General Inside casino information

[Really]

Who's talking about wheel bias analysis?

I'm talking about wheel watcher/visual ballistics without a computer. The edge with a computer tends to be much lower, not higher.

They're cumbersome. They continually require resets, reprogramming, and they rely on data entry points, rather than observation.

An experienced vb player has an edge that's quite a bit higher than a computer player.

Such a player can:
1. More effectively detect the long/short ball
2. More rapidly adjust to changing playing conditions without having to "run to the bathroom" in order to reprogram.
3. Visual observation doesn't rely on ball timing clicks and isn't subject to ball click errors. (Yes, I'm aware of error correction, but the error correction introduces a fuzzy prediction.
4. The physics of the ball behavior can be observed directly throughout the spin, rather than breifly observed solely through a couple or few data points via ball clicks. This enables a more accurate prediction of the ball flight.
5. Vb play is more discrete and has a more natural appearance to it, unlike the "lame/frozen arm" that often accompanies the computer player.
6. Vb is legal, computer play is a felony.

If you are talking about vb, no vb player is capable of 1ms timing accuracy, or any level required to assess often important factors such as diamond hits and scatter reduction. There are some wheels and conditions where vb will have comparable accuracy to computers. This isnt the case with typical modern wheels in good condition.

A computer player relies on ball timing and isn't accurate to within one ms (millisecond) either because of ball timing/click errors. Claiming that a roulette computer user is that accurate is ludicrous. Since the vb player is observing the ball and all of it's behavior he can account for more of the physics involved, such as ball chatter, slide, spin, that may cause more irregular ball decay outside of model. In other words, a real vb player isn't relying on just ball timing. Ball timing can and sometimes will provide the player with a small edge, but it's very primitive because such a player is missing out on the other physics involved.



-Really

 

[kally]

6. Vb is legal, computer play is a felony.

That depends entirely on the country, state, or province you play in.

 

[steve]

The edge with a computer tends to be much lower, not higher. They're cumbersome. They continually require resets, reprogramming, and they rely on data entry points, rather than observation.

Then you have a really bad roulette computer.

Such a player can:
1. More effectively detect the long/short ball

No VB player can possibly measure timings with 1ms precision. A well made computer does. From the start its more capable.

2. More rapidly adjust to changing playing conditions without having to "run to the bathroom" in order to reprogram.

3. Visual observation doesn't rely on ball timing clicks and isn't subject to ball click errors. (Yes, I'm aware of error correction, but the error correction introduces a fuzzy prediction.

Again you have a really bad computer.

4. The physics of the ball behavior can be observed directly throughout the spin, rather than breifly observed solely through a couple or few data points via ball clicks. This enables a more accurate prediction of the ball flight.

A computer player can still observe the ball. But if there are discrepancies in timings, the user can easily be notified. The discrepancies are detected with much greater accuracy than visual observation.

5. Vb play is more discrete and has a more natural appearance to it, unlike the "lame/frozen arm" that often accompanies the computer player.

Most computer players use a toe switch. Nevertheless, my hybrid computer version uses a hidden camera and the player doesn't need to even look at the wheel. A VB player needs to look at the wheel - their glaring at the wheel and late betting is far more suspicious than a player not even looking at the wheel.

6. Vb is legal, computer play is a felony.

My players and I have researched the majority of jurisdictions in the world. And computers are legal in about half of jurisdictions.

A computer player relies on ball timing and isn't accurate to within one ms (millisecond) either because of ball timing/click errors. Claiming that a roulette computer user is that accurate is ludicrous.

With manual clocking, a typical user error for a single ball revolution is about 50ms. This is still more accurate than a VB player. But when timings of multiple revolutions are taken, the error reduces to around 5ms.

With my hybrid version (www.hybridroulettecomputer.com), it is not required to time multiple revolutions for the same accuracy. This means predictions are earlier. With multiple revolutions being timed, reducing the error to 1ms is easily achieved. The timing accuracy is not exclusively limited to video frame rate because on each pass of the ball, there can be 10 or so detection.

Since the vb player is observing the ball and all of it's behavior he can account for more of the physics involved, such as ball chatter, slide, spin, that may cause more irregular ball decay outside of model.

