'd be looking at are the remote hybrid and uber. Learn more at :.roulette-computers.com

[Firefox]

What are you actually predicting here Loc.  Is it the fall off point or the resting point on the wheel.

Also, what kind of rotor speeds and wheels do these relate to, and are they level wheels or wheels with one, two, or three dominant diamonds?

[Firefox]

Took another look and it's not making too much sense. Is each wheel showing prediction points for the same spin data with manually entered  clicks each time? So you should get sensibly around the same prediction for the 20 trials as it's the same spin data?

[Loc]

Took another look and it's not making too much sense. Is each wheel showing prediction points for the same spin data with manually entered  clicks each time? So you should get sensibly around the same prediction for the 20 trials as it's the same spin data?

What i did, it's the accuracy of raw predictions, not actually where the ball will land. If the raw is ok, then the prediction will be similar, as long as the same diamond type will get hit.
Yes, it was same spin each time, ball around 1100ms last input, rotor speed 2500 - 3100 full and half rotor clocking few times. Like i said, if it's not good, i am still working on the system. Also at 750ms to 900ms it's still acurate, but not always, need more timing corrections.

Yes the wheel was tilted, but it's working on level wheels too. If you have any bad wheel to test, give me the link to YT, and i try 1 spin test on that. Also i record to YT how it looks like, current version it's a software with interface, for PC, but i will convert it to phone when i am 100% done.

@Steave i am almost 14.000 KM away from where you live, no way even if i got this software to be similar good to yours.
No problem, in the worst case scenario i will convert it to phone, and use by my way.

[Steve]

@Steave i am almost 14.000 KM away from where you live, no way even if i got this software to be similar good to yours.

I don't think you understand the concept of remote computers. You're posting to this forum. Does it matter where you do it from?

No problem, in the worst case scenario i will convert it to phone, and use by my way.

You're going to run into more challenges than you think. I spent roughly $250,000 and 10 years developing my computers. You'll probably end up finding the free and ready-made option I explained would have been better. Anyway good luck.

[Firefox]

I think those results are pretty good for that kind of rotor speed. Also when the ball is doing less than a 1000 ms it's very much down to the observer. If you're observing high res video from above your results are going to be much better as you don't have parallex error, but on those ball speeds and rotor speeds that could be a factor under casino conditions, and depending on observation position. But as you say, you're looking at online wheels, and if they give you a good view from above, it should be OK. I'm surprised there are enough which take late enough bets to let you operate online. It's very easy to curtail bets or refuse bets online if you start winning too much.

Personally I don't do rotors less than 3 secs per rev for VB so my experience is limited in that range. I find the scatter to be ridiculous on some wheels at those speeds. It's very wheel dependent.

However, The General is good at VB on high speed rotors so his comment is  probably much more relevant.

Most of the YT vids are OK. I like the ones by myroulettevideos.com.  But much of it is at 3 to 4 sec rotors. Some at 3 but nothing at 2.5 as I remember. They're all mostly one or two dominant diamond games. Different ball types and sizes, I think he does pretty well.

[Loc]

@Steve
I was referring to meet in person and play.
About computers, when i am done with scatter, then i can judge.
I will put here more tests, and see. I don't think your basic computer will be better, i did work hard, and it's the last thing in my head to give up and buy something else.
Also for me it's a honor to do something, that Einstein said it's impossible
It will not feel so good when i will go and buy someone else work.

Btw, that wheel where did you show the demo with your uber, is it good for testing? I mean, the wheel should be bad and harder,and on YT all tilted junk like someone said those myroulettevides shows good quality, but all tilted with 3 diamonds, rest don't hit.

[Steve]

You don't need to visit me to play in my teams. If you understood what remote computers are, I'm not sure why you'd make the comment about distance.

Einstein didn't say it was impossible to beat roulette. His exact quote, assuming it was accurate, regarded the table. It alludes to odds vs payout, aka beating the house edge with random bets is impossible. I rather think if Einstein focused on beating roulette, he would have used physics. I suspect his whole quote is bullshit though. If he really was a brilliant mind, and he was referring to the game, it wouldn't have taken long to figure it out. If it is a real quote, then carefully consider his wording.

