@Forester regarding prediction value of ball rev time

Advanced roulette play
41

There is no problem in defining the sector size if the prediction scheme is telescopic:
x
xx
xxx
xx
x

You simply play the sector size that has a higher hit rate than the expectation. Once you get outside the telescopic range you get into negative expectation such as 1/40 etc. Pyramid betting is perfect or the telescopic hit rate.

Usually it is never like that in the beginning, but is getting there once you get past 4-500 actual placed bets.

If you have something like this with the exact same wheel speed:

x
xxxx
xxxx
x
xx
x
x
xxxx
xxx
xxx

You are actually better of, just having 1-2 chips on each peak.

There is not much point in playing a 6 number arc with 3 numbers with expectation 1/30 and 3 numbers with 1/44 just to get a smoother run with smaller fluctations. You will lose long term doing that.

The Huxleys more or less all produces a second main area placed 180 degrees from the absolute main area. You will see it, not only in the scatter histogram but also in the prediction histogram. Have a few chips in ALL main areas. For the VB players, it also save most of the spins which is predicted at a revoloution too early or too soon. Because the main area in those samples, depending of wheel speed of course will be at 180 degree from original prediction. (The ball has taken a full extra revoloution and the wheel 1/2 revoloution)

Late sector bets always gives suspecion if they are large and they are winning. But in the end, as at the Ritz, they will have a hard time suing you for a hit rate which is within deviations no matter it may be a fortune.

Thats why you should learn to use the clever split bets.

Covering zero sector 12, 35, 3, 26, 0, 32, 15, 19 AND
5/10 sector 180 degre: 33, 16, 24, 5, 10, 23, 8, 30 11, 36
26/23
0/3
5/8
------------You can stop here where you got 6 numbers covered or
32/35
12/15
32/33
35/36
16/19
10/11
----------- If you pick them all, you have covered 18 numbers

But none of the bets will imeadeately be recognized as sector bets. You can do the same all the way round on the wheel.

42

I think you are worrying too much about the heat created by the spread betting. Set a betting strategy and then monitor heat (and potential heat) level to decide when to exit.

Heat is a function of winning time and winning amount. They have seen all the startegies and systems so will take little notice. All the empirical evidence suggest that the best way to avoid “significant” heat is win quickly and then move on.

All the statistical evidence suggests that a betting startegy based on normal distribution around the predicted number (assuming a number not sector system) is optimal. Remember the betting pattern is really bankroll driven not return as the best long term odds for a ‘true’ number/sector predictive system will always be a single number but your practical bankroll is unliklely to be robust (safe) under that approach.

On that basis simply empoly a ‘normal’ spread as discussed by Forester above (5 or 7 makes little difference under most conditions), stake the amount supported by the bankroll calc (again good stats available) and play hit and run - get out as quickly as your winnings dictate for the game/environment you are playing in.

43

gkd & co

Heat is a function of winning time and winning amount.

The size of the Casino and Roulette table activity also have a bearing, for example at my local two table casino with a dozen regular players at any one time plus half a dozen visitors I never have a problem if I walk away with three times my buy-in amount but I get “heat” if I walk away with five times my buy-in.

At a major casino interstate with say 20 - 50 crowded tables I’ve never seen heat even when other players have walked away with ten times their buy-in.

Mike.

44
x xxxx xxxx x xx x x xxxx xxx xxx

You are actually better of, just having 1-2 chips on each peak.

Playing 1-2 chips can take forever, that scatter is always coincidence, soon can position 4, 5, 6 start getting more hits.
2 close pick points are big problem, placing bets on one and ball goes for the other one, after 5-6 spins shift prediction and ball starts hitting the other pick. Not once happened that 80% of spins are within 18 numbers and I cannot profit…

45

Well that is your opinion. Obviously you have played where there weren`t 2 peaks.

Of course you dont anticipate 2 peaks, you KNOW that there are 2 peaks, otherwise you dont play that way.

Ask Kaisan what happens when you play outside the peaks. His name is “sachse” on the paroli board. There are wheels where ALL your edge is gone if you start placing bets outside the peaks which might not be bigger than 1-3 numbers. Kaisan doesnt play wheels he hasnt tracked for at least 300 spins.

Here are another scatter gram that might illustrate that the scatter ALONE is enough to create more peaks:

46

The two peaks in both scatter diagrams above (and in other scatter diagrams I have seen) are 18 numbers apart. That is half a wheel. (A pair of smaller peaks are visable in the right diagram at 15 and 33, +9 and -9 numbers apart from the main peak, or a quarter of a wheel).

