There is actually quite a bit of confusion about Dealers signature. It’s not so much that a dealer even really has a particular skill, but that the wheel is ideal for it. The wheel speed and a dominant drop is what makes it look as though the dealer is “super” skilled. It has more to do with matching up the “frames” or sections of the wheel that are most likely to pass under the dominant drop when the ball is present.
For example: Let’s say the dealer “shoots” the ball and that the ball makes 17,18,19,20,21 revolutions over a series of different spins. At a certain wheel speed, the dealer may have the same chance of hitting a specific “frame” or section of the wheel on more than one ball pass. In some instances, the dealer may have as many as three chances at a section of the wheel, if it is traveling at the ideal speed.
(This is a very rough explanation)
At wheel speed X the dealer may have the opportunity to hit the same section of the wheel from the ball release number on ball rotation 17,18, and 21
At wheel speed Y the dealer may have the opportunity to hit the same section of the wheel only on ball rotation 17, and 19.
At wheel speed Z the dealer may have only one opportunity to hit the same section as the previous spin, if the ball drops on ball rotation 19 only. Understand?
That’s why I use to call it “framing”- (looking for the best wheel speeds for the largest number of opportunities of a sectional hit). The above example is ONLY an example. It leaves out so much information. There are actually more variations to it. If you want to really grasp the concept, you need to film a wheel. The above example is really to illustrate how a dealer may hit the same section of the wheel even if the ball makes an additional rotation.
I really shouldn’t post this late at night
I have already tested this method. Would you like to see real test results?-See below. I did not segregate by wheel speed. I did not want to curve fit the trials. I also wanted to measure the raw effect over more than one dealer. The biggest difference the dealers made, were spinning their wheels at a less than an optimal speeds. The advantage of the method still emerged even in the raw trials.
When I tested this method on wheels that had completely random drops the edge evaporated.
The two steps that you MUST include in your test for it to work is:
Compare only the change in travel yardage between every two spins of the dealer. Compare only spin 1 travel yardage to spin 2 travel yardage etc.,… The reason is that the dealers will continually fine tune each spin and the wheel speed continually drifts throughout a session. The signature is therefore perishable.
This also removes any doubt that the test results were some how “peak picked” or “curve fit”.
A wheel with dominant drops.
If I would have cut and pasted the Excel program it would have looked all screwed up, so I have posted only the totals and the test results. I tested this years ago on Mark4,5 Huxleys, and Paul-sons. The chi square and the standard deviation results were impressive.
These numbers represent the change in the dealers travel yardage between consecutive spins only.
For example: spin 1 the dealer releases the ball from a specific number and the ball lands 10 pockets from the release number. The travel yardage for spin one is 10 pockets.
Spin 2 the dealer releases the ball from a specific number and the ball lands 12 pockets from the ball release number. The travel yardage for spin two is 12 pockets.
Now this is how you determine how accurate the dealer is:
Measure the change in travel yardage between every two sets of spins. In the above example the change in travel yardage is Spin 2 - Spin 1 = change in yardage of +2 pockets. Understand?
Spin 2 is 12 pockets. - Spin 1 is 10 pockets = a change of yardage of +2 pockets.
Here is how the plot looked on Wheel 1 (only 623 spins). I actually have tracked and recorded just over 7800 spins on a few different Mark4’s and 5’s to test dealers on these wheel designs with dominant drops. I will post those as I find them. This plot is actually 4 different dealers over the course of a few days. The relative positions that we are most interested in are of course, for relative positions -1,0,+1.
This three number sector was already over 4.28 st dev. at only 623 spins.
The chance of randomness for the twelve pocket sector was 2.078 followed by 9 zeros.
While the standard deviation could be considered random given the small trial, what makes it significant is that it is where we would predict it to be. Understand?
The scatter out to the left and right of relative position 0 is also interesting considering the location of the ball deflectors.
When the sum of the neighbor 5 and 10 are examined the signature is quite obvious.
relative position -18-7 hits
While this method is interesting, there are better ways for VB.