Quote from: Albalaha on May 12, 2013, 03:15:31 AM
You never did number 3, otherwise you would have come up with results jumping like a frog.

Well, if you'll remember back a few weeks, I did jump up and down when I told you how I solved this odd challenge with the help of my losing, craps player, brother.  Even posted up the results on your board.  Too bad only 4 people saw it.

Quote from: Albalaha on May 12, 2013, 03:15:31 AM
              This challenge is much like a very difficult hurdle race.

This challenge is pointless.  However, it does keep your name up "in lights" so you can pretend to be somebody in the finite roulette world.

Quote from: Albalaha on May 12, 2013, 03:15:31 AMOnly innovative ones can think of doing something here.

I think I already did that.

Anyway, how about sending out the next spreadsheet with the second worst number.   DO NOT tell me the number, just post up the spreadsheet like you did with the first one showing "W" and "L".   My curiosity is now getting to me and I'd really like to see if it can beat it again.   I'll run it EXACTLY like the first one, bet by bet, spin by spin.

AD

Quote from: Marshall Bing Bell on May 10, 2013, 07:33:07 AM

To be fair, why would he bother?

All you'll do is say, "Yep, played that like a tournament too, and won +1550 units. 

No, if he can come up with the "next worst number" I can attempt to validate MY own solution to his goofy challenge and put an end to this waste of time for once and for all.

I'm not quite sure what Al is looking for but it's evident his exposure to roulette is limited to a very small subset of the game.

Has nobody here ever played in a roulette tournament?  Any gambling tournament?

Hopefully his next "challenge for the ages" will have a bit more structure to it than "beat this number" and then tell me how you did it.

It's been beat.  Now I just need another number to validate my process to make sure it wasn't just a lucky streak.

I'll be more than happy to post up a play by play, just need to make sure the first one wasn't a "fluke" win.

AD (actually I believe the first win was something like +79)

Quote from: Albalaha on May 10, 2013, 02:10:00 AM
Captain,
      It is not so simple thing to do.

Al,

  Give me the next worst number and I'll run it again.

  AD

Quote from: Albalaha on May 09, 2013, 05:24:15 PM
Ad,
      You have no right to say so. It is my challenge. You claimed to win this but shying away to show how. Further, I have never claimed to have beaten this particular challenge.

Al,

  Once again you have misread and misinterpreted what I have written.

  If you will read my message, it said "You have claimed to have beaten roulette".  Period.  Stop.

  Not only did you make this claim, you used it as your signature in forums for quite some time.

  I did NOT say you had beathen this stupid challenge thing.   

  Unfortunately for all of the unwashed masses on these boards, you somehow managed to avoid telling anyone just how you managed to "defeat the game of roulette", so pretty much all of your statements then become suspect.

  On the second point, how many times do I have to tell you, in writing, how to beat your silly challenge?

  Play it like a tournament.   DUH!

  And to finish this off, at least for me, I will now apologize to Al for teasing him and picking on him, using his own statements.  It was too easy and not really fair for me to do that.

  I've seen this type of behavior in a few other forums and did not like the tone that it set, so I will publicly admit that I was trying to play with Albalaha and will cease this form of torment.

  I am sorry to have used you as the punching bag in the roulette forums.

  Good luck and continue on with your quest to beat roulette by stalking the forums.

  AD

Quote from: Albalaha on May 09, 2013, 06:55:05 AM

You claim to be a dispersion killer and running away to see the dispersion. If you have any real approach that can work in such bets, write that clearly, otherwise try your luck somewhere else.

Al,

"You claim to be a roulette winner and have "beaten the game".  If you have any real approach that can work in such bets, write that clearly, otherwise try your luck somewhere else."

This would be known as "turnabout is fair play".

AD

Quote from: Albalaha on May 08, 2013, 05:24:58 PMnot prove anything serious.
           Ggasoft, Adulay and Flat_ino, if you feel you can play and beat this, prove your methods upon the entire data. If the method is really workable, that will win another number having similar traits too. If someone reverse engineers this data to get a fake win, he will be exposed very easily.
          A method that wins good performing number and that can handle the worst too, is truly difficult. I have yet to see any in any of the forums.

Al,

  (sigh...)

  I've asked you several times for whatever the next worst number is to VALIDATE my previous solution to your silly challenge.

  As you've already "defeated" roulette (by your own words) I'll just assume you're tossing this innane challenge out just for grins and giggles.

  So, I've showed a profit on your challenge.   I'm still waiting for whatever the next losing number is to see if MY solution is valid.  Get your act together and post up the next number that desperately needs to be beaten down in the Great Albalaha's Roulette Challenge (and goat rope) of 2013.

  I'd hate to put out something that you didn't approve of.

  Oh yeah, the local indian (Native American) casino just paid for ANOTHER new Glock 21 for me.   But alas, it was baccarat and not roulette that did all the "work".

  AD   

Quote from: Albalaha on May 05, 2013, 06:34:28 PM
Captain,
        You have only told the results without telling anything about the methodology.

I not only told you the results, I told you exactly how I arrived at it.   Re-read my original post on your board.

Quote from: Albalaha on May 05, 2013, 06:34:28 PM
Those results may be imaginary because you claim to beat it with flat betting, which is quite indigestible . . . .

