# Theoretical Exploiting UWE

German PDF …

UWE is very similar towards Laurance crossover.
Theoretical some one could use the main focus pin for 123 pin game as reference point instead of how the UWE pdf explains it.
Some one could apply this to wheels with out arms and use only black numbers - alternative small sectors.
Two opposite or use triangular or four angel crossovers depending of slow or fast rotor speeds.

I am at the moment making a video to explain how to apply UWE with a wheel with out arms.

Also check UWE Roulette VB Method

Theoretical Exploiting UWE

As UWE estimate or measuring the ball during more turnarounds then Laurance crossover so do i assume it is more acc or effective toward that the ball will not cheat on us with one extra or less turnaround towards the end.
And the main reason to use the main focus pin is to get linearity with 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 towards the very end witch also make us estimate the knee point more acc.

So why is this interesting topic - well personally i believe is much better to master at least two to three different ways and have some kind of arsenal to adjust to different situations.
Huxley is fine - but if i some day stand in front of a cammegh wheel - i sure want to master other ways and have a arsenal to play all kind of wheels with different brands.

Theoretical Exploiting UWE
If you want to follow this topic you will need some basic knowledge.

This is the solution if don’t use only black numbers.

When it comes towards visual ballistic or being into some kind of wheel signature - then the first basic lesson is to learn the wheel layout - the numbers order on the wheel witch is not the same as the table layout.
I also recon that roulette system player would be better of master this basic skill.

Second some one should learn the basic to tell witch distance numbers has - witch might sound complected - but is very easy basic skill.
It takes two to four weeks to master the wheel as i mention above using my basic solution.

To learn the wheel at the first level has a learning curve witch is static witch make it more easy.
After master this first level some one will gain experience and all numbers will float together.
This way some one can tell neighbors from any number or distance.

First we divide the wheel into sectors of three - where the first sector include zero and has four numbers - that is the only exception.
It is a great feeling to know everything in a split second with out using any card or pen and papper.

This is clockwise direction.

1. 26 0 32 15
2. 19 4 21
3. 2 25 17
4. 34 6 27
5. 13 36 11
6. 30 8 23
7. 10 5 24
8. 16 33 1
9. 20 14 31
10. 9 22 18
11. 29 7 28
12. 12 35 3

After you learn each sector in clockwise direction you will also learn the each sectors index number from 0 to 11 so you know witch numbers belong to witch group.
Then come one other useful basic skill to learn opposite or triangular or four Angel splits.

This is the opposite sectors using the index numbers.

0-6
1-7
2-8
3-9
4-10
5-11

Using triangular or four Angel splits you just move two sectors forward in same direction.

0-3-6-9
1-4-7-10

When it comes to distance you just know after mastering opposite, triangular and four angel splits how to move forward using the numbers.
After experience you will also at this level know how to reduce or add plus or minus one pocket in each sector - that is how you can measuring the exact distance between two numbers.
Witch will become a natural reflex with in a split second.
Index numbers to get the raw distance between two outcomes - then add or reduce plus or minus one pocket.

Personaly in the past i memorize one new sector each day and after i master them all in clockwise direction i memorize them anti clockwise direction.
Then when that was clear as water for me i memorize each sectors index number and memorize oppiste, triangual and four angual effect.
And at last i learn how to master distance.

Today i know all numbers by heart with split secound and same goes for distance.

Theoretical Exploiting UWE

Physics:

How the pattern developing and unfold it self using the rotor numbers and not static arms on the wheel with fixating positions does make you predict / come more early during the spin development.
Same goes for if you was going to use two static numbers with fixating positions on the number ring -
same goes for observing three or four positions.
Using the way i elaborate about you capture the natural way when the ball and rotor correlate the momentum witch appears before any solution using static positions.

I remember back then in the early 2000s when the Uwe system surfaced. Old timers like “Carl” and “Lutz” and others actually played the system with the author in casinos and were very impressed. They all payed the 1000 Deutsche Mark (before the Euro was enforced) for the system + a CD. I still got the CD although i doubt it is still readable. It has a running stop watch in the bottom of the picture. At the time i was playing laurances system using zero and 5/10 as zero and double zero for the cross overs and believe me, its a tough game. Using Uwes system without arms… well, be my guest but thats an even tougher tougher task.

Uwes system is somewhat locked up on the arms and lacks some reason behind the “wo griff” (reading handle). The reading is not always where you would look if the wheel speed and ball revoloution + known scatter is done perfect, using either the old scott crossovers or simply using a thumper for all. Still, even today i cant help myself sometimes , out of old habits, lining up the ball, handles and diamonds up the “Uwe way” when watching a wheel with handles.

