# Visual Prediction

Forester

I am trying to understand your V1 & V2 strategies as you explain them in your ZerdoomE2.pps presentation before I move on to your E2 & E3 info.

I have read all of your web site Q & A but some things still confuse me and so I hope you have the patience to help a slow learner?

In different places you say that perfect wheel (rotor) speed is 2.4 secs/rev and then you say 4.0 - 4.5 s/r is the best and elsewhere you seem to favour 3.0 or 3.3 s/r wheel (rotor) speed. Can you put these in order of your preference and give reasons why fast (2.4 s/r) and slow (6.5 s/r) wheel rotors are not preferred?

You say in ZerdoomE2.pps that V1 is for a rotor speed of 6.5 s/r and you say watch 2 revs of the wheel rotor and then multiply the angle between zero and the ball position by 2 BUT 2 revs of the wheel rotor takes 13 secs and that only leaves 4 secs before the ball drops as per my table from the video at 6:45 with a 6.5 sec rotor.

You also say at a 6.5 s/r wheel rotor to multiply the angle between the reference point and the ball by 2 so from the video if I start at spin 6:45 secs and stop the wheel rotor at 6:50 with zero still on the first rev but at the 12 o’clock diamond then the ball is at +40 degrees or passing #4 with 17 secs to the finish. Therefore the prediction should be 40 x 2 = 80 degress or #17. Is your prediction the same? The actual finish was #6.

In the pps you say with V2 for a 4.4 sec wheel rotor to make the prediction at 1 rev of the wheel rotor and to multiply the angle bwteen the reference point x 3 but you also say for a 3.5 s/r wheel rotor to make the prediction after 2 revs of the wheel rotor and multiply the angle x 2 and then again you say for a 3.0 s/r wheel rotor to make the prediction after 1.5 revs and multiply by 2. This is all very confusing - is it possible for you to provide a table of the wheel rotor speeds the number of revs or the time from ball release (or even ball finish) and the reference point angle multiplication factor? They cannot all be correct procedures.

Can you also clarify that when the ball is travelling clockwise the angle is always added clockwise and the opposite on anti-clockwise spins?

I am sorry to be so fussy but before I can best consider the E device I must first understand why the angle is added once or twice and in which direction, otherwise we may just as well use only the offset from a particular reference point such as when my Ball rev#1 number repeats its crossing of the reference point.

Mike.

Hi Mike,

I’ll try to answer this question… Firstly the principle between V1, V2,E1,E2 is the same… you measure distance of the ball travelled in a certain time preriod that is always the same… there are 2 time periods used 4.2 (in V2 and E2) and 6,5 (in E1 and V1)… you have 2 points in the spin history, start and exit… start is when you start timing (ball/zero intersection)… exit is when the rotor makes 1 revolution or when you get zap from the device… why exactly 4. 2 or 6.5? because at the time point of exit the speed of the ball is 2/3 (E2, V2) or 1/2 (E1,V1) of the speed it had when you started timing ( at start when ball/zero crossed)
Imagine a spin where you start at zero/ball intersection, after 6,5 sec when you exit the ball is over zero again… then (to make it easy) outcome is zero… so now you have another spin you start at zero but this time after 6,5 seconds the ball is over 28… (assuming the ball travels clockwise) this means that it was abit slower than in the previous spin correct? because it made 5 numbers less in 6,5 seconds… We want to know exactly how much slower it was and how it will affect our outcome… Since the ball had travelled 2 times faster at start than at exit you see only 1/2 of the difference so to see the whole difference you need to multiply 1/2 x 2 to get to 1 which is the original difference at start… so the outcome for this spin should be 9… The system is designed to bring you to the same point in time in spin history… So you need a rotor of 6,5 or 4,2 sec, then you need one revolution, or you can take 2 revolutions of a rotor that is 2,1 sec or two revolutions of a rotor that is 3,25 sec to get the same… My point is you need 4,2 or 6,5 seconds interval between start and exit, how u achieve it doesn’t really matter… Hope this helps…

Since there are different balls/wheels the deceleration is not always the same… so the speed of the ball after 6,5 seconds (at exit) might not be exactly 1/2 of the speed it had on start so this can bring errors, but you can exactly calculate the multiplying factor you need for those… I have explained it in the new system thread…

asd

Oh Oh, thanks for that - now I am really confused because it looks like I may have mixed up the wheel rotor timings and the timed length of ball travel.

