YouTube Roulette Videos for free


#21

[quote=“bebediktus, post:20, topic:1171”]

10 would be useless. My doubts are about aplicability of what ever you can see with 300 fps. If you could use such info, good! I just wonder how.

What i can see simply leave for me :)[/quote] Too late for that… . You already made me curios! :stuck_out_tongue:

#22

Thank you guys for your suggestions!

I think I will keep my resolution of 300 fps at slow-motion vids, it makes sense, as Bebediktus says.
The reason why I am making roulette vids is, I only want show some higher quality than usual on YouTube.
A time ago I was looking for good quality roulette vids and couldn’t find anything at all.

Don’t worry about the first slo-mo vids, I am always trying to improve my skills.
Soon I will post more of HD vids on my YouTube-Channel.

But now I will show you some more of my cool works, enjoy it!!!

https://youtu.be/5VE-gej-VEU


#23

And once more…

https://youtu.be/ZvQLSz3iHkE

Don’t forget to subscribe:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHOotp_C0EXjiF9p1_F8WCg

!!! I have a great database of roulette vids and it’s getting greater !!!


#24

One more sugesstion - put camera direct above wheel that ball will be vissible all time. And of course one spin per screen, one spind ends start second and so on…


#25

Yeah, I plan to mount the camera over the wheel.
But at the moment I don’t have the right equipment. I takes time a bit.


#26

Nice spins, thanks.

I looked spins
1,2
3,4

2 and 3 have the greatest difference in ball speed but ending at same diamond.
Spin 3 has only 10 ms shorter time, 7 rotations before the ball drops, but the spin 2 drops in 6 rotations.
10msdifference per ball rotation makes one full rotation difference on 6 rotations till the end.
It must be strongly tilted wheel.

741 777
854 901
958 1008
1031 1088
1108 1168
1175 1248
1259 1331
1341 1418
1435 1515
1538 1622
1655 1732
1775 1859
1929 1992
2069 2119
2182 2186


#27

Without doubts videos are made nice .

But if you will look to theese two spins what we see :
8 7,12
7 6,18
6 5,22
5 4,28
4 3,36
3 2,45
2 1,55
1 0,56
We simply see diferent ball decelerattion. Here i show recalculated left distances when in spin are reached speed equal to other spin speed in rotation. We see that this spin which made more distance ball simply decelerated less .
1331 1331
1424 1418
1525 1515
1641 1622
1760 1732
1910 1859
2052 1992
2168 2119
This way looks ball timings from exact the same speed.First spin reach 1331 when left to go 7.12 rotattions, second spin reach 1331 when left to go 8 ball rotattions. For first spin after 2168 is left to go 0.12 of rotattion , for second spin after 2119 is left to go 1 round. And fall in bouth spins is in almoust absolutely exactly the same speed - 4 ms diference.

That is about what i talk always - for us is not enough to know initial ball speed - we must know also in which way ball will decelerate in future till it will reach some almoust stable falling speed.


#28

13,12 840 777 14 12,12 945 901 13 11,12 1022 1008 12 10,12 1099 1088 11 9,12 1167 1168 10 8,12 1249 1248 9 7,12 1331 1331 8 6,12 1424 1418 7 5,12 1525 1515 6 4,12 1641 1622 5 3,12 1760 1732 4 2,12 1910 1859 3 1,12 2052 1992 2 0,12 2168 2119 1
If we will look to prehistory till balls reach the same speed we see also diferent ball decelerattion, but if we will make chart from concrete ball speed how big is ball decelerattion in next round we will see such picture.

Not hard to see that really decelerattion charts are very similar, only blue line we must shift to right and maybe slightly to rotate.


#29

[quote=“bebediktus, post:28, topic:1171”]Not hard to see that really decelerattion charts are very similar, only blue line we must shift to right and maybe slightly to rotate.

They always similar, you cannot rotate it because that way you reducing decceleration on one side and increasing onthe other.[/quote]

They always similar, you cannot rotate it because that way you reducing deceleration on one side and increasing on the other and you not doing research to make it look as it suits you. Shifting would be also wrong because the chart doesn’t show differences in time but differences in times of ball rotations and it is obvious that times of ball rotations are not the same.