No doubt it is a heavy task to use only black numbers.
It does not matter if it is old traditional visual ballistic methods as long you can estimate - my opinion.

Funny thing with Uwes system is that it is absoloutely spot on under some conditions and under other conditions is not even close to any good. A combo of scatter, wheel speeds and drop zones i think.

I already forgot how much it’s important, but recently I tried American wheel and I was lost, if can’t place chips properly nothing else matters.

You guys are stupid not to play the American wheel. You have more numbers to hit. I don’t get why more people don’t play it.

No matter which way you play essence is still the same - you try to catch some specifical ball speed. To cach any ball speed is possible in few ways, but here are left possibility that even if you cach exact ball speed say in accuracy 0.01 sec ball still can do diferent distances till end and that diference can be even full round. To avoid such big diferences in rest distance for ball is main thing and to help in that purpose can measuring ball speed at diferent points in one spin and finding ball deceleration curve in every point. To make all more clear I can give you example - say wheel have some tilt and you have two spins in every from theese spins in some moment ball done one round exactly in 1.00 sec but in remaining time ball done diferent distances What is reason for that ? One reason is that ball was spined diferently in every spin say one was rotated to front other was rotated to side. Maybe it is possible to noticed that with very good skill, but maybe not. But there are some thing what almoust every player can notice - that is diferent ball speeds in previous rounds - say in one spin ball done one rounds in 0.82 and next in 1.00 but in other spin it was 0.87 and 1.00. There are totally diferent situations in first spin bal to become 1.00 decelerated 0.18sec/rot but other 0.13 sec/rot. If you know how to use that deceleration knowledge you can predict in most cases many more accurate.

If you know how to use that deceleration knowledge you can predict in most cases many more accurate.

Yes pretty much how i do it being 9 to 10 out of 10 correct each time.

I just agree to what you say above and its pretty much the same using rotor/ball combination when it boils down to estimate the traditional way.

At the time i was playing laurances system using zero and 5/10 as zero and double zero for the cross overs and believe me, its a tough game.

Interesting - i have Laurance material - but did never test hes crossover.

The reason i find it interesting is that i have my own method and working playing modell - but i only play huxley wheels.
I feel a second reliable method using ball/rotor combination to estimate would be good back up - as in the future i recon i will come across other wheels.

I read that the deceleration is very different on Cammegh - some are more easy and some more difficult wheels.
I recon some ways works on all wheels - like Laurance crossover.

The question is how acc and reliable Laurance crossover is if some one use it in the proper way.
I recon if some one would only use black numbers you would observe the crossover unfold more early into the spindevelopment and let us be around 6 rev to end - witch sound good.

I reckoned there is a delay using zero and the numbers 5 and 10 as they are static.
Also that the crossover appears with minimal gap using black numbers witch would avoid us from getting a wide pattern to often.

The question is how many times out of 10 i would predict correct - curios …
I don’t give a shit about what others say - i am sure old traditional methods works if they are used the proper way.
That is using black numbers to observe the crossover with the main focus pin as reference point depending on degree of tilt.

Cheers

LS

And the important thing is how many times you can bet on the winning number each 35 spins.

Mike.

Lucky, the cross overs are still just for predicting the correct revoloution. You still have to let the ball run till it passes the point that relates to the specific rotor speed, for reading the number. I suppose you could use just a black number instead of 5/10 but the problem is really that the numbers does not stick out as well as the green 0/00. You don`t have a reference pin for the crossover because you don`t know up front at which part of the wheel your eye will observe it before it happens. Uwes system is slightly different on that part because you observe the pins at 11 and 1 o`clock + the handles + the ball. At some speeds the predictions are spot on but with other speeds the predictions comes pretty far off and are not the same that you would get using a head count or thumper. That problem could be related to limiting the observations around 11 - 1 o`clock.
5/10 is 2 numbers and are easyer to catch with the eye, and the seperator between 5/10 is placed directly across from zero. Using 3X or 4X (Uwe) the problem will be to keep track of 13 and 14 or with Uwe use 3 black numbers and zero as a match develops. Thats what i mean when i say its a tough task. I played the crossovers with 5/10 instead of 00 about 10 years ago and it really is stressfull most of the time even though i didn`t have the eye problems back then that i have today. Trying 4X without handles sounds to me as over complicating it a little bit. There are plenty of ways to avoid it, like a simple head count.