Roulette visual prediction

This was the part of an email i recently received.

"I told you before till today I had a very bad experience with roulette visual prediction, I have studied many method included Laurence Scott, Roulette Vibe, Pawlicki, Le Defi, Scott Lang, etc.etc. but infortunatly the result is the same; loosing money!!! "

Anyone for discussion?

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. Played correct under the right conditions you WILL win money, but its not as easy to learn as many thinks. When i hear about the methods played and people say they play VB like Scott, there are usually 3 - 4 huge flaws or misunderstandings imbedded in the play.

Nothing particular, but I think it may be more fruitful then discussion about scam.

Yes Kelly, JP Bought FF about 3 years ago, I think it was E6 then.
He never updates it for new program since he is a busy man with music and pretty girls. He still says hello to me and promises when he gets more time he will play roulette again. It must be that wheels are hard over there, since he told me that you couldn’t win any money actually that you lost some. At least he understood that winning at roulette is not easy.

Played correct under the right conditions you WILL win money, but its not as easy to learn as many thinks.

I would agree with it 100%.

Someone asked me to look for him Roulette Vibe, he recon it is an interesting system. I do not know until I receive it, when I get it I will write my opinion.

I have had some nice conversations with one black jack player.
In past 10 years he made about 3 millions.

He wanted to try his luck with roulette.
He tried Bob Gordon’s system and he lost about $100,000 (similar to GW)
He tried Laurance Scott VB and lost same amount.

Bob Gordon knows it so when I was writing negative about his system he was upset why I did not write same and about Laurence’s system.

Then BJ player since he is kind of electrotehnician built a timer for my E2 roulette system and played it. (E2 is probably the hardest system to apply) He was going up and down on the end he stayed on positive zero.

Then he decided to buy FF (one of first developments)
With FF he played few times and made each time $5,000 - $10,000

Sounds great someone would say, but he stopped playing roulette.
He says, it simply is not his game, and he doesn’t enjoy it as black jack.
Also using computer was dangerous for him.

I wouldn’t say that he is unskilled, since he could use and understand E2.
So why he couldn’t profit with VB?

Somewhere I did read that probably 1 of 1000 will be able to profit with VB systems.
Why is that?

since he told me that you couldn’t win any money actually that you lost some.

Now thats an outright lie and he knows that. Or you got him wrong.

We tracked wheels in Monaco, San Remo and in Nice. In Nice i made 400 Euro after being down 500 Euro. At that point i had 3 dealers and an old woman staring at me and we packed our stuff and left, and in the other places we only managed to track the wheels because we arrived between 23.00 and 24.00 at night. In San Remo i believe there were a possibility if we had had more time, in Monaco i couldnt do anything because the wheels down there produced "hangers". There were Huxleys in some of the smaller noisyer places in Monaco but we didnt track those. Besides, the beach casino had just closed for the season.

JP is more interested in number systems, but has a great interest in all systems. And a great library.

;D, Kelly therein s nothing wrong with losing.
If 999 people can not apply VB it would be very surprising that remaining 1 % win all the time.

I am happy if with FF, 333 people from 999 get success on conditions they play.
You can see how 333 and 666 and 999 are magic numbers. :o :o :o

If you say so, I apology. It was few years ago, so I can’t remember well. But I am positive that you were struggling. Maybe I mixed that with some conversation from GG when someone was teasing you for loses in France.

Hello Forester,Hello Kelly,

Nice to hear news from you,

everything that kelly say is true
he come to visit me in Nice and we make a tour in differents casino
i show him my roulette book colection (one of the biggest in europe)
and after i show him different roulette computer devices

we discuss about your device i say him that you where very serious
and that you follow very kindly all you clients with regular updates, an d email advice and recomandation.

i have told him and we agree that roulette balistic is not an easy way to understand
and to practice.

i personnaly haven t enough time to get deep in it and to dedicate
all the hours of hard work to learn this way of playing
and the roulette wheel in grand casino are difficult to beet
even christian kaisen tel me that it is not easy to win using balistic in monte carlo!!
all this i knew it before but anyway i was happy to have your device in my collection

kelly was not interesting in your device because he was concentrate on his own method of
playing balistic.

with the actual crisis i really think to come back more seriously in roulette balistic
here in europe a lot business are going down and it is really not easy

roulette for a living is my dreamsince i was a chlid!!!(but this road to sucess is not easy)

best from the south of France

Thanks for coming back,

Kelly must be bored since he had to register at Stefano’s forum to tell him 3 years old news.

Anyway, keep it touch, I think after 3 years if you want to experiment with roulette you better upgrade chip. I am not sure that you have IQ6 even first revision.

If Kelly was playing there, it must be that there are some tilted wheels.
If in 3 plays he could make 400 euros, with TILT 2 program and “point set” adjustement you will laugh.