I will go back to the beginning and read everything again to see if that helps me to understand things.

It will take me a while to check everything with what you have just told me.

Many thanks

Mike.

Sorry i did not see these posts because i only go to post that i receive in my emails.
Yes, ASD explained it well, thank you ads  Basically, it is same as you do but if ball do more we know what to do with that. If v2 is applied on tilted wheel i think it would be same but without multiplication.

ASD, Forester & Co

I am really struggling to understand V1, sorry I am so slow.

ASD says V1 uses a timing period of 6.5 secs.

He says you should visually note where the zero on the rotor is positioned when it is crossed by the ball and then check where the ball is after the zero has returned to the same reference point (ie one rev), correct?

Then you add the spaces (or angle), between zero and where the ball was, TWICE in the same direction as the ball is travelling, OK still?

This is then the predicted number, right?

Well if that is so please check my technique again on the Video.mpg -
Spin 7 after the double 30 finish number has a rotor speed of 6.5 secs/rev

The ball is spun AC starting at 6:45 or 405 secs into the video clip

Zero and the Ball cross at the 12 o’clock diamond at 6:50 (410 secs) so I then wait for zero to do one rev back to this position and I note the ball position is at number 3 which is two spaces(20 degrees) AC from the zero at the reference point. I should add 2 spaces to bring me to the 12 and two more to bring me to the 7 which becomes the predicted number, is that correct procedure?

If I then re-check it one rev earlier and Start when zero and the ball cross at the eight o’clock position and again after one rotor rev I find the Ball is at 26 near enough? So I add two space which gives me the predicted number of 35 OK for visual spotting?

But the actual finish number is 6. This seems a long way out to me. I also find it very difficult to spot a crossover number early enough to allow one rev of a slow rotor and still before NMB’s.

Is V1 a practical method?

Do I have all the above procedures correct?

Mike.

I think that you did it ok. You add angle 1 times and you come to 12. (2 times is for V2)
Winning number is six so offset is from 26 to six. In addition, with leveled wheel V1/2 you can start at any place (not always 12 o’clock). It will always predict correct.
You got the point but you have to understand that visual system for me is more theory. Because it is not so stable. Now if you add on top of that device so if device is 6.5 sec then you are more stable. For that particular spin, everything would be same. However, let us say that wheel is slightly slower about 3 numbers. So at same time ball would be at same place

(3) but wheel will be 3 numbers before starting point. Now that angle is greater by 3 numbers. so total angle would be greater by 6 numbers. (Or smaller depends where the ball was) However, it shifting to adjust prediction for slower wheel. If we do not use time as reference, we cannot do it. Now theoretically if you started at 13 sec wheel is 100% covered. If you start at 13+6.6 you will miss by 3 numbers. That is why it is important to have starting time all the time same as much as possible. Now think that all spins are the same and you every time start at 16 sec. wheel is 6.5 sec, that change would be noticed in offset (huh to small change for example). However, I will keep it this way. Therefore, offset would be 1.5 numbers different then if you started at 13sec. In addition, if you al the time starting at 16 you will still have perfect prediction. Now if wheel start alternating in between 6.5sec and 6.5-3numbers you will start missing by 1.5 numbers.
This is to small change but let us say that it is important so you would balance offset in middle, so reduce it by 0.75. It is not bad now we have max 3 numbers error (in average 1.5) and wheel total change to the end is 9 numbers. By using device, we improved it from 9 to 1.5. If wheel from our start to the end changes 18 numbers, we would have average error of 3 numbers. 18 numbers is other side of the wheel and 3 numbers is still in our sector. E2 is similar. E3 reduces that error by another half.
Explanations about V systems. V1 needs for the best accuracy 6.6 sec, you can have it if wheel is so slow or 2 wheel rotations by 3.3
V2 needs 4.4 sec The best if wheel is 4.4 sec because if wheel is 2.2 and you wait for 2 rotations it is to fast for prediction. IF wheel is 3 sec you can start at 5 and finish 1.5 spins zero. That would make 4.5 good enough but hard to implement.
It is very hard to have advantage with visual systems because there are so many factors that can affect it and system by offset only sets to average. Originally, when I start playing V1 I always started with dealer. It really requires good dealer with similar spins. Then system will detect small changes and slightly adjust. It is only small improvement for dealers signature play. V2 is same base but multiplication is by 3 so it gives more time to place chips. That is all about V systems. Next step started when I come to idea to use flashing lights as reference time. Good idea but it is hard to take notice of lights and in same time to monitor ball. The worst was to count lets say 4 flashes.
Then come my first device. It was not so good and so stable not even properly timed.
However, that did not matter so much because then casino used different balls, so I did not lose much on randomness of ball bouncing. After while I noticed that time slightly changes because of humidity in my shoe after some time. I solved that problem. Next step is current E2 and E3 where I use small microprocessor. It is stable and very accurate. It can easy be reprogrammed and perform more functions. As E3 does to adjust better for rotor change or as I recently reprogram it for tilted wheel.

