Since when I've joined this awesome site I've been stressing that roulette is a perfectly unbeatable game.
Nevertheless I've found very interesting topics made by some members here, actually imo some of the best ideas about baccarat came from roulette aficionados.

Anyway how could a player erase and invert a -5.26% (or 2.70%) negative edge?

The advent of authomatic wheels (aw from now) made me change my long term opinion.

To blatantly put it, the possible edge a player may have on such wheels is a lot more manageable than what a well lower negative edge game as baccarat could provide.

I mean aw can be beaten and I'm not joking at all.

Preface.

Any gambling game favoring the casino relies upon the winning premises about its randomness (along with the math edge). The more the game is random the better are the chances the casino will get its long term mathematical edge. At least in theory.

Thus any player cannot get any advantage from a perfect random game as this one will amplify at most the negative math edge.

On the contrary, a quite unrandom model might endorse the player's winning probabilities, providing an accurate and proper player's detection of such unrandomness features.

Good news are we don't have to bother about the supposedly randomness or unrandomness of the game. Meaning that even a so called perfect random game could be beaten beacuse it will raise the equiprobability of the outcomes.

My statement is that perfect random games may be easily beaten as long successions of pc generated bac shoes or long successions of perfect random roulette spins.

That should be true as here a new outcome will be perfectly made independent than the previous one. A thing that could only happen with pc generated outcomes.
And, more importantly, at "controlled" degrees as pc's are stupid by definition.

Real world vs pc generated world

A real world is composed by many subjective and objective variables as a human factor will interfere with the whole process.
The more the objective features will act over the whole process, the better will be the probabilities to get random outcomes and the only sure way to get a more objective impact is knowing that a pc is releasing the outcomes.
A software isn't affected at all by emotional issues, actual issues, sweat, spinning effects or whatsoever that characterizes a human.
It will act according to a more or less pre-ordered plan set up by humans but such parameters will be constant along the way as a pc is stupid. Especially whether the production will act in the same environment.

More importantly we should infer that a pc generation will be instructed to get more random results than what a non software generation could make, that is a better equiprobability of the outcomes.

And more specifically, a software is less likely to produce the exact outcome of the previous situation as it will never choose the same previous landing spot/next ball velocity parameter, taking for grant a constant rotor speed and a constant ball launching time.

Of course there are more issues related to a software generation that I do not want to discuss here for obvious reasons.

as. 








   


 

 

 
 







 



   





 



   





   

 

BTW, it seems that I'm not the only one to have discovered the aw flaws....

as. 

What is an automatic wheel?  The casino I go to has a wheel where the ball is automatically propelled on to the wheel...so I guess that's what you mean.....but I thought that was basically a slot machine and the ball would land where it would profit the casino.........but I noticed the same guys playing there for the past week or so....not sure if they are winning......but if they are, the casino will take out the wheel in a heartbeat.

Quote from: 8OR9 on June 01, 2017, 02:16:17 AM
What is an automatic wheel?  The casino I go to has a wheel where the ball is automatically propelled on to the wheel...so I guess that's what you mean.....but I thought that was basically a slot machine and the ball would land where it would profit the casino.........but I noticed the same guys playing there for the past week or so....not sure if they are winning......but if they are, the casino will take out the wheel in a heartbeat.

Yes, it's a wheel where no human interferes with the numbers' outcomes yet it's a strict physical process.

No, definetely they are not acting as slotmachines, you can bet for few seconds after the ball is launched.

Yes, as long as casinos won't make money they'll remove them. Fortunately 99% of the players have no hints to overcome a huge 5.26% negative edge but you never know someone gets wise.
But tossing out such machines could be a serious problem for the ib brand.
For that matter even the less spread shfl brand will have the same problems. 

Of course besides banning the supposedly winning players, there are countermeasures to be taken. But they are costly.


as.   

It looks as if the future is tending toward automated, computerized wheels so obviously I am interested in your premise. Thank you for sharing.

Now, to be specific, are you including "air roulette" such as the game provided by Interblock ?

