Last year people won more than one billion dollars playing poker. And casinos made twenty-seven billion just by being around those people.
The majority of casino players leave to much to chance when playing in a casino. To put it bluntly, they don't have a clue as to how to play.
Previous article was showing effectives of FFA computer in attempt to predict where the ball will hit rotor. Then results were simulated to show what would be final outcome after 10,000 spins. On this graph is displayed the FFA's real performance on the same wheel.
The FFA was set to get the best accuracy which means that the prediction was set to be later in time. Averaging to 6.8 seconds before then the ball drops.
After playing 5 spins (only) to let the system learn the wheel parameters, I decided to set the offset to +16 pockets. The graphs shows exact final results where the ball was stopping in relation to predicted number. Everything marked with green color is where the advantage is. After analyzing data if someone was playing according to this prediction and covering 11 pockets from -5 to +5 from prediction, he would play with advantage of 53%.
It is average of 4.24 hits per 100 spins for each pocket in green area. It means that for playing $100 per spin in average the player would profit $53 each spin. If he was playing a bit more to the right and covering 6 pockets the advantage would be slightly better 58% because the area marked with yellow color would be avoided. This is a typical problem when playing in real environment. Sometimes players decision where to play is not the best or he wouldn't be able to cover all numbers as he wants to.
53% and 58% are real advantage figures, after the system overcome negative 2.7% house advantage.
To achieve such advantage of course that we need accurate prediction.
During the test I took notes of only first 30 spins to see how well the system predicts ball failing point.
It is clear that the ball most of the time was hitting the rotor 10 pockets in front of predicted number or around that position. If there is no ball bouncing, such accurate prediction would produce 270% advantage. From this we can understand how accurate perdition of failing point needs to be that after scatter we still have recognizable advantage. Computerized roulette prediction is no voodoo black magic, golden spiral or numbers found in nature as some are claiming. It is physics and nothing else.
Roulette computer which can't predict ball failing point as the FF or at least close to it can't predict anything.
If I set the system to predict earlier, due to previously explained problems 270% would gradually decrease which would result in proportional decrease of player's advantage.
By how much it would change, it is specific for every particular wheel. That is why ability of FF systems to define accuracy is important feature especially on some kind of wheels. As a final word to this article I will display by my opinion progress of systems developments for advantage players.
The red line represents advantage increase in relationship to systems accuracy. Of course at the bottom is starting point of casinos 2.7% advantage. At the end the curve is losing intensity. It is because after some points regardless how much accuracy increases we can't increase advantage because of roulette laws explained in previous article.
For same reason there is not much difference in between FFA and FFZ.
Blue arrows are representing system effectives on leveled roulette wheel and green arrows are related to tilted wheel or the wheel with dominant drop point.
As you can see right after FF systems is Laurance's visual prediction for tilted wheel.
The question which may arise is why I play my VB if I placed his one at higher place.
Well his system may be more powerful but it requires a lot of skill that needs to be practiced. I understand his approach and in communication with some that use it I found it hard. It is take care for this and for this and for this€¦.etc.
May VB I play after my computer gives me wheel specification? After that I do not need computer. The system is easy to apply but it doesn't provide all as his system could do.
I found my system enough efficient and because it is simple to apply I prefer to use it.
In addition, I placed Laurence's visual prediction in front of Michael Barnett and Mark Howe's computer for tilted wheel because it can do more. They have computer which only produces plain results on tilted wheel as I was explaining in previous article.
Therefore they can't have very high advantage. Laurence's VB theoretically can achieve better result. Assuming that someone experienced and skillful is using it he can achieve better advantage while on the other hand if player is without full understanding computer may be better.
I placed my VB after their computer because computers can better calculate rotor speed changes. I am still working to improve my skills for that.
E2 is unique and probably the only one kind of visual prediction capable to gain advantage on leveled roulette wheels. It uses timer as a reference and it needs a lot of practicing.
Stefano's and Mark's roulette computers can not gain any advantage on a leveled wheel. Reasons for that I explained in few articles and there is a lot discussion at my roulette forum. Same applies to Stefano's genuine winner system. It is simple; there is no advantage if we placing bets before then a dealer spins, if roulette wheel doesn't have some biased pockets. For that to find out we do not talk about 333 or 666 spins based on numbers found in nature as Stefano claims. We talk about collecting thousands of spins and even then it is very questionable.
The best information regarding this approach you can get from Snowman who sometimes writes articles at Gamblers Glen forum or perhaps from Kelly.
If you come to this point to read this, congratulation, please consider joining us at Forums
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|