This would be better representation,
The ball first slowing down 0.14s each second, then 0.1, then around 0.8-0.6.
If you comparing them you can see that at start they are the same, then orange slowing down faster but after 8-9s it slowing down slower. This spins do not contribute to your idea but you should look more.
Spin 3 is slower ball that’s all, it was due to drop at dd3 but because of strong tilt it did not. If you look closely dd4.5 you will see the ball very close to it if compared to spin 2.

Another prove of strong tilt you can measure time from dd9-dd3 then from dd3-dd9, get the difference.
Then go back and measure from dd12-6 and 6-12. Get the difference, you will see significant difference in between results

Look time 0:29:496 1 and 3 are inline then one ball goes slightly ahead but after the other ball catches up. Is not a big difference 1/8 of rotation but still there is. Something as that I can explain only as imperfections. The ball is rolling not always on same side, and it may not be 100% balanced in dimension, damages, oil, dust on the ball.

Imagine particle of dust on the ball, one spin it is under the ball 300 and next spin 600 times. Or the ball EW is 20 mm NS is 19.98. Dealer spins the ball by applying force in between finger the ball which is pushed against frame. Repeating that thousands of times sure the ball outwears. Or weight of ½ EW is 20g and NS is 19.9g. On one side of ball may be 1 μm oil on the other 2 μm etc.


#30
The ball first slowing down 0.14s each second, then 0.1, then around 0.8-0.6.
I say that is not good compare decelerattion in second. For that is several reasons, but main is that we want to know distance which is left.

One of ilustrattions can be if we will measure not time but ball way say in 1 sec . We can find many starting possitions when bouth ball will do exactly the same way in 1 sec, but later they begin to go diferently in that one second.

To predict good we must know all sequence - which distances ball will pass in every second till the end . Of course that is efect of tilt dust or something else , but that for player is without diference if he can from some part of way predict what will be in future.

From one measurement we simply cant - that show you that what i posted with two exact speeds 1331. That is what we clocked but we have any informattion what will be in future - the same ball the same wheel and maybe even short distance in time between spins maybe they go one after other.

If you will see begining of spin of theese two firstly what you will see is that spins are diferent in durattion . Spin which have 22 rounds is diferent in last 12 rounds than spin which have 18 rotattions.


#31

[quote=“bebediktus, post:30, topic:1171”]

The ball first slowing down 0.14s each second, then 0.1, then around 0.8-0.6.

I say that is not good compare decelerattion in second. For that is several reasons, but main is that we want to know distance which is left.[/quote]
It is the proper way. You can not compare time differences 900-1800 and 1080-1296 when you know that they are different.

It is exactly as expected. Spin 2 is about 3/4 rotations faster and that’s all.
So here I took times of that spin but in point at dd3 instead of dd12 (-3/4) and compared it to spin 3.
In third column you can see differences in times of rotations.

Column 4 and 5 shows differences in between ball rotations. If you want to see you will see that there is no significant differences in between spins as it looks on video, it was only your observation point in which one ball was 3/4 rotation faster and not calculating deceleration in seconds. Now if you compare differences in between times of ball rotations you see on spin 2 the ball at start has smaller differences than in spin 2 to but later the difference is greater. There is nothing better to predict it than what is used now. You can not say from 2 balls with same speed and one that is decelerating faster will travel longer. If you can use the data in a any other way please do it in development section.


#32

Forester no matter what we here talk - essence is found some solution . For now is - that we have one speed what we clocked but ball ends diferent. Here is starting point. Not look to tilt or to overlap clocked time is the same ball ended 0.88 rounds other. That 0.88 can be 0.25-0.5 what do prediction - wrong. And that i see too often in mine play, from that i think that what we use now for prediction is not enough , or we must use something other.

I always think abuot such variant - say we are predicted that ball will go 7.0 rounds , but it can do 6.75 or 7.25 the same as 7.0.
And that +0.25 can be longer in time or equal so from longer by say 600 ms till equal because ball simply moved faster, but falled after longer distance. The same with -0.25 can be shorter or equal.

And that can happend not looking to our statistick, because never statictick will be so much in front it will be always something 30-40-30 between 3 DD. And what we have in such situattions- ball fall earlier say prediction was 0 and that must be at 12 DD ball fall at 9DD earlier and here was number 1 at 12 DD was number 12 - so 0 even not come to 12 DD. If ball travel longer and hited to 3DD our prediction 0 pass 12 DD and in moment of hit over 12 DD was number 19 and ball hitted at 13. So from three theese possibilities we have possible hit to 1-0-13.