A computer's timings can start after chatter. But even if it is during chatter, irregularities are still easily detected. It's more a matter of setting the acceptable error tolerance.

In other words, a real vb player isn't relying on just ball timing. Ball timing can and sometimes will provide the player with a small edge, but it's very primitive because such a player is missing out on the other physics involved.

A well-made computer uses both rotor and ball timings - not ball alone.

In all, there's nothing a well made computer cant do better than a VB player. If you've found otherwise, you'd have a rather simplistic computer.

 

[Really]

Steve,

I don't use a computer. I don't wish to play with a lower edge.
And your comment regarding your computer being accurate within a millisecond is ludicrous. Rotor click errors are the Achilles heal of computer players. Again, you're using a data approach that relies on ball timings. I'm not. The data approach works ok, but it's just not as effective as true vb, since you're not taking into account all of the physics involved. If it works for you, then that's fine. However, I don't need a handicap device. Also, your computer reviews aren't exactly complementary. I'm not sure what that's all about.

Now regarding "your players." I travel far and wide, yet I've never met a single one of them. Not anywhere. However, I've come across other vb and computer players using other platforms. Now why do you suppose that is? (I'm guessing that your players don't travel outside of Australia?)

My players and I have researched the majority of jurisdictions in the world. And computers are legal in about half of jurisdictions.

Again, I've never met or even heard of one of your players, and your comment regarding the jurisdictions is not accurate. Evidently you've never been involved in a gaming dispute/investigation for winning. However, I've been through more than I care to discuss. Good luck collecting on any real wins using your roulette computer.
Perhaps you can provide us with the list of the half of the jurisdictions where it's legal?

 

[steve]

I don't use a computer. I don't wish to play with a lower edge.

You long professed "bias analysis" to be superior to anything else. So I guess you're now a VB player. You think you can be more accurate than 1ms using your eyesight. I wont argue.

nd your comment regarding your computer being accurate within a millisecond is ludicrous

I'm sorry. You really have no idea in this area.

Rotor click errors are the Achilles heal of computer players.

Its just one point of possible error. There are many others. It's no more an achilles heel than bad algorithm design.

Again, you're using a data approach that relies on ball timings.

Without an approach to determine ball fall time, you lack a critical element. Moreover, for the possibility of targeting diamond hits to minimize scatter, timing precision is required - to the point that's not possible with VB.

The data approach works ok, but it's just not as effective as true vb, since you're not taking into account all of the physics involved.

More data and more accurate data, is better than less data and less accurate data.

Also, your computer reviews aren't exactly complementary.

Considering the source is other device sellers, its no surprise. One of us gives free computers for profit sharing. The others focus on sales.

I'm not sure what that's all about.

Years of being bombarded with it taught you nothing?

Now regarding "your players." I travel far and wide, yet I've never met a single one of them. Not anywhere.

The only IP of yours I've seen on my roulette forums is in Kansas.

Nevertheless, I've never met any of your players either. Neither have any of my players that I know of - with the exception of you occasionally contacting a few via my forums. They aren't exactly going to break the NDA they signed and tell you. Last I knew you claimed to have a network of bias players. Bias. Perhaps the most inefficient approach.

And when I offer to speak to your teams, and show you all personally what you are missing out on, so you can use the best approach possible, none of you step forward. Refusing to see a 20-130% edge on virtually any modern wheel, level or not, is strange. I'm not trying to sell you anything. It is an offer to speak to your players in a conference call and explain it. So that IF your teams are legit, you could work with me.

There is no way you could get an edge with VB on almost every wheel. No chance. VB compared to computers is like comparing "sums on your head" to a calculator.

However, I've come across other vb and computer players using other platforms. Now why do you suppose that is?

Probably because losing players don't mind opening their mouths. It's probably why you have a bad opinion of roulette computers. A player might be successful because of a bad computer, or incorrect application.

A skilled VB player would struggle to do what a basic computer does effortlessly.

your comment regarding the jurisdictions is not accurate.

Actually it is.

Evidently you've never been involved in a gaming dispute/investigation for winning. However, I've been through more than I care to discuss.

