First off, I have no doubt that Forester’s stuff is top notch.
However, I’ve always felt that the Achilles heel to most roulette computers are:
The rotor and ball click input errors.
And the fact that the computer relies on one or more revolutions of the ball, rather than fractional revs. This is one reason that often times, a two man visual ballistic team can out perform a roulette computer. The reason is the human eye can spot ball shudder on the track more quickly than a computer… because it doesn’t have to time a full rev, and it can look back and forth at several different parts of several ball revolutions. Timing full revs and relying on pattern matching decay profiles also has it’s problems at times due to ball shudder/shaking shock waves on the tracks as well. It’s not just limited to linear regression problems.
Any idea using new technology:
Rather than relying on human rotor/ball clicks, and full revs of the ball and wheel, perhaps someday the ultimate hybird computer could be developed so that it could see the ball on the track and zoom in on it, much like the auto focus cameras do these days. The sensors could then automatically track the ball, and rotor, and adjust in real time perhaps. Such auto ball tracking would enable the computer to adjust to the ball shudder/shock waves by measuring fractional revs, several at a time.
(Note: I can not and do not use any type of computer where I play because of gaming laws, and I go to great lengths to comply with them. However there are places in the world where ballistic computers are allowed.)
However, I've always felt that the Achilles heel to most roulette computers are:
The rotor and ball click input errors.
Many thinks this way like you. And thinks that all bad predictions is result of clocking mistakes.
I can say if not totally oposite so at least that - clocking mistakes usually have very small efect so not mistakes decide if RC user will win or not. I can say that because in mine life was maybe 4-5 times when i played with other RC player on the same table and can compare how much computer helps to me and how to him.
So conlussion is such - i get much more help from computer than other player.
Other moment is that we can simulate such situattion - when we always clock idealy the same ball speed ( wheel speed efect is very smal if to compare with ball ) and look to ball distances which it makes till rest. And every can find that theese distances are very very diferent.
From here conclussion - ball traveling distance depends not only from ball speed.
This is one reason that often times, a two man visual ballistic team can out perform a roulette computer.
Even one Vb player can overcome easy RC player which not know how to use RC or when RC simply do not what is need for player. RC creator must very much think about that second conclussion and find way to use something more than only ball speed.
There are also some other things what must do computer that it will be practical in play, but usually RC such things not do…
First I’m agree with Snowman, at least this option could be so useful for team play and FFA and it will be very good to apply it in our devices very soon, some time ago I offered to have just one FF computer central device where the processor and the RAM and more connectors are placed on its motherboard but then to be possible to connect to it with that connectors different peripheral devices like: vibro-motor, bronze plates, Bluetooth transmitter, clocking buttons, earphones, mini-usb for reading the memory and put the graphs on PC screen, laser or video head-sensor to automatically clock the rotor and ball and so… here means we to have something like real PC and the person who would like to use it as FFA or FFV or FFZ just to connect to the main board with processor the peripheral device or head he need or maybe why not for team play to connect that new clocking laser or camera head, like to the real PC we connect with usb cable for printers, mouse, keypad or any other peripheral devices, but the new FF device to be something like that 8) ;D
Second:
There are also some other things what must do computer that it will be practical in play, but usually RC such things not do....
what are that things, please talk clear and name the things with their real names if it is not a secret of course?
Note: Snowman, it is good focus of your camera is setted up with, just one error - the head in the back is not a good position, hahahaah 8) 8) 8)
as I know it and if I’m not wrong, I think the URC we have now has the same way to predict, as well some kind of first stage o that - by learning, each spin we show it by inputing the corrections, but of course it will be more precise if there will be some laser or video head following the ball and the rotor, that will input corrections exactly for each revolution on each spin doesn’t mind how fast is the ball speed or other uncomfortable factors… just it will learn data for each moment of the spin and take all in mind when predicting and like that gives us the best each time better.
just to take a note: I don’t think the way we have the URC now is so bad, we’re on the correct way as this research also could confirm it.
what are that things, please talk clear and name the things with their real names if it is not a secret of course?
How to look to all that, of course some kind of secret.
Other moment is that even if i will say to you - that change nothing. That is technical moments of program....
But to understand all, that who create program or playing method, must very good know what let to win. Simply measuring ball speed and from that calculate left distance is not enough....