Forester

I understand V1 & V2 are theory but that is what I am trying to learn first so that later I can better understand what you are doing with E3 and perhaps how to improve and make that even more practical.

You say that for V1 I need to use a 6.5 sec/rev wheel rotor and that I only need to add the angle (pocket spaces) between zero and the ball ONCE.

You say I can also use a 3.3 sec/rev wheel and follow two wheel rotor revs or use a and then add the zero to ball angle ONCE.

When I add the angle this must be calculated in the direction the ball is travelling, right? These two situations will give me a predicted number.

You say that for V2 I must have a 4.4 sec/rev wheel and I cannot use two revolutions of a 2.2 sec/rev wheel because it is too fast to spot the crossovers.

But I can use a 3 sec/rev wheel and find the crossover points and angle after 1.5 revolutions instead of one rev as in a 4.4 sec wheel.

And for V2 and wheel speeds of 4.4 or 3.0 I must add the angle twice not once, correct? And this is still calculated and added in the same direction that the ball is travelling?

I understand that if the angle is exactly 180 degrees then for V1 I add this once & it brings me back to the reference point but in V2 if I add this twice it brings me back to the ball position. Can you confirm that is correct?

How many spins should I require to get your reliable Offset?

It would be good if ASD could also confirm that my understanding of your V1 & V2 is now correct.

Tomorow I go to the Casino and Thursday I must go to hospital for an operation, perhaps they can transplant me with two new eyes at the same time or implant a micro switch and timer  Mike.

When I add the angle this must be calculated in the direction the ball is traveling, right? These two situations will give me a predicted number.
***The answer is no and yes, because it does not matter. However, if you start from zero then you look from zero to ball. If ball is at 9 you add in that direction 90 deg. Alternatively, in another direction 270.
If ball is at 6 you add in that direction. For V1 you add ones or you multiply by 2 because ball already made angle 90deg. So 90x2=180. Alternatively, 90+90=same. Angle is never greater then 180deg. If it is 190 then look from other side as 170. If you have 170 deg angle and playing E3 / V2 do not add it 3 times. Just switch starting point to 5/10 and add 10 and 10 again. Very simple. Example. You start at zero, zap, the ball is at 36 you add from 10 to 36 angle 2 times and you come around zero. That is very important to know Angles up to 90 deg I add. 90 is on opposite side and angles 90-180 I add reversed. A little geometry law lol.

You say that for V2 I must have a 4.4 sec/rev wheel and I cannot use two revolutions of a 2.2 sec/rev wheel because it is too fast to spot the crossovers.

• **When wheel is to fast it is too much change to the end and it is harder to predict.

In addition, for V2 and wheel speeds of 4.4 or 3.0 I must add the angle twice not once, correct.
***Yes

In addition, for V2 and wheel speeds of 4.4 or 3.0 I must add the angle twice not once, correct.
***Yes

How many spins should I require to get your reliable Offset?
***As many as it is good for you. With visual, your build up will not be as strong as with E system. It all depends how good spins are and how much you can ignore bad bouncing.
I did not play visual for ages, in usual I play without offset but few bets.
If I see build up start progressively to increase bets.

Wish you good luck in hospital.
Maybe would be better if they make you one aye to see in 1/10 sec time intervals so you can strobe the ball lol.

Thanks Forester, I am beginning to understand much more clearly now.

Perhaps I only need a brain transplant Mike.

@Mike

Here is a test you can perform…

it splits the second in 30!

