Code this and you're a bloody genius > The Texas Sharpshooter

[ego]

I don't want to be a pain in the ass - but one thing i notice and witch i find being confusing is that how the numbers are presented.

123456789 10 11 12 and so on ...

Then if they chop or clustering as you describe about it should be a hot area or a tendency towards being frequent hit - but does numbers are spreed all over the wheel and are not connected as you present them - so each hot or frequent hit spreed of numbers are all over the wheel and not in any kind of group being next to each other - witch i recon is the main point with your method.

This is the wheels order.

26
0
32
15
19
4
21
2
25
17
34
6
27
13
36
11
30
8
23
10
5
24
16
33
1
20
14
31
9
22
18
29
7
28
12
35
3

[Skakus]

I don't want to be a pain in the ar*e - but one thing i notice and witch i find being confusing is that how the numbers are presented.

123456789 10 11 12 and so on ...

Then if they chop or clustering as you describe about it should be a hot area or a tendency towards being frequent hit - but does numbers are spread all over the wheel and are not connected as you present them - so each hot or frequent hit spread of numbers are all over the wheel and not in any kind of group being next to each other - witch i recon is the main point with your method.

This is the wheels order.

26
0
32
15
19
4
21
2
25
17
34
6
27
13
36
11
30
8
23
10
5
24
16
33
1
20
14
31
9
22
18
29
7
28
12
35
3

Hi ego,

Don’t worry, we’re all accustomed to you being a pain in the ar*e (only joking).

Yes this method is about numbers clustering, and the wheel order is the most obvious way to go. But this exercise is about coding the system. Once the code is complete it is an easy exchange from numerical sequence to wheel order sequence. The surprising thing is that the results will be almost identical! Yes, believe it or not the results will be the same.

I think this is an important realization, and the proof will be in the results if it ever gets coded.

You would expect number clusters to be physically related to hot wheel sections, and they can be, but this Texas Sharpshooter method proves that numbers will cluster where they will, without the need for any direct physical relationship to the apparatus.

If we take it as gospel that numerical sequence clusters are just as likely as wheel order clusters, then why not play the numerical sequence, as it is far more practical for manual play? A bot could just as easily handle either, or both, but playing manually in a B&M casino is much easier using the numbers and not the wheel.

Come on coders, prove me wrong.

I'll have some examples up soon.

[ego]

Well as i see it is based upon two old classical methods witch i post many years ago - they exist with many different tweaks and variations.

Good Luck with you method and enjoy ...

Cheers

[Bayes]

Yes this method is about numbers clustering, and the wheel order is the most obvious way to go. But this exercise is about coding the system. Once the code is complete it is an easy exchange from numerical sequence to wheel order sequence. The surprising thing is that the results will be almost identical! Yes, believe it or not the results will be the same.

I think this is an important realization, and the proof will be in the results if it ever gets coded.

You would expect number clusters to be physically related to hot wheel sections, and they can be, but this Texas Sharpshooter method proves that numbers will cluster where they will, without the need for any direct physical relationship to the apparatus.

If we take it as gospel that numerical sequence clusters are just as likely as wheel order clusters, then why not play the numerical sequence, as it is far more practical for manual play? A bot could just as easily handle either, or both, but playing manually in a B&M casino is much easier using the numbers and not the wheel.

Come on coders, prove me wrong.

I'll have some examples up soon.

Skakus, you're dead right. 

I've never understood why some think that the only valid way to take advantage of clustering is to use the wheel (rather than the layout, or any other configuration).

We all know that locations unconnected with sectors can and do cluster (e.g, the ECs, dozens etc).  If we assume that the wheel is unbiased (and that should be the default assumption), then it follows that all SECTORS are equally likely, and any clustering of those sectors is due to "natural" randomness, which means that if you make up your own wheel (or layout), you'll observe the same clustering with the same frequency as on the real wheel. Repeats and clusters are simply what random outcomes do - it's the natural behaviour of any random variable.

The ONLY reason for choosing the disc to base your betting (with the expectation of gaining a mathematical advantage) on is when you have determined a bias - and a TRUE bias, not just sectors which seem to be trending at the moment. Kimo Li and others have perpetuated this myth that you must bet on the wheel, not the layout, to get an advantage.

It's nonsense.

Again, in the absence of any bias, you're no better off betting on sectors than you are the layout.

So I don't need to prove you wrong, Skakus, but I'm quite interested in your system, and looking forward to some examples. 

[ego]

-

I would just state that i don't fully agree witch has been mention above.
But i would put a different angel to it.

Sure outcomes clustering, repeats no matter if you use the number rings order or not.

-

This might put some light on the subject from Snowman and Laurance ...

-

Quote from Snowman.