Could it be because your approaches aren't covert, whereas mine are? Read what I said about glaring at wheels. But actually, many of my players have had winnings suspended pending investigation. Not from behavior - from winnings. The result: eventual payout because nothing "wrong" (sufficiently) was found. Typically large winnings are scrutinized before payout.

Perhaps you can provide us with the list of the half of the jurisdictions where it's legal?

I could, but I wont.

 

[Really]

Steve,

I'm simply not interested in your computers. If they really could accurately predict ball timings to within one thousandth of a second (ludicrous), could turn toilet water into drinkable water, and clear acne, then why does your computer have so many bad reviews? Some of your so called players are talking, despite your ND, but the conversations aren't exactly flattering.

 

[steve]

Again sellers trying to compete fabricate lies. The only actual players who said anything publicly are bago, and he lost a public challenge that proved he was misleading people. The other was a person who never even used it in a casino because he couldn't access a wheel.

Here its simple. You are lying about secretly knowing my players. I know what my computers do. You have no experience or knowledge of them and have trouble believing a simple fact

If i show you clear proof of my claim about 5ms and 1ms will you admit you're full of it? I think not but I'll post it later.

 

[steve]

My Hybrid roulette computer can process as many frames per second as needed, with the limitation only being the hardware. We could do 60 FPS but it's overkill. Usually we just do 30 FPS (frames per second).

1000ms / 30 = 33.33ms per frame

So basically one frame has up to around 33ms error.

However, the computer doesn't just look at one frame. It looks at many for just one pass of the ball. Below is a partial screenshot showing what the computer detects in two passes of the ball.



In the first pass, the ball is detected 3 times. In the second pass, it's 4 times. The hyphens separate each "pass" of the ball.

The arc being tracked is this:



It's roughly 50 degrees. Using various settings, we can track even 360 degrees of ball motion. But typically we only bother with around 45 degrees because that's all we need (and still it's overkill).

The resulting timing from the two passes of the ball is 637ms. Keep in mind 637ms is a fast ball. Normal detection speed is around 800-1200ms in which case we can get 8 or so detection in one pass of the ball. We are only talking about one revolution of the ball, and errors are almost eliminated.

Now take into account the error reduction from not just one revolution, but two. Or even three. Do the math. Like I said, 1ms error.

If they really could accurately predict ball timings to within one thousandth of a second (ludicrous), could turn toilet water into drinkable water, and clear acne

Actually accuracy to 1ms does not ensure pinpoint accuracy with predictions. What prohibits pinpoint accuracy is the various differences between spins, because of things like ball and ball track deformations. You could have two spins with a slow ball speed detection of 2000ms and 0ms error, but still the ball will do something completely different on each spin. Even so late in the spin, there can be significant deviation. This is the main limiting factor when it comes to things like diamond prediction and scatter minimization. It is mainly determined by the condition of wheel and ball.

Basically the better condition the wheel, usually the less predictable scatter is BUT the easier it is to predict diamond hits which in turn reduces scatter.

But if you have a wheel in terrible condition with a strong dominant diamond and predictable scatter, but bad ball track with cracks etc, then you probably wont be able to predict exact diamond hits (and types of hits). But the ball will already fall predictably so it wont matter. On such a wheel, the difference in accuracy between VB and computers is least. But with VB, a slight rotor speed change can destroy your accuracy. It isn't so simple to do a quick measure and adjust offsets because you lose time even if you do it perfectly. Although a computer will be much more accurate in dealing with rotor speed changes, without losing time. How much time it would lose depends on the computer. My Uber computer version can use multiple clockers and time a 1/4 or 1/2 revolution with minimal errors. So it can get a prediction in around 3 seconds after ball release depending on rotor and ball speed. The Hybrid does too but with even greater accuracy, and without any effort by the player because it's automated.

Do the math and you see with 30 fps, 1ms error is achieved. We could even use 60 FPS or better but like I said it's overkill. I'm not sure what you found so hard about this to believe. The science behind it isn't that complicated. I guess you just don't have much experience with computers.

There's much more I could show and explain, but it makes no sense for me to waste this time.

 

[Really]

Sorry Steve, but I'm just not impressed. I've been at this game for too long.