2nd so now run the 14 spin video and go 1/30 th of the second ahead… check out the clockiwise spins first… start at the first zero ball intersection look at the time in seconds and go 4.2 seconds foreward… now notice the angle and multiply it by 3… compare it with the outcome… now start again on the same spin on zero/ball intersection later… prediction is the same… now start on the 3rd zero/ball intersection… prediction is still the same 1st zero/ball intersection at (29,3sec) after 4,2 sec (in video 33,5sec) the ball is over 19… thats 3 numbers angle which we multiply by 3 leads us to 34… since the outcome is 34 offset should be zero degrees…

Now same spin but we start later… at 2nd zero/ball intersection (29,9sec) we wait 4,2 sec at (34,1sec) ball is between 30 and 11… if we take 11 thats a 15 numbers angle… 15 X 3 = 45… points to 17 Now lets start on the 3rd zero ball intersection… at (30,5 sec in video) + 4,2 ----> (34,7) so ball is over 22 thats a 9 numbers angle X 3 is 27 which leads us to number 6 Furthermore I am not sure if it is exactly 4,2 or abit less like 4,15 but it depends alot on the ball decceleration rate… Hope this was any help…

Regards ASD

Mike, the most important in all is that we are looking for time that after that time expires the ball is 1/2 speed then it was when we started (for V1/E1) and for V2/E2/E3 it is 2/3.
So if we look on example where it is 2/3 it would be as this.
Same spin, ones we start at 16 sec after our time the ball crosses X amount of numbers. We get angle we multiply it by 3 (or add 2 times) and we come to number A. If that same spin we start 37 numbers later then the ball would cross X-(2/3x37)=X-12.3 the angle would be smaller by 12.3 numbers. However, when we multiply it by 3 it will tell us how much later we started in numbers and again point to same number.
Another example:
CW direction of the wheel. We start at zero after our time the ball makes 7 full rotations and it is again at zero so the angle is zero, and prediction is zero.
If we start only 6 numbers later when ball is on number 7, after zap the ball would not make full 7 rotations to be again at number 7, because it is slightly slower. It would be at number 12.
So from 7 to 12 is 2 numbers then 2 x3 = 6 and we are back to zero. We can go more on and on. If we started 12 pockets earlier, that would be at number 13. Now after our zap the ball would make 7 rotations and 4 numbers. It would be at 17 so from 13 to 17 is 4 numbers we add another 4 and we are at number 4 then we add another 4 and we are again at zero. You can start at any position on the wheel, alternate it, or you can start at any number. It will always accurately show the difference and point to number, which was under the ball when ball was at particular speed. It is same as knowing when the ball is exactly at speed of 1 sec per rotation and this is the number, which is under the ball.
Please understand that moment it can be any when ball is over the same number. So if zero was under the ball when ball is exactly 1 sec/rev another reference points are any when ball crossing zero if system points to one earlier it will include wheel shifting for that extra time (as I explained before). In addition, I wrote 1 sec/rev only as example, it could be any but it will be all the time same for particular wheel speed. If wheel speed changes reference points will slightly shift as I explained in previous post.

ASD you have the software now so i do not have to look for disk.
It is good way to test it but you cannot apply it fully on that wheel because it is tilted. Prediction + offset would not align with winning numbers. If does then it is reverse engineering or coincidence. Also note that even wheel is slow it changes a lot.
Some spins 4 sec some 6.5. That is huge difference. That wheel has fast deceleration with 4.2 sec you probably balanced yourself in middle.

ASD & Forester

Many thanks for the video splitter reference and comments. I had a quick look before leaving for the Casino and I can now see and understand exactly what Forester has been telling me.

Will think about it while I am in the theatre having my snapped achilles tendon repaired, it might help to ease the pain Cheers

Mike.

Good luck, i hope thay you come back well with god ideas.

Can someone give me some feedback on the test results obtained below from video analysis that seem at oods with some of the user feedback. I may well have missed something in undestanding along the way !

My Understanding

Firstly, this is my understanding of the basic principle and the method used to make the measurements under V2/E2. Please correct me on any misunderstanding.

Basic principle

We think of the combined ball/wheel movement as one system with its own trajectory and speed/time. The best way to consider the speed/distance/time in such a system is to think about the number of wheel numbers (#) that pass the ball. Then at a given time e.g. 10 secs before the wheel impact point we are always the same # away from the ball.

The best way to then make a final pocket prediction is to measure how far from ‘the end’ (bit vauge here) by using zero crossings as a starting reference and 4.2 secs as a useful sample time (as it simplifies the resulting multiplication required to whole numbers - in this case 3). By extrapolation the final predicted pocket will be this multiple of the observed earlier difference angle and a known offset.