-

  Some roulette facts..Here's the real deal on past spins influencing future spins. The following information is based on a REAL ROULETTE WHEEL WITH A LIVE DEALER. On these wheels the rotor did NOT alternate spin direction- (every other spin like they do in EU). The following information does NOT pertain to an RNG based wheel or the random game of roulette. In other words, no electronic machines.I can tell you the facts, based on my experience, as they pertain to a real wheel. Here they are, like them or not.1. If a number has hit within the last five spins, it really is slightly more likely to hit on the next spin.2. Simply playing the last five numbers to have hit will slightly reduce the house edge, especially when the wheel speed is close to the speed of the previous spin. In rare cases, you can get a small edge on some wheels playing this way.3. The dealer's pick up and release of the ball is not random, like someone on this board had stated. As a matter of fact, it will quickly spike out beyond five standard deviations in a short period of time for most dealers, if you take the time to measure it.


-

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 37Max
DD 4871 --------------------------

Betting the last five numbers to have hit. Edge reduces to -1.79Max loss run 52Max DD 4209------------

Betting the last three numbers to have hit.Edge .02Max loss run 85Max DD 1555-------------Betting the last number only.Edge 5.17Max loss run 85Max DD 1555
-

In most cases, you can't get an edge. All you can do is reduce the house edge. When some other effects come together, you can get a small edge.


-


Quote Laurance

-

Suddenly, everyone's an expert on Roulette.I agree with everything Keyser has said, except one thing:Even in the situation he describes, past spins don't "influence" future spins. It's just that the same physical system that produced those past spins will tend to produce future spins in the same manner. Because of the short term nature of biases, this tends to manifest best within the first few spins. I have about 150,000 real roulette spins and in all but a handfull of cases, the house edge is reduced just by betting the past 5 spins. In a few cases, a true edge is realized.However, there are two things Keyser isn't telling you:
1) It only works (or, has the potential to work) on wheels with a Chi-Square above 55, and
2) Trying to exploit the bias (i.e. playing) will negate the effect should you start to win. In fact, should you start to win and draw attention just betting the past 5 numbers, you will - in all probability - now be playing into a significant negative edge.

[ego]

Should also state that pepole have try this as long roulette exist and different person come up with different or similar methods.
As Laurance once state when i corresponding with him is that it would be like finding the holy grail if you could ride out the imbalance that exist when not each 37 numbers not show once each.

I recon that some one could succeed to reduce the house edge to certain degree witch would be awesome.
But towards that there has to be clear how many attempts some one use to gain a profit flat betting to get a hint about the average negative expectation and after that add some kind of staking plan and at some point accept loses.

That is my opinion.

Two classical methods based upon similar way.

1. Here we wait for one number to repeat 3 times and it has to do so with in 36 spins.
When it appears you play that number at most 18 times straight up.
The numbers that shows up twice with in this 18 times you also play straight up until 18 times have been played.

2. Here we track the numbers to find one number that has repeat 3 times with in 36 spins.
We play this number straight up and we continue to do so for 36 spins.
If it hit then we play this number again for 36 spins.

Now we also add new numbers.
We play the numbers that has show twice up to a total of 6 numbers with the number that has hit 3 times.
At most we will play 6 numbers straight up.

Old numbers falls out for new numbers that has hit twice so we play the 6 numbers that qualify last at all times.
The exception is the first number that we always follow until it not hit once more in 36 spins, see above.

3. Then there exist endless of variations like Bob Gordons "Detector" at Mr Ops site ...
link:://:.xerxx.se/oops/fresys/biashot/detect.html

I know many more like Arte method witch he claims pass milions trails with succes among others.
But i really never find that any one did produce better result then any other method.

[GARNabby]

"As a matter of fact, it will quickly spike out beyond five standard deviations in a short period of time for most dealers, if you take the time to measure it."

So what?  You could likely machine-release the ball at much-more precise intervals and speeds, and still end up with nothing more than the statistically-expected "clusters" of outcomes.

Second, were "clusters" of other than the usual significance, then there would be also "clusters of clusters", leaving some of the "frames of reference" for that sort of thing not "clustering" after all, hence a contradiction; and those which do "cluster" to even out, hence still a symmetry.  In the former case, it's easier to notice when your wins/losses, e.g., are "clustering" than when those are not... nobody even talks about that, the "anti-clusters" if you will.

[Skakus]

>>"clusters of clusters",>>

Exactly the frame of reference this Sharpshooter method is trying to pick up on.

By recalibrating after each cluster (the first repeater for any given length of spins) the system inherently skims over other repeaters or clusters that fall outside the calibration periods. Thereby focusing only on certain clusters within the broader spectrum of all existing clusters.

Does it work? Not sure over the long term, but my testing so far of this basic system variant I have put forward (12300 spins, with 12511 bets on 3 numbers) is in profit. Not much, only 1.4% but to date it has turned the tables on the house edge, plus a little bit. The bet selection is hitting at 5% above expectation, again not much, but this is only the basic version. The %'s do go up a bit with other variants. (NOT REVERSE ENGINEERED).

[GameBreaker]

I sent a  PM to Boatran to get it coded.  I am more than willing to pony up a few bucks.  Lets see what he comes back with.