But that is hits - not where ball stops. But we must place bets where ball will stops not where it hits . So if ball had energy to hit to 0 but by some reasons it hited earlier to 1 - probably it will scater longer say +20 pockets when it will hit normally as expected he will scater +10 pockets in averidge when it wwill hit later say in averidge it will not jumps at all and fall where it hited . This way instead disperssion 26 pockets (1-0-13) we have disperssion only 6 pockets.

Now imagine that we colect as data not only hits but also scatering from diferent diamonds but not separate from diamonds but in such way - we are predicted as hit to 12 DD - ball hited to 9 DD we colect scater - we are predicted 12 DD ball hit right 12 DD we colect scater - we are predicted 12 Dd ball hited 3 DD - we colect scater.

So not only scater from Dd but in relationship what was prediction. This way easy can be situattion that diferent scater can compensate diferences in hitting place. This way we can have 4 diferent variants , where every variant have three subvariants. Program can compare them between and find best prediction for every variant.

Maybe possible analyse more deep when hit is to oposite DD or even after 0.75 or even 1.0.

Now in corections we have only speed - prediction and outcome, but finally in data is speed and outcome without relationship to what was predicted.

So mine mind is how to make that will be hiting prediction - real hit - outcome. Maybe even something more. And that program will look for relationship between data.
So mine conclussion is that algorythm which we use for prediction is too simple and it not able to solve tasks which are given for it.


#33

[quote=“bebediktus, post:32, topic:1171”]Forester no matter what we here talk - essence is found some solution . For now is - that we have one speed what we clocked but ball ends diferent. Here is starting point. Not look to tilt or to overlap clocked time is the same ball ended 0.88 rounds other. That 0.88 can be 0.25-0.5 what do prediction - wrong. And that i see too often in mine play, from that i think that what we use now for prediction is not enough , or we must use something other.

I always think abuot such variant - say we are predicted that ball will go 7.0 rounds , but it can do 6.75 or 7.25 the same as 7.0.
And that +0.25 can be longer in time or equal so from longer by say 600 ms till equal because ball simply moved faster, but falled after longer distance. The same with -0.25 can be shorter or equal.

And that can happend not looking to our statistick, because never statictick will be so much in front it will be always something 30-40-30 between 3 DD. And what we have in such situattions- ball fall earlier say prediction was 0 and that must be at 12 DD ball fall at 9DD earlier and here was number 1 at 12 DD was number 12 - so 0 even not come to 12 DD. If ball travel longer and hited to 3DD our prediction 0 pass 12 DD and in moment of hit over 12 DD was number 19 and ball hitted at 13. So from three theese possibilities we have possible hit to 1-0-13.

But that is hits - not where ball stops. But we must place bets where ball will stops not where it hits . So if ball had energy to hit to 0 but by some reasons it hited earlier to 1 - probably it will scater longer say +20 pockets when it will hit normally as expected he will scater +10 pockets in averidge when it wwill hit later say in averidge it will not jumps at all and fall where it hited . This way instead disperssion 26 pockets (1-0-13) we have disperssion only 6 pockets.

Now imagine that we colect as data not only hits but also scatering from diferent diamonds but not separate from diamonds but in such way - we are predicted as hit to 12 DD - ball hited to 9 DD we colect scater - we are predicted 12 DD ball hit right 12 DD we colect scater - we are predicted 12 Dd ball hited 3 DD - we colect scater.

So not only scater from Dd but in relationship what was prediction. This way easy can be situattion that diferent scater can compensate diferences in hitting place. This way we can have 4 diferent variants , where every variant have three subvariants. Program can compare them between and find best prediction for every variant.

Maybe possible analyse more deep when hit is to oposite DD or even after 0.75 or even 1.0.

Now in corections we have only speed - prediction and outcome, but finally in data is speed and outcome without relationship to what was predicted.

So mine mind is how to make that will be hiting prediction - real hit - outcome. Maybe even something more. And that program will look for relationship between data.
So mine conclussion is that algorythm which we use for prediction is too simple and it not able to solve tasks which are given for it.[/quote]Finaly some reasonable tolk. Jump depending on energy ball has to spend. Less decceleration- more trevel, or more jump and vise- versa. Even so would be nice to avoid back spins in prediction, these jump different.


