I found these videos really helpful. I applied the strategies at LaRoulette on the Winaday casino. It helped me win $400!

What do you wanna discuss ? They are all skill based tecknikes that if you play them wrong you might be worse off than random play.

In fact there is no way to be worse off than random play. This is a mathematical concept that is often hard to explain to non mathematicians but I will try (I am an educated mathematician). The mathematical foundations of the table are such that in order to achieve anything other than random play you need to disrupt the even distribution of hits on the table. This in turn means that not every number has equal chance of being hit. How ever this is exactly what you need in order to beat the house edge. A simple way to explain this is to imagine there are only 2 numbers to bet on: 0 and 1. Your chances are 50% to win on any bet on one number. So the only way for you to be losing in such a game is to have this distribution disrupted, for example one pocket, let's say it's the zero, have 49% chance and the other one have 51% chance. You would then need to be stupid enough or uninformed to bet on the zero. So in fact, mathematically speaking, when you manage to lose faster than random play you have in fact beaten the table (if the margin is large enough to exceed the house that is).

This situation will often happen with newbie trackers. They deploy a system and start loosing faster than random play (which actually means they've beaten the table as explained above) simply because they do not record their stats in order to be able to statistically determine how the table has been bent. A simple example is a successful VT system that I developed and used. Initially I thought that the table was disrupted away from zero (losing money in the process) but through statistical measurement I found it was actually bent towards the zero. After some 300 recorded rounds I found that my margin was about 6%. Which unfortunately led to me having to spend huge amounts of time at the table due to the fact I picked only runs with very narrow physical constraints (ball speed, wheel speed, wheel starting position and synchronisation with the crossbars) that would occur once perhaps every 10-20 runs.

Despite that I managed to prove that my system works. During 5 months of testing I recorded close to a thousand runs. My margin was maintained at 6% and I earned 3150 units while never entering the table with more than 100 units. After I solved the initial problem I never went negative again.

So the lesson is: If you are losing faster than random play you have actually beaten the table but picked the numbers whose chance of being hit has been lowered by whichever system you deployed. There is no VT system that can tell you when X occurs these numbers are more likely FOR ANY TABLE. The only thing that a good VT system can deliver is to disrupt the distribution far enough for it to be profitable. It is on the player then to determine through statistical measurement how the table was bent in order to exploit the created weakness. If it was any simpler than that roulette would be out of the casinos long time ago...

Thank you for your quick response !!  It sound workable in both scenarios !
Im out of town for a couple of weeks, so I wont be able to gather additional info. to decide which scenario is best. However I will be in touch to discuss purchase of FFZ.

Thank you

Great Karma

Ok, I understand your your point about ball rotation and VB. I just want to make sure u understand my paticular situation with this machine. I reference ball rotation purely in the sense of the time I have to observe /
make prediction before NMB.  From your post you say I should use time before NMB to observe rotor speed and make prediction based on that.
Ok, the rotor speed varies fom spin to spin (actually seems to rotate for 6 or 7 spins at a particular speed, the either speeds up or slows down for the next series of spins). So it seems if I were to use FFZ to clock rotor speed I could gain advantage. again, ball speed seems to be launched at the same speed each time, rotor speed is the variable. I keep bringing up FFZ because of the speed and accuracy of it should always be better than VB.

I hope this is making sense to you.    Thank You

I would like to improve my VB, but the automatd airball machine is all thats available in my area. There is a very short time from balll launch to no more bets so traditional VB is not really an option. Spins out from NMB is probably twelve spins. I think from reading about FFZ may be a better option, it is much faster and can predict farther out. comments ?

Correction: spins from NMB to ball landing  is 12 spins.
Once the ball launches I only have 4 ball revolutions to make prediction and get bets in before NMB.