If the quote is real, and he truly believed roulette as a game (rather than table) wasn't beatable, he would have been quite thickheaded. Any reasonably experienced vb player could have beaten wheels 50 years ago nearly blindfolded, literally. Are they geniuses? The physics is really not that complicated. But it's not as simple as it first seems either, at least not for getting the required edge in modern casinos.

Retrospectively I think my time and resources would have been better spent elsewhere. The challenge was part of it for me too. If its a real challenge you want, maybe focus on doing something that will have lasting benefit to others long after you're gone. Retrospectively, spending decades studying a wheel and ball seems like an awful waste to me. Im not talking about money. A lifetime chasing money is no different. You learn this later.

I was not talking about you buying anything.

Most of my demos are on mk7 with velstone track, and ivorine ball. But this exact same wheel can be easily beaten one day, and nearly impossible another. You need to be able to evaluate, understand the variables, and find solutions. But beating the typical tilted wheel with good scatter is actually very easy. My advice is focus on a basic computer to begin, and rely on scouting to exploit suitable wheels. A computer to beat almost every wheel is a lot more work, but not necessary assuming you have time and resources to scout - although a more capable computer is obviously a much better option if you're up for a challenge.

[Loc]

You don't need to visit me to play in my teams. If you understood what remote computers are, I'm not sure why you'd make the comment about distance.

Einstein didn't say it was impossible to beat roulette. His exact quote, assuming it was accurate, regarded the table. It alludes to odds vs payout, aka beating the house edge with random bets is impossible. I rather think if Einstein focused on beating roulette, he would have used physics. I suspect his whole quote is bullshit though. If he really was a brilliant mind, and he was referring to the game, it wouldn't have taken long to figure it out. If it is a real quote, then carefully consider his wording.

If the quote is real, and he truly believed roulette as a game (rather than table) wasn't beatable, he would have been quite thickheaded. Any reasonably experienced vb player could have beaten wheels 50 years ago nearly blindfolded, literally. Are they geniuses? The physics is really not that complicated. But it's not as simple as it first seems either, at least not for getting the required edge in modern casinos.

Retrospectively I think my time and resources would have been better spent elsewhere. The challenge was part of it for me too. If its a real challenge you want, maybe focus on doing something that will have lasting benefit to others long after you're gone. Retrospectively, spending decades studying a wheel and ball seems like an awful waste to me. Im not talking about money. A lifetime chasing money is no different. You learn this later.

I was not talking about you buying anything.

Most of my demos are on mk7 with velstone track, and ivorine ball. But this exact same wheel can be easily beaten one day, and nearly impossible another. You need to be able to evaluate, understand the variables, and find solutions. But beating the typical tilted wheel with good scatter is actually very easy. My advice is focus on a basic computer to begin, and rely on scouting to exploit suitable wheels. A computer to beat almost every wheel is a lot more work, but not necessary assuming you have time and resources to scout - although a more capable computer is obviously a much better option if you're up for a challenge.

I guess it doesn't matter what Einstein said, i assume it was true, but i don't have to find far, if i go to a random person on the street and say "You know what, roulette is beatable let's make just a little extra cash" before i finish the guy will see me as a crazy person who need psycho help, so it doesn't matter. Good they don't know, opportunity for the others to use it as an advantage.

I will stand here until i let it ride. Even if it will not the best software in the world, if it can beat 60% of the wheels, isn't it good? Time will show what my work can do.

Ps. You have any vidos with any other divices? On your page the vido with Forester's one can't be found.

[Firefox]

The average person on the street doesn't really understand the difference between using physics and using maths to beat roulette.  Neither do many of the roulette fans on this forum, and they've spent years studying and working on fruitless staking systems,  so the man in the street has no chance!

If you are getting into it seriously, consider getting your own wheel. Then you can set it up how you like, with what spin speeds and ball types you want.

They are not that expensive second hand. I got one off ebay some years back. If you look after it, you can aways resell and get your money back. You may even make a profit, there seems to be a steady market.

[XMistery]

The physics is really not that complicated. But it's not as simple as it first seems either, at least not for getting the required edge in modern casinos.

I think it is possible with Machine Learning (ML) and Neural Networks.
All necessary data can be acquired through well structured software.

When I finish my masters studies I'll dedicate time to that. It will be fun
Science is interesting and roulette is not the only domain.
ML and Neural Networks have numerous advantages over "simple mathematics"