# Simplest VB for very tilted wheel

BACKGROUND

I don’t have much timing or spatial talent. I haven’t tried Visual Ballistics (VB) before. But my recently revived interest in roulette prediction makes me want to try it. Mostly to get an understanding of how ball/wheel/croupier systems behave.

Luckily, where I live there are several pubs which have roulette wheels which:
+1) often (always?) are tilted. Actually, I’d say that the degree of tilt varies between “quite and very”!
+2) scatter looks very promising.
+3) late betting is allowed (depends little on croupier though).
+4) have no double zero.
+5) security is lax and croupiers probably not aware of advantage play.

However, the drawbacks are pretty whopping too:
-1) a plein win pays only 30 (thirty) times the money. :-
-2) maximum bet is only about half a euro. :-*

So there will be no big money involved (maybe fortunately so, for me!)
(Btw, do you think it is possible to “win back the money” from buyng FFZ during such conditions?)

SIMPLEST VB (VB for dummies?)

First, I know the (very) dominant diamond from observation (like, the diamond it hits EVERY time…)

Second, I have estimated the average scatter length (normally say +5, no big jumping around).

Third, let’s assume that the ball makes the same number of revolutions every time it’s spunn. This because the croupier (same) out of routine throws it with about the same force. The few times I have counted number of ball revolutions, they have been consistently 21 or 22. So assume 21 revolutions is correct more than half of the time.

Fourth, assume constant wheel speed. This might be developed by intuitively judging if the rotor is fast, normal or slow and change an offset accordingly. There is plenty of time to think about that while one is counting ball revolutions.

Fifth, when I count ball revolution say 19, then I note the position of the wheel, that is the number under the dominent diamond (or the angle to the easy to spot green zero, whatever method proves to be most practical).

Sixth, from the assumptions above should follow, that the rotor should move a certain distance during the last 2 revolutions of the ball. I have through observations determined an “offset” number of pockets. From memory and training, I quickly find a number close to that offset (which might be roughly adjusted for intuitively estimated rotor speed) and bets on plein, together with as many neighbors I can come up with from memory before NMB is called (which normally happens almost at the same time the ball hits the diamond).

Shouldn’t the odds that my bets are on the right half of the wheel often enough to beat the 1:30 odds? What do you think?

And more importantly than the small money involved here, would this approach be a good way of starting with VB? Would I learn something which would be useful with a roulette computer in a real casino where tilts are much smaller?

This way you can play if conditions is like you described. I played in similar way three years ago and have quite good winings on real casino .
But playing that way you not need add ofset, but simply change observation point - if you see 34 at 12 diamond but outcome is 0, simply next time look at 9 oclock diamond. And maybe try to look at number few rotations earlier also. I not ever play in such conditions like you described, but two ref. numbers way let me win at real casino.

Ah, yes. “Angle” is a very practical intuitively visable substitute for “offset” in terms of the messy memorized number sequence of the wheel. Your suggestion makes it seem much easier. Just “offset” the observation point to start with.

And maybe try to look at number few rotations earlier also. I not ever play in such conditions like you described, but two ref. numbers way let me win at real casino.

The conditions I’ve described might sound extreme, and I haven’t made any wider survey of them (however both the drawbacks are LAW so count on them!). But thus far it is really my impression that these small-money wheels in Sweden, were I live, are really managed as I’ve described. Although there are many different (mostly small) companies around, presumably with different quality standards for equipment and employees.

You say “look at number few rotations earlier also”.
I suppose that means that I should make the prognosis earlier. Well of course that depends on when NMB is called, and that is not so strict on these kind of wheels. Or did you have in mind to make a preliminary forecast before the final one?

What I’m after in this thread really, is a “dummys guide” to starting VB. A rookie like me shouldn’t begin with trying to percieve cross over patterns with complicated adjustments. I believe that many interested people are detered by such complexities. There should first be a “simplest possible” VB exercise for tilted low-bet wheel. Even if one looses money because of the skewed odds, one might sense enough opportunity for going for learning further advantage play features, with the aim to later perform the tricks on real casino wheels. Then on top of that one could add improvement after improvement in the same pace as the VB-user gradually improves his/her skills.

Maybe my suggestion isn’t suitable as a “lowest step” entry. But then what should one add, remove or change?