#34

Last I wrote was an explanation why it looked that spins were different in deceleration when they are only 3/4 shifted. Than you just start talking about ball jumps which in any way has nothing to do whit these spins. What should I write now, how the system uses ball speed, rotor speed, players input to predict jumps and how it does. This is not the development section. If you have seen something important with ball jumps on above spins that you want to highlight to prove what you say than be specific.


#35

[quote=“forester, post:34, topic:1171”]Last I wrote was an explanation why it looked that spins were different in deceleration when they are only 3/4 shifted. Than you just start talking about ball jumps which in any way has nothing to do whit these spins. What should I write now, how the system uses ball speed, rotor speed, players input to predict jumps and how it does. This is not the development section. If you have seen something important with ball jumps on above spins that you want to highlight to prove what you say than be specific.[/quote]I like thema touched here and hope discussion will continue. Should the topic beeng mooved to development session? I vote YES.
On the moust wheels l played , if looking from prediction - outcome point of view ( assuming right rotor speed range), ball goes same half wheel .
I abserve moust of time following situations.
1 . Ball goes as predicted, hitts right diamond… we are ok.
2 . Ball goes as predicted but hitts previous diamond on the top- long orbit, same drop zone, probably same scatter… we have high chance to be ok.
3 .ball hitts next diamond, but stops…we are probably ok as well.
Second groop of situations where ball has higher forward momentum ( forvard spin)
1 ball hitts our target dd with long orbit- we are off by half of wheel more or less…
2 ball hitts next diamond in the middle- we are off by half wheel
3 ball goes 3/4 of wheel extra and stop there- we are off egein .
In forward momentum spins as Forester pointed out our sample become shifted to some ammount of pokets from normal spin. If this momentum is perceived and detected ( assuming we are identifying compatible revolution of ball) we may shift our prediction revolution to next one of normal.
Or identify normall fashion way but take our visual key with shift of 12- 18 pokets ( depending on rotor speed. ).
Normally if ball cw and high point of tilt is 12, l target 3 o’clock diamond for my prediction. In this setup described methodology permitts squeeze disperssion ( prediction- outcome) to 18 pokets or less. On good wheels up to 5 pokets in favorable conditions.
I generally avoid back spin.


#36

It is Donna Amon’s thread, in which I only explained why spin 3 looks as the ball decelerates much slower when in reality it is not the case but it is just on spin 2 the ball traveled longer because of tilt on the wheel. Ball jumps look only dependable only on position how the ball hits rotor pocket dividers.


#37
Last I wrote was an explanation why it looked that spins were different in deceleration when they are only 3/4 shifted.
What for player that he know why, if he still cant recognise that duering play ?

Jumps are simply indicator how ball hited to diamond. And that plyer must appreciate.

I reapeat hundreeds times if you will have relationship only ball speed - otcome as it is now - predictions will be bad. You write why, but that is without diference why, our aim is good prediction and even not where ball will hit , but where it will stop.

I really not understand you - you himself post ball timings from which we cant determine - where ball will land, but even not want to think about possibility to change something…

I explained why corections how they are now cant do possitive result. Can repeat once more in short - every spin is some diferent condittions, that create initial point disperssion. To that initial point disperssion we add other disperssion how ball is far from initial point. When we put theese two disperssions together - we simply have almoust random result. And that almoust random prediction is too week to overcome house edge in such amount what we need.

Player simply must have much biger advantage to win than casino. If player will have 1-2% advantage over casino - in most cases he still loss because disperssion.


#38

Thank you very much, guys!
I didn’t expect such a, in my opinion, posotive reaction on my thread.

Soon I will take some footage at regular camera speed, some takes will be shown as single vids and some will be shown as dual-window video.
I also want to make many vids with different wheel speeds, e.g. 1. wheel speed at 2.0 seconds; 2. wheelspeed at 2.25 seconds; 3. wheel speed 2.5 seconds; … till wheel speed at 4.0 seconds.
Some of them I will kombine in a dual-window vid.

Regards


#39

Ok such fast speeds are common maybe only in one country - Spain . In other countries speed beginst from 4 sec and go till 18 sec :slight_smile:


#40

Are you joking, 18 seconds per revolution? :o