[GARNabby]

Does it work?

Only if logic is no good.  That's why we "test" our logic through simulations, etc; not the other way around.

[Bayes]

Some roulette facts..Here's the real deal on past spins influencing future spins. The following information is based on a REAL ROULETTE WHEEL WITH A LIVE DEALER. On these wheels the rotor did NOT alternate spin direction- (every other spin like they do in EU). The following information does NOT pertain to an RNG based wheel or the random game of roulette. In other words, no electronic machines.I can tell you the facts, based on my experience, as they pertain to a real wheel. Here they are, like them or not.1. If a number has hit within the last five spins, it really is slightly more likely to hit on the next spin.2. Simply playing the last five numbers to have hit will slightly reduce the house edge, especially when the wheel speed is close to the speed of the previous spin. In rare cases, you can get a small edge on some wheels playing this way.3. The dealer's pick up and release of the ball is not random, like someone on this board had stated. As a matter of fact, it will quickly spike out beyond five standard deviations in a short period of time for most dealers, if you take the time to measure it.

The fact that the dealer's pick up and release isn't random means nothing. In many countries, dealers are trained to release the ball from the pocket of the last win - completely deterministic. Just because that initial condition is fixed says nothing about where the ball will end up because the chaos occurs later in the process. Even if the dealer were able to exactly replicate the initial position and velocity, there wouldn't be any significant bias introduced by it alone. I've done tests betting the last X numbers to hit and there's no significant edge gained in the long term.

Suddenly, everyone's an expert on Roulette.I agree with everything Keyser has said, except one thing:Even in the situation he describes, past spins don't "influence" future spins. It's just that the same physical system that produced those past spins will tend to produce future spins in the same manner. Because of the short term nature of biases, this tends to manifest best within the first few spins. I have about 150,000 real roulette spins and in all but a handfull of cases, the house edge is reduced just by betting the past 5 spins. In a few cases, a true edge is realized.However, there are two things Keyser isn't telling you:
1) It only works (or, has the potential to work) on wheels with a Chi-Square above 55, and
2) Trying to exploit the bias (i.e. playing) will negate the effect should you start to win. In fact, should you start to win and draw attention just betting the past 5 numbers, you will - in all probability - now be playing into a significant negative edge.

The "short term nature of biases"? Why can't Laurance be honest and admit it's random? At least, unlike snowman, he qualifies it by saying that the wheel has to be biased in the first place as determined by the chi-square value.

[ego]

Well i find it at least interesting and don't find it being a big supprice that they don't spell out the hole truth in details.
That is common when you read boards from does who know what is facts and fiction.
33% is regular chat, then another 33% is common sense and at last some 33% of hard core hints about the subject.
It allways like that when you read does topics.
I know storeys are based upon the truth and have the simulation softwares based upon does statement among others.
It is just that no one go into deep details about the physics conditions witch is necessary to does things to manifest in real life.

My opinion.

[ego]

Exactly the frame of reference this Sharpshooter method is trying to pick up on.

By recalibrating after each cluster (the first repeater for any given length of spins) the system inherently skims over other repeaters or clusters that fall outside the calibration periods. Thereby focusing only on certain clusters within the broader spectrum of all existing clusters.

Does it work? Not sure over the long term, but my testing so far of this basic system variant I have put forward (12300 spins, with 12511 bets on 3 numbers) is in profit. Not much, only 1.4% but to date it has turned the tables on the house edge, plus a little bit. The bet selection is hitting at 5% above expectation, again not much, but this is only the basic version. The %'s do go up a bit with other variants. (NOT REVERSE ENGINEERED).

That sound pretty good.

Cheers

[ego]

Interesting concept.  One thing I would ask is that why would you use the layout to determine the numbers and their connectors and not the actual wheel?

In other words, why not use the number that hits  and the numbers on either side on the actual wheel?  Maybe makes no difference, but I would think that if there is any table bias present that using the actual wheel layout instead of the felt would be more effective?  And if there is not a table bias or dealer bias than using the wheel as opposed to the layout should not hurt you at all?

Am I off base?

Well i think its better to use the number rings layout if you pick up a slight bias wheel you would probably also pick up does numbers using the method described witch would be awesome.
Sure i would state there is a difference using the number ring then the table layout.
As bias wheels or at least slight bias wheels is to find every where and that even with casinos being aware of having them on the floor.

My opinion

[Skakus]

Well i think its better to use the number rings layout if you pick up a slight bias wheel you would probably also pick up does numbers using the method described witch would be awesome.
Sure i would state there is a difference using the number ring then the table layout.
As bias wheels or at least slight bias wheels is to find every where and that even with casinos being aware of having them on the floor.

My opinion

I guess when you put it like that there is a good argument for using the number ring to play this type of system. If all things are equal with truly random numbers then results can only improve if you did happen to stumble upon a bias wheel. I think this method would ride a bias for sure. Like I said, I only posted it this way for practicality.