Aren’t there tilted low-limit wheels around in other places of the world, as suitable work benches of VB/AP-beginners? I’d say that it’s cheaper, and probably slightly more realistic, to play there than to buy an own wheel and “create a laboratory” at home. These wheels spell Huxley and other famous manufacturers brandnames. I don’t think that they really are toy wheels, even if they are not professionally maintained for economic reasons and hence always are tilted

Not two prognoses - one , but based on two numbers. What that will give you? Sometimes you can recognize that it will be 23 rotations, not 21-22.
My starting VB was such - learn numbers where they are, learn distances between numbers. That was theoretical and when play there were such categories in mine mind - slow,middle,fast rotors and slow,middle,fast ball.

Yes if conditions are as you say.

But let see what you are really achieving.

On roulette the ball will start dropping when it is at particular speed.
So we can say that last rotation have reasonable constant time.
On leveled wheel this is more truth then on tilted wheel, but lets say that same is valid for tilted wheel as well.

So what will happen if once instead of your 21 rotation you have 23 rotations. If we look spin from the back assuming that last rotations are same, then you will have extra 2 rotations at front, where the ball might be 300ms per rotation. It makes 600ms difference to the length of spin which is not much since it will produce error that rotor will move in that extended period of time.

When you count spins from front you count start with that 2 extra rotations you remove them with your count of 19 but you leave 2 extra spins at the end. Now instead of 600 ms you will have something as 3-4 sec difference.

With such approach you achieve late prediction so rotor difference doesn’t make difference for all 21 spin but only for remaining few.
But you lose because you canceling spin from the start and leaving much longer spins from the end.
You are removing same amount of rotations but not same amount of time.

If rotor is constant that change in 21 spin is smaller then change in extra added 2 rotations then is better to have prediction at start of spin, and take the best care to check if rotor is constant, or to adjust for change.

Alternatively with counting approach the player after some experience when counting rotations will notice that 19th is still to fast and then count extra one or 2 rotations.
Then it becomes nothing more then estimation, so why to count? It would be better to use that time to observe rotor and make adjustment.

From dealers signature to more precised prediction we need to make prediction later in time, so if there is any rotor change it gets reduced or better adjusted. But we need to know our position in rotations from the end of spin, not from the start.

Main advantage on that wheel is that you say there is almost no ball jumping.
If your rotor is very slow and reasonably constant you still may see and recognize advantage. Example
If it is 6 sec per rotation.
If you miss by 2 rotations and ~3 sec after counting you will be wrong by 18 pockets.

If you make prediction at start of spin and if rotor is different by 1 pocket per sec. and if spin length is 20 sec you will be wrong by 20 pockets plus or minus for deviation for that time of 600ms. 600ms you can’t control but rotor change you can.

[quote=“Forester, post:5, topic:287”]Alternatively with counting approach the player after some experience when counting rotations will notice that 19th is still to fast and then count extra one or 2 rotations.

Then it becomes nothing more then estimation, so why to count? It would be better to use that time to observe rotor and make adjustment.[/quote]
That, I feel, was a very convincing argument!

I think that this issue basically is:
could strong enough tilt replace timing (of ball/rotor)?

But we need to know our position in rotations from the end of spin, not from the start.
Yes, wouldn't htat be nice :D
Main advantage on that wheel is that you say there is almost no ball jumping. If your rotor is very slow and reasonably constant you still may see and recognize advantage. Example If it is 6 sec per rotation.
No, not that extreme. Rotor turns at about 3 secs. Still these wheels give a focused scatter. May it depend on the ball or the pocket separators. I suggest that it might be the wheel design, the dosage of the curvage and leaning angle of the space between the ball circle and the rotor.
If you miss by 2 rotations and ~3 sec after counting you will be wrong by 18 pockets.
Yes, but such misses will be rare enough to still beat the in this case , eh, 20% odds... Well maybe not...

But hell, what one’s betting against on such wheels which I describe, is the ball revolution count combined with some estimate of how the rotor will be turned within the two last slow ball revolutions! Why would that be hard enough to bridge even a 37:30 disadvantage???

But those problems ASIDE, would it be worth the lesson to try it anyway? Not to make a profit, but to gain experience about rotor/ball/croupier behavior? Or are such circumstances too far removed from international big-bets-allowed-but-almost-non-biased-wheels kind of casinos?

Well with DS I was winning 20 years ago without really understanding much, and conditions you described would match conditions on wheel I played.

I did not select 6 sec rotor believing it will have low scatter but because the rotor change is smaller.
If you are by 3 sec wrong and if rotor is 3 sec then is obvious that your results will deviate in between 37 pockets. Previously in explanation it was 18. So it is harder.