It may be imaginary to YOU due to your incorrect deduction based on an improper logical fallacy.  You just can't believe it was flat betting, eh?

Quote from: Albalaha on May 05, 2013, 06:34:28 PM
If you have really beaten this (even with slightest profit) with a sensible approach which someone will use on a straight up bet, why are you shying away to show that to all?

Why am I "shying" away?   Why, to get you all excited because at least two people have already solved your innane "test" and it's bugging you that you can't see it!

PLAY IT LIKE A TOURNAMENT using your previously posted rules.

Quote from: Albalaha on May 05, 2013, 06:34:28 PM
So far, nobody has done anything to go near beating this data.

Say what?  At least two people have "solved" this incredible time waster as we type.   

Feels funny to be on the other side, doesn't it!!

Anyway, what you fail to see is that your "challenge" is totally unrealistic.   Nobody, and I mean NOBODY is about to chase a single number and being told in ADVANCE that this will be the worst possible number in 15,000 spins makes it so far off base that a I'm amazed anyone events thinks about trying this.   It's pointless and fits into no reasonable gambling scenario, especially given the original parameters of the "challenge".

So, I'll try to exit this discussion gracefully with the following recommendation. . . .

Play it like a tournament and beat the silly "challenge".

AD (too much fun but done with it for now)

Quote from: Albalaha on May 04, 2013, 04:17:04 AM
  Whoever claims to beat it, be it Adulay, Flat_ino or Greatgrampa need to illustrate their idea working on this data openly here. Otherwise, the claim to beat it with all these abovesaid methods, can be safely considered as imaginary if not false.

Al,

  I do believe I explained it on your own forum.

  The actual solution came from my craps playing brother, the born loser.  Once he explained it to me, it made perfect sense.

  Using your rules as posted, the solution was to play those 15,000 finite numbers like a tournament.

  I've already given you the results (posted) in another thread.

  What more would you like for this unrealistic challenge that seems to be your current focus?

  AD

Are you able to wager on these games "straight up" or are there any points or goals that need to be accounted for?

AD

Quote from: GreatGrampa on May 03, 2013, 04:54:37 PM
For 15,000 spins that you have shown here, max bank roll required was 36 units for me. There were 14 betting opportunities. 10 of them won and 4 of them lost. Final unit count was +5 units.

Finally, what's the point. it's a total time waste, as you will never find the holy grail. There is a reason why it is called a holy grail.

Very cool!  Now at least two of us have "solved" this excercise in futility.

AD

Quote from: Superman on April 27, 2013, 06:32:38 PM

The way I have my bits setup is like this, for any customer I send a setup tool which just spins the game reading an AREA for the last spun result, it spins and spins UNTIL it has either 36 on NO ZERO or 37 numbers on european roulette, when it has seen all of the numbers it asks the user to assign a number to each snapshot it took, this all gets written to an ini file like this

3655294628=6
1100174932=4
4284120404=13
474124401=35
3019337551=17
3067779567=20
1365523777=27

The long numbers are the actual checksum of the rectanglular area the number is printed in, the =17 is that that checksum value is number 17 so when the bot plays it gets a checksum of THAT area and checks the ini file for what that checksum actually is number wise.

that's the basic function for the bot itself, I also have what I call a whatbet file, this file can be changed to any method/system we can come upw ith so that's the onyl file I ever need to change for a new bot, in total I have 4 files MAIN, GETNUMBER, BETLOCATIONS and WHATBET all caled via #include BETLOCATIONS holds all the x,y coordinates of each bet location for the table in question, as I said before, the main file does all the main bits n bobs, it finds/locates the game window, gets its sizes/coordiantes on the screen and sets it active before the bot actually does anything.

Hope that helps

Aha.  That makes sense.  Giving a checksum to a previously detailed number or "symbol" seems correct.

So, not only can a "number", as it were, be determined by pattern and therefore pretty much anything on the screen can be identified, assuming its position on the screen remains constant.

My thanks to all who answered this query.

AD

All,

   I have a question that may have consequences down the road, assuming the stars align and all that.

  The question is:  What are the primary duties of a bot with regards to your roulette programming?

  Are you placing individual numbers?  Reading numbers?  Reading results?  Reading a screen position?  Multiple positions?

  Approximately how many "spots" or "areas" do you have to monitor to get the data you need to perform any calculations and place a wager?   That last question is probably the main one I have at this time.

  I currently have no need for a "bot" and don't forsee one in the future but knowledge is golden so I'm asking in preparation for an idea session that's coming up.

  If there is a link to a "bot" wiki or something, I'd like to take a look.

  AD

Quote from: wannawin on April 25, 2013, 11:20:03 PM
This is pure drivel right?

As pure as the new driven snow.   The number of players at the console does not change the odds at the wheel.

Anytime a player is losing, they WILL come up with all kinds of apparently "valid" reasons for the losses.

Multiple players at an automated wheel is not one of them.

AD

That second photo in the first message looks exactly like our consoles at the indian casinos.

AD

Quote from: RouletteKEY on April 24, 2013, 01:41:30 AM
I haven't played EC's for a long time...Can they be profitable?  Probably but if I were just playing those odds I think I would favor baccarat and get away from those green numbers

Hey!  Another guy "gets it" !!

If you're going to play EC, go with baccarat for sure.

AD