I'm a Canadian and frequent Fallsview Casino which, along with traditional DZ tables, has a few "electronic" versions, including the Interblock version.

Sure would nice to quietly exploit them.

Garry

Re: Roulette  Automated Wheels - Online

I've been experimenting with the online automated Roulette Wheels.

I've chosen the La Partage Wheel at William Hill.
(I often choose this French System as half the stake on normal even chance bets is returned should zero appear)

So far I've found it just as easy to win (or lose) on these wheels.

I recorded 5 short sessions the first Part 1 is below.

Links to the other 4 sessions are in the description.

I've been playing until there are 18 sleepers and betting on any obvious imbalances on the way.

To be honest I lost on the sixth session but that's the nature of the game



[/size]

Last year, I was playing on the pinball roulette machines at my local B+M casino made by Admiral.
The wheel would speed up for some spins and be slow on others just to try and make things as random as possible. Croupiers get tired/lose concentration and probably forget from time to time to mix things up. The auto-wheels just keep on going doing what they are supposed to do. I saw one of these for sale on eBay the other day for the first time going for a couple of thousand.

Here it is!

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Cammegh-Slingshot-automatic-Roulette-wheel-/112418001638?hash=item1a2ca292e6:g:~BsAAOSwCU1Y1BbF

and a similar one!

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Cammegh-Slingshot-automatic-Roulette-wheel-/112418001641?hash=item1a2ca292e9:g:mcQAAOSw4A5Y1Bfa

Quote from: owenslv on June 01, 2017, 03:38:25 AM
It looks as if the future is tending toward automated, computerized wheels so obviously I am interested in your premise. Thank you for sharing.

Now, to be specific, are you including "air roulette" such as the game provided by Interblock ?

I'm a Canadian and frequent Fallsview Casino which, along with traditional DZ tables, has a few "electronic" versions, including the Interblock version.

Sure would nice to quietly exploit them.

Garry

Hi Garry!

Yes, airball roulettes are included.

Although many wheels are manufatured by the same brand, after a very long work we concluded that every single wheel presents its own characteristics easily detectable after two hundreds spins or so. 

The primary question, of course, is about the randomness of the outcomes.

The perfect randomness is only conceptual and on the other hand we don't necessarily have to find biased or unleveled wheels to get a possible strategical advantage.
Let the software make the work for us, in its achievement to constantly get random results eventually it tends to produce the opposite aim...

And thanks to the other replies guys!

as.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 01, 2017, 08:07:43 PM
Hi Garry!

Yes, airball roulettes are included.

Although many wheels are manufatured by the same brand, after a very long work we concluded that every single wheel presents its own characteristics easily detectable after two hundreds spins or so. 

The primary question, of course, is about the randomness of the outcomes.

The perfect randomness is only conceptual and on the other hand we don't necessarily have to find biased or unleveled wheels to get a possible strategical advantage.
Let the software make the work for us, maybe the hostinate research to produce random results eventually will act right on the opposite side...

And thanks to the other replies guys!

as.

Aws work by what I name "controlled randomness", meaning that it's only the software which decides where the ball will most likely land for every spin.
In the effort to give the most random outcomes, we may suppose that only in very rare circumstances the software will set the same previous launching parameters for the next spin.

Indeed the amount of number repeats vs the human tables is lower, surely lower than 1/38 or 1/37 probability.

Moreover tha ball will interact with the same environment for every spin: temperature, humidity, uniformed force applied on the ball surface (no spin effect or constant spin effect), ball and slots cleanliness are costant. No employee sweat, no dust, I mean.

In a sense we might infer that the software knows at the start where the ball will land every hand, so our worries should be focused about the different air forces applied to the ball and about the "interfering agents" acting thereafter.

We know that the ball speed decays up to its falling point at the same velocity independently of the launching speed. So the only variable now is the position of the rotor in relation of the ball's fall.
In a word, a ball may make 35, 25 or 10 revolutions before falling but its falling speed remains a constant value.