And because of that are many cases when simply VB player can get much more advantage with significiantly worse measurings. And that only prove that measurings is not only what we need for winings.
[quote=“bebediktus, post:10, topic:1153”]I can point doors , but enter you must himself…[/quote]very true ;). Identical speed don’t go always same place. Sometimes best spins are not good to make money and relying on device to make your work can be deprimenting. Answers are at the wheel for everyone who can see hear and adjust properly. Vb rools!!! ;D
Nice program.
Tells us about program creators, about users.
Tells nothing about ladies.
Snowman, can you predict what can happen later tonight after one picture.
I prefare interactive algorithm…
And I know from her eyes
And I know from her smile
That tonight will be fine
Will be fine, will be fine,will be fine
For a while.
It is good to know how she react for my clicks…
INTERACTIVE.
hummmmmmmmm… sounds so mystical and so strange ???
Not understand what is strange and what is mystical for you ?
Because you can’t give a single practical example for that.
…
I can point doors , but enter you must himself.....
as you say if you tell it to me it will not change nothing respecting only to my own play, but if say to the person who will do the program firstly we have to have CLEARLY what this stuffs would help us are and the way all this logarithm will work because that person have to write the code EXACTLY what would to be happen and when, there is not that mysterious thing like “Answers are at the wheel for everyone who can see hear and adjust properly. Vb rools!” or better say there is but LET DETERMINATE EXACTLY BECAUSE TO THE PC WE COULDN’T SAY JUST “TAKE A LOOK AND GO PLAY RESPECTING ‘VB ROOLS’ OR WHATEVER ELSE” IT HAS TO BE DONE CLEARLY!
I still not understand what you want. You want that i will tell you why i win and you lost ? You must understand himself that i that will not do. Maybe somewhere later i will say something more, maybe not , that i not know.
It is enough that i pointed place where is problem.
There are no wining player in the world who cry for all about his method of play.
Then is your choise to look for better soluttion or not to do that.
Clue to soluttion can give you observing how play positive VB player.
I mean that to me is not important but to say to Forester who is writing the program if there’re so mystical things to do good code and program… by your words sounds that you have so good eyes and VB that you don’t need to use any RC but in other time you use it :o
anyway I never said that I win or no win - that are your words, even I never say to you to share with me some info or not, it is you that think it is… just I say if there’re such a mystical thing to tell it Forester exactly, I believe and trust in him that he could evaluate excellent if deserve it in the program but firstly is that YOU HAVE TO KNOW HOW TO EXPLAIN IT TO HIM, but not like as in the menu3 - total chaos!
BY THE WAY FOR YOUR INFO: I’M SO SO SO HAPPY WITH THE LATEST URC - IT JUST ROCKS… IF NOT I WOULDN’T BUY FOR ME MORE SPARE UNITS, SO I DO NOT NEED ANY MYSTICAL INFO, JUST WILL BE MORE HAPPY LIKE USER IF THERE REALLY COULD BE ADDED MORE IMPROVEMENTS TO DO THAT THE URC COULD BE EVERY DAY BETTER AND BETTER AND BETTER… NO MORE!
There is nothing mistical, everyting was mentioned or explained here.
x1xO you are testing URC. Please test it other way.
Use video spins.
Add to your video spins numbers of ball rounds till the end. It can be only 5-8 spins.
Movie maker program is needed. Advanced one.
Take sample.
Start play above 5-8 spins again and again, give corrections note results.
When last clocked ball round is 3th
Last ball round is 4th
Last ball round is 5th
Last clocked ball round is 6th.
Compare results, build a chart accuracy vs. Last clocked round.
Share results here.
Why 6th?
If they call NMB at 4th we need time for bets, decision, noticed prediction, so 6th is last passible, sometimes 7th.
.....JUST WILL BE MORE HAPPY LIKE USER IF THERE REALLY COULD BE ADDED MORE IMPROVEMENTS TO DO THAT THE URC COULD BE EVERY DAY BETTER AND BETTER AND BETTER......
You missed this… do not turn my words the way you would like ;D
.....JUST WILL BE MORE HAPPY LIKE USER IF THERE REALLY COULD BE ADDED MORE IMPROVEMENTS TO DO THAT THE URC COULD BE EVERY DAY BETTER AND BETTER AND BETTER......
You missed this… do not turn my words the way you would like ;D
;D