Is it because the ball sometimes jumps across the center of the wheel? Or has it to do with the vertical diamonds (which are distributed 90 degrees apart)? I don’t get it.

By the way, the scatter looks good to me. In the diagram to the left, one doubles the money either of the two peak you go for. (The wheel of the left diagram looks even more fantastic). They are made from 111 observations, which certainly looks enough to be conclusive. 300 observations would be excessive, taking something like 10 hours. Peaks like those in the right diagram should be identifiable after as little as 40 spins, I would say. Enough for being worthwhile to play on, I mean.

(Again, I want to remind you all that my experience from actually playing roulette is quite limited. My reasoning is theoretical.)

47

At this particular Huxley, the reason was that either ran the ball forwards between 6 and 24 slots, but also very often the ball dropped, hit one of the seperators and jumped backwards.

When you in your “prediction locator scheme”, (same as the scattergrams, you just have your prediction point in the middle and from +1+2…+18 one way and -1-2-3…-18 the other way) is getting 2 peaks roughly 18 numbers apart, it is very often because there might be a tilt that occasionally makes the ball take 1 extra revoloution more than expected and in that time the rotor has turned 1/2 a wheel size and your main area will be 1/2 a wheel away from the original point when the ball drops.

Same as Barnetts computer will show, if it frequently is predicting an early key revoloution.

48

Kelly said…

makes the ball take 1 extra revoloution more than expected and in that time the rotor has turned 1/2 a wheel size and your main area will be 1/2 a wheel away from the original point when the ball drops.

Kelly, could you elaborate on this a little more please?

If the wheel is running at 3 secs per rev then doesn’t it require the ball to be travelling at exactly half of that or 1.5 secs per rev to finish up 18 pockets from where it would have if it hit the same diamond on the previous rotation?

How much leeway or error margin is there in these times before the ball misses that same diamond I wonder?

Mike.

49

If pick point is only 3 numbers and if we play numbers next to it and losing because of that we cannot win. Who can have prediction within 3 numbers accurate?
Pick point developed by looking distance from diamond does not match pick developed from prediction. Of course that Barnett will have 2 pick points if he uses 1200-1400ms.
If braking point in between 2 revolutions is 1300ms, all detected speeds from 1200 -1300ms will be shifted by about 1.3s x wheel speed.

But that is not all of error. Even speeds detected for same ball revolution will not have same result. If it is detected 1200ms for remaining amount of rotations will take less time if compared to detected 1300ms, That shifting is reversed to previous one (1.3s x wheel speed) so the error increases. I think after observing wheel that he tunes computer so that 1 ball rotation fits better in time frame.

50

@Mike
It doesn`t fit all wheel/ball ensembles. If you have the last round taking 2.0 secs it fits 4 sec. rotors. You will also have wheel/ball ensembles where the the last ball rev is slightly faster and that might fit a a 3.8 or 3.9 rotor better.

On top of that there are other factors. If the ball takes 1 more revoloution than it was supposed to, it usually has a lot LESS energy in this final round that causes it to drop like a rock almost without scatter instead of bouncing forwards. So in the end, a 1/2 wheel rotation might not be ideal even if the velocities speaks for it.

Some velocities actually gives you 3 peaks instead of 2 mainly because the rotor is so much slower that it only turns 12 slots instead of 18 and on top of that has a frequent bounce causing it to even 12 slots furteher or maybe just 2 peaks but where the second is placed 12 slots after the main.

Exactly where the peak in prediction is located, you will only be able to see in your prediction locator scheme.

@forester
If i get a visual tracking that shows a peak of 1-2 numbers breaking through 3 or 4 SD, i will play that offset only with 1-2 numbers in exactly the same way i got the data for the tracking. Usually, i will check wether i get a better edge or higher SD if i extend the sector to either 5, 7 or 9 numbers and i will then pick the sector size that yields the better opportunity. I have had wheels where the edge is gone playing 5 instead
of 2 numbers but was heavy (higher than 3 SD) again playing 9 numbers.

I don`t know any details on Barnetts computer, you will have to ask him.

51

Last 2-3 months someone was removing some posts.
Please be careful or if you do not like this forum have some dignity and respect for the others…

I like old posts!

I managed to recover some posts in this thread.