The difference between the initial predicted pocket and actual landing number are due to the basic assuptions e.g. 4.2 secs decay rate etc being simplifications. To counter these effects we measure (over several pre play cycles) an offset to apply to the initail prediction to give a final prediction pocket.

Methodology

V2 and E2 are identical except the 4.2 sec timing sample is electronically notified in E2 so improving accuracy, prediction method is identical.

The error tables indicate that E2/V2 will be optimised for certain entry time (Tentry) and wheel speed (WS). The ideal theoretical conditions being a WS = 3 rev/s and Tentry = 14 secs (I know in practice we should increase to ensurwe we stay in the linear system region).

The sample time (Ts) of 4.2 secs a derives from this being the typical time it takes the system (ball and wheel) to decay from a system speed X to 2/3 of X. (Alternatively we could use Ts = 6.5 for a decay to 1/3 X - the V1 system). forester correction 1/2 x

Using Ts = 4.2 secs we need to multiply the observed difference angle (or number of wheel numbers (#) by a multiplication factor (MF) of 3 as the system has only traveled one third is initailly predicted total ‘distance’ in # terms.

We can calculate the actual decay for any system using the method of timing 3 ball and wheel intersections (Trev3) and them moving forward approx 4 seconds and searching for the point at which exactly 2 revolutions are performed in the same Trev3 time. This should be near to 4.2 secs.

Alternatively, we can asses the actual multiplication factor (MF) for a given system by measuring the pockets covered by a Trev2 (Start Pocket count (SPC) = 74), then moving forward exactly 4.2 secs and measuring the number of pockets now passed in Trev2 as the Exit Pocket count (EPC). MF = SPC/(EPC - EPC). E.g. if EPC = 47 not the expected 37 then, MF = 2.74. This is due to the system traveling faster so we are less time to the end so MF is lower.

We don’t use the actual MF and decay rates in prcatice because we want to keep the maths simple. The offset is used to counter this simplification along with any others built into our simple system explantion.

Analysis

I am therefore trying to perform an analysis that verifys my understanding above, the error tables and the predictive system and the potential corrections with actual MF and decay rate.

The questions I am therefore trying to establish by refernece to a practical video test as an agreed reference point for analysis and discussion of V2/E2 are:

1. What prediction variation effect do different Entry (start) points have ?

2. Can we observe the 14 sec ideal time to entry in practice ?

3. Is the offset always simply the differnece between the predicted and final positions for almost any entry point ?

4. What is the effect of using actual as opposed to simplified decay rates and multiplication factors ?

5. Is there a way we can start to reduce and/or eliminate some of the system errors ?

Video Reference for Benchmark

I selected a video spin that had been previously analysed by ASD as below and appeared to have NO OFFSET (or very little) - its on the download Forester provided and starts at 1 min 25 secs in.

@Mike

Here is a test you can perform…

1st zero/ball intersection at (29,3sec) after 4,2 sec (in video 33,5sec) the ball is over 19… thats 3 numbers angle which we multiply by 3 leads us to 34… since the outcome is 34 offset should be zero degrees…

Now same spin but we start later… at 2nd zero/ball intersection (29,9sec) we wait 4,2 sec at (34,1sec) ball is between 30 and 11… if we take 11 thats a 15 numbers angle… 15 X 3 = 45… points to 17 Now lets start on the 3rd zero ball intersection… at (30,5 sec in video) + 4,2 ----> (34,7) so ball is over 22 thats a 9 numbers angle X 3 is 27 which leads us to number 6 Regards ASD

My Analysis

My analysis at answering the questions above is preseted below. Please feel free to pick it apart as I have no ownership other than improving my understanding.

Process

I mapped the video using a frame by frame approach to create the timing table below. I used a different splitter than recommended as it times to frame level and then also used interprolation (sub frame timing) to improve accuracy further. The recommended tool only shows to 0.1 secs which can occur across upto three frames causing significant distortion. One frame = 0.04 secs (1/25 frame rate which is indicated my my video application as the recording rate used for the spins).