New chip is much more flexible to all kind of wheels.
It means if advantage is possible you will have it.

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…

Thanks for nice explantion.

It also explains why using AP system then back engineering results is not same as playing real game.

We may have the system that gives us 40% advantage but in real play based on our selections and play we may get only 10%.

Great post Dokma!

@dokma, i thought i might reply since you kind of forgot the skill based tecknike there is in the quote from me.

In a “normal” roulette game you are quite right, you will lose long term around the house edge (± fluctations) even if you have your back towards the table or plays blindfolded. There is no way you can do worse than that.

But a skill based teckniqk could be a bias play where the bias player has detected a bias at a number that causes it to appear with a frequens of lets say 1/34. That would then be a “receiver”. Mathematicly, for things to add up, logically there are also donators which might be a 3 number sector that has a frequency of 1/38 pr. number or maybe just 1 number with a frequency of 1/40. Funnily, a wheel bias is sometimes located next to the number that appears to be bias. 1 number would stand out, but its actually the 3 neighbour numbes that has a defect that causes the ball to bounce off and end up in a perfect number pocket that just happened to sit next to the biased sector.

Back to topic, if someone decided he would only be playing the 3 donating numbers because it was his 3 kids birthday numbers or whatever, and not the receiving number, he would be playing a game that came out worse than random.

Another reason why casinos dont like biased wheels, they dont wanna be sued by Warren Buffet who might have played donating numbers for a month, and then suddenly finds out that the wheel was faulty.

You can add the forever mentioned VB or visoual ballistic to the skill tecknick. (or bellistic as it appears to be named in here)

I think a helluva lot of disaster in VB starts and ends with the scatter.

How many guy track the wheels and draw up scatter graphs or charts. How many work out incorrectly what scatter to go for.

For instance some guys think that taking the average of a certain amount of spins would give you the peak scatter to play. Instead of looking at the specific peaks in a graph.

[quote=“Forester, post:1, topic:281”]This was the part of an email i recently received.

"I told you before till today I had a very bad experience with roulette visual prediction, I have studied many method included Laurence Scott, Roulette Vibe, Pawlicki, Le Defi, Scott Lang, etc.etc. but infortunatly the result is the same; loosing money!!! "

Anyone for discussion?[/quote]

I key the norm as accurate as FF with method wish is not mention above.
I assume any one can learn how to key and be around less or up to 50 ms wrong.
I assume that the read and the way FF take lap/split times is not any more accurate then a person who use visual ballistics - actually the op piste so is the measuring a pro AP does more accurate then based on only one spin development wish by it self can become a false positive.
Measuring tools for scatter and learn how to deal with 2 pin game and take andvantage of different methods as using trangual bet strategy can be better then aim for one straight area and so on.

Anyone for discussion?


[quote=“Forester, post:1, topic:281”]This was the part of an email i recently received.

"I told you before till today I had a very bad experience with roulette visual prediction, I have studied many method included Laurence Scott, Roulette Vibe, Pawlicki, Le Defi, Scott Lang, etc.etc. but infortunatly the result is the same; loosing money!!! "
I think that peoples not understand that maybe essence of wining is corct choosing the wheel. Some wheels are beatable but some - not, or very hard. Good player must easily recognize them.
Anyone for discussion?[/quote]

Bebedictus is correct.
But in order to find the best wheel in a casino that lets say have 20-30 wheels and then to this good wheel record at least 100 spins in the advantage direction of the ball ,it can take a loooooong time…
So the only thing that can help in that is to be a part of a team(so the datas will be recorder faster)…
Nowdays that wheels are hard,one single AP can t do a lot.Because when he will find the best wheel and the best scatter it is luckily that the wheel will be deferent at the time that he will start playing ,because a simple change of the ball will change all the datas(tilt ,scatter,lap times)!

Now as for Lucky strike he is part correct …
In some wheels the FF is better than VB…but in some wheels VB is better than FF.

Unfortunatelly everything in VB and RC is unstable…someone must be very lucky to find the best correct wheel and at the time that he will collect the scatter data and play ,these conditions must remain same.

a)Play with the same ball that the data were recorded.
b)play only similar Rotor speeds that the data were recorded
c)be lucky that the conditions of the laps(barometer,temperature ,dealer hand etc) will not change,because the resault will be worst than random.

ps.Even if we will find a wheel that is heavily tilted and we are able to key the correct rev with VB or RC and also collect the data for the bets scatter,noone can garanty that we will win.
One very simple reason is because at the time that we will start playing(or during play) the ball revolution time can change slightly and this can couse a very deferect scatter ,because if the ball at the time of the data colection were hitting the DD in the middle and lets say it was doing +6 pockets scatter,then the ball can easily be hitting the top or the lower pasrt of the DD and the scatter will be completelly deferent!!!
So the strike point predictionm can be perfect in every spin…but the stop of the ball can be far from the average data colection scatter…