 

[steve]

.If they really could accurately predict ball timings to within one thousandth of a second (ludicrous), could turn toilet water into drinkable water, and clear acne

You doubted 1ms but said it would cure acne. Now you back right off.

You belittle less experienced forum members and act superior. You don't often find someone who knows better than you.

It's quite alright.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPMq3s3aZNk

 

[Really]

Steve,

I'm simply not impressed. At best you're naive, and at worst, you're a con.

You would be better served by focusing on your distressed customers, rather than trying to impress someone that's more experienced than you and that actually plays it for a living.

I'll leave it at that.

-Really

 

[steve]

Curing acne and making toilet water impressed you before. I wonder what changed.

No serious player would turn it down. You just pay part of winnings: http://www.roulettephysics.com/computer-service/

Rather than trying to impress you, I'm revealing you're a poser with inflated sense of knowledge.

 

[Bust]

As an outsider here really to be fair you did say the 1ms thing was ludicrous because it would be so great. Now Really you say you are not impressed. It doesn't add up.

If Steve could run his program at any video frame rate and get ball position multiple times in a spin, then 1ms would be possible.

 

[Bust]

I was a critic of Steves until recently because of some sites I ran into. The more I look into it all the more faith I have he is legit.

 

[Bolbax]

I don't use a computer. I don't wish to play with a lower edge.

There's a reason that modern military targeting systems are almost all automated by computers. Humans will never match the precision of a computer. This is a stupid discussion.

 

[cyph]

The computers being sold were mentioned as part of a game protection course I attended in Vegas. Im from EU but many conferences are in Vegas. They are not such secretive devices anymore.

The general attitude was some of the computers in circulation were found to be effective in some circumstances, but not a serious threat. Mostly because of late predictions and transparent behavior. No names were mentioned, but the slides with photos and material presented did not look like steves computers. Numerous computers from game protection consultants were mentioned too but not much better.

There was also discussion obviously referencing steves hybrid, again no names. The presenter acknowledged the possibility of the capabilities. Mostly it was dismissed as a bit unlikely but notewothy.

Im not referring to 1ms. Equipment to measure that accurately is easily possible with basic optical sensors. I even have schematics for it. It shouldnt be so unbelievable that steve achieved the same with his equipment. It would be difficult to find someone that has better knowledge of roulette than steve.

 

[steve]

Now what is the message there? The message is that there are no "knowns." There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns.

- Donald Rumsfeld

 

[cerebral]

vb is good but I find roulette is becoming less common. I am currently looking for ways to beat slots but its not all I look at.

I agree in that roulette computers (assuming its a good one) would be easier and better than vb. And I know they would work in the right casinos. My problem with the people selling them is WHY would you waste all the time selling them? Why dont you keep them secret and just use them? I found five different people selling them.

The people that created the light wand to cheat slot machines didn't have the first instinct to go and sell it. They used it.

 

[steve]

Cerebral, your assumptions are logical but there's more to it.

I sell my less effective technology for $2500 - $30,000.

My best technology is US$80,000 OR you can use it in a kind of profit sharing arrangement explained at www.roulettephysics.com/computer-service/ - basically you get it free. All you need is basic equipment like phones which you can buy second-hand from ebay. Then I send you software to install.

If you are interested but skeptical, and a serious player, then just apply. If you join my teams you aren't paying me anything except from winnings.

Someone selling something doesn't mean it doesn't work. My computers not magic money making devices. They require time, dedication and effort to profit. It's like buying a business. It works you still need to put effort in. We beat almost every wheel with an edge of usually around 30%. Some people would find that an absurd claim. Some people say I'm a mad scammer. It's easy for anyone to find the truth, for themselves.

 

[steve]

m not referring to 1ms. Equipment to measure that accurately is easily possible with basic optical sensors. I even have schematics for it. It shouldnt be so unbelievable that steve achieved the same with his equipment.

Yes but how would you aim it? And it would need perfect stability. That's the main challenge we had with the first version of the Hybrid which is shown below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INffmk7vPd0

It's all done with video processing. And no, the equipment doesn't need to sit anywhere near the wheel. It is just on the wheel for the video - so it is visible.

Sorry about the video quality. It was roughly 10 years ago.