splitter tool is at : http://www.videoredo.com/

Timing Map

Cross No. Secs Frame Time (s) TtoE
1 29 7.00 29.28 16.720
2 29 22.25 29.89 16.110
3 30 13.00 30.52 15.480
4 31 4.75 31.19 14.810
5 31 22.75 31.91 14.090
6 32 17.00 32.68 13.320
7 33 13.00 33.52 12.480
8 34 11.66 34.47 11.534
9 35 14.33 35.57 10.427
10 36 17.66 36.71 9.294
11 37 24.00 37.96 8.040
12 39 9.00 39.36 6.640
13 40 21.50 40.86 5.140
14 42 12.50 42.50 3.500
15 44 8.00 44.32 1.680

Drop Pt 45 12.00 45.48
Impact Pt 46 0.00 46.00

Assumptions and Constraights

a) I measured the impact point as the first hit of a pocket stator, in this case pocket #25.
b) I used the impact point time to work backwards to calc the time to end per crossing. There is a short period of bounce 2 pockets to 34 which is not included in time to end.
c) The initial wheel landing point (impact point) is the most useful measurement benchmark not the end pocket (2 diff) as the bounce is part of any subsequent offset added not embeeded in the ‘initial prediction’ from V2 method, rather it is reflected in the later offset assesment, i.e. the 4.2 second pocket prediction knows nothing about bounce.
d) The wheel speed over the whole period is on average 4.4 secs (table below) which is in the growing error band if we deviate from 14 second rule.

Pos. Cross Secs Frame Time (s) Rot Secs
1 28 16.00 28.64
2 32 22.00 32.88 4.240
3 37 7.00 37.28 4.400
4I 41 23.00 41.92 4.640
5I 46 15.00 46.60 4.680

E2 Analysis

I measured the difference angle number A# for an exact 4.2 second sample period starting with the first crossing and then each successive crossing for only the first 6 crossings as we are getting well out of the recommended working range after that.

I then applied the V2 theory. The table below maps the A# position (a key below the table) indicated into a pocket count (by counting clockwise e.g. 32 = 1, 15 = 2, etc as this allows a formula to calculate the predictions and offsets for me). The number is converted back to a wheel prediction number at P#. Note I can’t work out how to paste a wide table so its in two parts below - applologies.

Cross No. TtoE Tentry Texit Secs Frame
1 16.720 29.28 33.48 33 12.00
2 16.110 29.89 34.09 34 2.25
3 15.480 30.52 34.72 34 18.00
4 14.810 31.19 35.39 35 9.75
5 14.090 31.91 36.11 36 2.75
6 13.320 32.68 36.88 36 22.00
7 12.480 33.52 37.72 37 18.00
8 11.534 34.47 38.67 38 16.66
9 10.427 35.57 39.77 39 19.33
10 9.294 36.71 40.91 40 22.66
11 8.040 37.96 42.16 42 4.00

``````4.2	CW Count Positions 32 = 1
``````

Cross No. A# A 3A P Cnt P# ERR.
1 15 2 6 6 2 1
2 11 14 42 5 21 2
3 22 28 84 10 6 -3
4 21 5 15 15 30 -8
5 10 18 54 17 23 -10
6 28 32 96 22 33 -15

Table Key
A#: The pocket pointed to after 4.2 secs
A: The equivalent clockwise count, e.g. 32=1
3A: The final count after multiplying A by the 3 (the MF)
P Cnt: The clockwise predicted coun’t number e.g. if 3A = 38, P Cnt = 1 (same as angle method only numbers)
P#: The initail predicted number - before any offset is applied
ERR: the difference between the P# predicted pocket and the impact pocket, conversily its the varying offset per sample.

Analysis Overview

The qualitative overview of the results suggests that the predictions for the first three samples are closest in grouping (lowest and similar offset). After that accuracy quickly falls away until by the six sample we are on te other side of the wheel. The error grows progrrssively awasy from a minimum point.

The overview ASD provided to verify the method was on these first three spins suggesting zero offset and three close predictions. The analysis questions below however appears to raise the prospect that there is potential significamt flaw in the apparent accuracy these first three samples provide that at least needs further discussion.

Analysis Questions

Returning to the questions to review:

1. What prediction variation effect do different Entry (start) points have ?

The ERR is low starting on the first three crossings. These correspond to TtoE (time to End) in the range 16.7 to 15.5 seconds and all three indicate an answer in the same betting sector with an offset very close to the predicted number. All woukd suggest a small ans imilar offset as ASD found.

Above those first three the at the ERR increases rapidly suggesting either i) that the ideal measurement point belowngs in this later range with bigger offset and the first three are incorrect, or,
ii) we can’t start from 0# crossings this late as the system is outside its error tolerance range so we need to start earlier.