Some manufacturers like to give the rotor different speeds or alternate clockwise and counterclockwise revolutions, but the point remains the same: software indirectly knows where the ball will most likely land.
At least without a more or less impact of the interfering agents.

The interfering agents are: deflectors, slots edge, ball weight/diameter and rotor speed.

Deflectors were originally inserted to amplify the random effect, actually and also according to L. Scott they tend to reduce randomness.

Slots edge plays a major "random" role as low edges tend to enlarge the bouncing and splattering effect but we'll see that even wheels presenting very low slot edges can be very profitable to play in.
The same considerations could be made about ball weight/diameter, but aws cannot utilize low ball weights and low ball diameters for obvious procedural reasons.

High rotor speeds increase the bouncing effect as the ball before its immediate fall will encounter a dynamic propelling object. But again this feature could be easily disregarded as such bias tend to equalize itlr.

In our long study we have considered many aw brands and good news is that everyone of them is perfectly beatable (providing different strategies acting in relation of the actual wheel). 

Now let's consider the most sophisticated aw ever built. It's an east european product.

This wheel has low edge slots, a quite low weight/diameter ball, the rotor alternatively changes its direction clockwise and counterclockwise, the rotor speed is quite high or very high, there are 16 deflectors and the space between rotor and wheel edge is almost double than many other products.
Should this be a perfect random machine, right?
It is.

However is quite interesting to notice that even in this very sophisticated machine the number of repeats is lower than what the probability laws dictate.

In our study we have even examined wheels having each four or five different launching points, naturally chosen randomly by the software.
And guess what? In this case too we got a lower number of repeats than expected.

Obviously the number of repeats is just one of the parameters taken into account, it can't be a value to build a strategy around.

as.     










   

 

















 





   

     

Hi AS;

Greetings from Toronto. I'm surprised to hear that you feel airballs can be beaten, however, that's great news. If I understand things correctly, it's going to take a computer to analyze the flaw in their computer, using some recorded spins.

It seems that when a computer program attempts to create a random set of numbers, it actually leaves a "predictable trail." - Interesting thought.

Is there anything I can do from this end to assist?

Garry

If anyone thinks to become a decent term winning player, first I strongly suggest to study the actual machine you are risking your money.

Humans are unpredictable, physical issues are predictable just by the use of illegal devices.
So we can consider the last ones as unpredictable factors too.
Unpredictability adding to unpredictability means total randomness, that is we cannot win by any means.
Wait, actually a random world generated by really random features may easily be overcome. Try to test your method on a random.org generation and tell me.

Thus we are forced to put a relationship between real randomness and unpredictability. It's not the same thing even if the statistical books instruct you to think this.
We might lose in an unrandom generation because we cannot grasp the hints why a possible unrandomness works.
At the same time we could win as the system produces perfect random results enhancing the equiprobability of the total possible outcomes.

The problem is we have no tools to really assess if the generation observed is really random or not.
Thus we are sailing in the universe of uncertainty where sooner or later we'll sink.   

Fortunately we know that softwares are quite predictable as they are stup.id. They act like a really random.org production with the important difference that when adapted at gambling scenes, they must work by many finite parameters.
That is a negation of perfect randomness.

Such unperfect randomness must be assessed within "short" intervals of production as itlr everything will be uniformed and diluted and so corresponding to the expected values.

For example, we won't get all 38 numbers appearing within 76 consecutive spins, but this probability varies in relationship of the specific wheel considered as every single spin is the by product of a defined and limited process.

I mean that every section of 76 spins recordered will get an average number of silent numbers becoming more or less probable after a cutoff point is reached or not. Providing a careful observation of the actual wheel behaviour after a given amount of spins.


as.











 



 






 

   

Please note the random numbers at random.org and say an actual roulette wheel produce completely
different results. I have worked on random numbers for a great many years and I am currently looking
at the results for sets, when using random.org random numbers. It is interesting to discover the differences
and try to discover why there should be such a difference.

Excellent reply!

As.