2. Can we observe the 14 sec ideal time to enter in practice ?

If we accept the error table condition that the perfect condition is a start 14 secs from the end then the entry point should be 0# number 5 (14.09 secs). This predicts an offset of 10 is required. As there is only a bounce of 2 we could then be confident that the other errors inherent in the method represent the other 8# offset units required, i.e. the systemic (as oposed to randon scatter) offset should be 8 pockets.

It would also mean that the first three spins are poor predictors, actually misleading as would be supported by the error table which suggest that for a wheel speed of 4.4 secs (as here) we coulkd expect around 8 units of error if we enter at 16 seconds. Could be coincidental.

3. Is the offset always simply the differnece between the predicted and final positions for almost any entry point ?

This sounds like a stupid question right, but the error table tells us only certain entry ponts should be used for calculating the offset.

In fact the anlysis above demonstrtaes that the offset is entry point critical, its either zero or 8 depending on entry above.

Aslo the two suggest very different things about the underlying prediction system accuaracy and what the offset is for. Under one sceario the predictive system (at least on this spin) is spot on. In that case what is special about this spin? Under the other scenario the offset is 8 units and our simplifications e.g. 4.2 secs exactly are adding 8 units.

4. What is the effect of using actual as opposed to simplified decay rates and multiplication factors ?

Using the calc method to assess the decay rate (see understanding section) the actual decay rate for this system is 4.40 not 4.20 secs.

I can’t really find anything on varying the sample time or MF is real situations. However, intuitively if you extend the sample time the system (think ball for now) travels further, in this case an extra 0.2 secs. Thats a lot lets say it represents an EXTRA X numbers compared to what you would have seen for 4.2 secs.

Now, using the MF calc method, starting at the 14 sec TtoE (31.91 sec Entry pont) I calc that the MF = 74 /(74 - 47) = 2.74

Again, by induction, the multiplication is lower so we belive we are a further % through the systems overall start to End trajectory, e.g. getting closer to MF = 2 for 6.5 second sample time.

If we now lutiply our incredaed angle (or numbers) relative to 4.2 by the reduced MF we are effectively countering each measure, one up one down. Do we get the same answer?

4.2 x 3 = 12.6, 4.4 x 2.74 = 12.1. It represents (12.6-12.1) = 0.5/12.6 = 4%. That differnce may well me my measurement error. Another way to think about it is that one # represents 2.7% so 4% represents about 1.5 numbers.

It looks to me that the system automatically compensates for errors in the 4.2 sec assuption to a high degree, there may be ‘second order’ errects and/or ‘working range’ issues not visible with this analysis.

5. Is there a way we can start to reduce and/or eliminate some of the system errors ?

I completed the analysis to get a better feel for where the sensitivities in the system lie as understanding a system allows for optimum use in practice. In know i may be stating the obvoius to some and that I could have taken it as read mut I now have a much better feel for it.

It appears to me that the following conclusions (assuming correct analysis - please hight light the errors) are critical to using the system - at least when using it on the video plovided which is not a 3 rev/s wheel

i) When playing a wheel not traveling at 3 rev/s entering at the correct time (within a second or so the optimum point) is critical, failure to do so creates false offset readings

ii) All that glitters is not gold - a small grouping of predictive matches does not nessesarily indicate correct system use. Testing a few seconds apart is a better test than close together to asses the robust use on a particular spin

ii) Playing on wheels that are well outside 3 rev/s is hard without good pre play system mapping, at which point it appears they may well be. Also suggests seperated mapping and play modes with a systemic calculation of statistical pre play tolerance levels would be ideal

iii) The error profiles appear sysmetrical so lend themselves to direct (mapped) offset with then collection of additional system data - some would be pre play e.g. average wheel rates, ball decay rate, wheel decay rate. and some would be in play e.g. wheel rate (this looks like E3 system already) and some would be both pre and in play, e.g. clocking of impact point to eliminate results from the running offset calculation that are outside the valid entrt time conditions

Feedback

As this is just one spin anlalysis drawing to many conclusion is inappropriate. Can I have some comments/feedback/abuse whatever on where I may have made any mistakes, what looks correct, where somke of the systemic error sources are for a deeper look.

Regards[/img]

Just lookded at the post - the tables are not as previewed. I can mail the model and tables to anyone that wants to take a closer looks at the numbers - or does anyone know how to fix tables or post images instead ?

It is amazing that someone takes so much detailed analyzes.
Very good, Gkd I am really impressed.
It is a lot of information that would require much time to go through so I tried only to pick important parts. Theoretically the best time to start e2 would be 3x4.2. Because of wheel covering, But it is not, it is better to start it earlier and to target spins with less change of wheel speed. That way we stay more in linear area where prediction shifts less.
How good feeling you have to start at same time is proportional to your accuracy.
Let’s say that you manage to do it in frame where prediction will shift by 12 numbers. It is not meaning that you will be always 12 numbers wrong but from 0 to 12. So you would be positioned somewhere in middle around 6 with possibilities that result will be few numbers left or right. If wheel is perfect and final result proportional with prediction (no bouncing) it is high hit rate. With all imperfection we should be happy with anything better then1:36. That video spins are on strongly tilted wheel therefore prediction and final outcome cannot be related. V2 is only theoretical explanation it is hard to use wheel as reference and match all timings. E1 is ok but 6.5 sec is long time and it may take us too unliterary.

1. What prediction variation effect do different Entry (start) points have?
(You answered that question by analyzes of spins)

2. Can we observe the 14 sec ideal time to entry in practice?
(I target 15) and strobe pulses on e2 are set for 15s.

3. Is the offset always simply the difference between the predicted and final positions for almost any entry point? (Yes we have no way to adjust it.)

4. What is the effect of using actual as opposed to simplified decay rates and multiplication factors? (Not sure if I can understand this.)

5. Is there a way we can start to reduce and/or eliminate some of the system errors?
(We are trying. E3 was trying, I did not find it practical, Strobe pulses are try, however I did not practice it much because of new system. Strobe pulses are pulses to player, time interval of one ball rotation when ball is about 15 sec to the end.
I believe pulses can help to have very close to same starting point.
With some practice starting point can be within 2-3 rotations which would reduce errors.
In time player simply develops feeling for right speed of the ball and does not have to use pulses as reference. )

gkd

You really have given us fresh food for thought here and I am sorry that I am unable to respond right now as I’m about to leave for the southern highlands of PNG for a couple of weeks.

I’ll give it some thought while I’m away and respond on return.

Mike.

Thankyou for the reply Forester. Looking forward to the post holiday feedback Mike.

I think the idea of strope pulses for Entry point detection is excellent - see my comment below about another to test offset validity.

I’ve focused on the error removal isuses below.

3. Is the offset always simply the difference between the predicted and final positions for almost any entry point? (Yes we have no way to adjust it.)

What I meant here was shouldn’t we really ignore certain offsets as invalid based on the wrong (too late or early) entry point being used, i.e. not all offsets appear valid due to incorrect entry point. Do you agree ?

If so a simple modification would be to hit the button (or pulse the user) at the ball/stator impact point and let the the E2/3 (EX) unit tell us if the current offset indicated is valid or not, i.e. inside a pre-set good entry point range, e.g. 13-16 secs from end.

On a similar point if we know from the wheel speed its not 3 rev/s could we also either adjust the prediction (delay/advance the timing zap/pulse) or ignore the offset result as above.

Theoretically the best time to start e2 would be 3x4.2. Because of wheel covering, But it is not, it is better to start it earlier and to target spins with less change of wheel speed. That way we stay more in linear area where prediction shifts less.

Is the system non linearity not predictible and so potentially offsetable inside the EX to modify slightly the zap for the Exit time ? Can you explain a bit the calculation for the error table figures please and the main sources of error so I can think more about this.

I am still not clear why there is a specific wheel speed (3 rev/s) for which we have zero error. This feels like an function of the implinentaio n iside the Ex rather than the equations/trajectory of the system. If I am right could it not be automatically adjusted pre prediction also based on the gathered wheel speed in E3 ?

That video spins are on strongly tilted wheel therefore prediction and final outcome cannot be related.

I’ve not applied any thinking yet to the tilted scenario. Intuitively I would have thought tilt causes your system problems as the trajectory is artificailay changed v’s a random distance into the tranjectory - set by the ball/wheel speed. Wouldn’t this just show up as ‘offset wander’ i.e. offset never really settles down to a clear distribution relative to the initial angle measured which I guess is exactley wht you’ve just told me right !

Does that mean we have no solution for strong tilt using EX, just visual buildup monitoring instead ?