I'd be more careful about changing the avatar Mike. :-)

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.     










   

 

















 





   

     

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.

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: 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.   

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

as. 

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. 








   


 

 

 
 







 



   





 



   





   

 

Quote from: ADulay on February 28, 2017, 09:55:45 PM
Wow!  BMW makes cars, too!  That's great.

AD

ahahahhh, right! 

LOL. You are right. 

Anyway, I really like your joining on the moderator's group.

And you still owe me that Benihana dinner in Vegas 

as.

Quote from: alrelax on February 28, 2017, 02:14:41 PM
Scratch the Cognac, you owe me a BMW, any model, 2016 or newer.  Thanks. 

Good choice Al.
I'd suggest a BMW i8, fantastic line and an unbelievable gas saver.

as.

Quote from: ludo8400 on January 27, 2017, 09:35:50 AM
I make on the Casino 100 units per session. Air Roulette
ludo8400

100 units per session?

Quite impressive.

Let us know what your following results will be.

as. 

There's a general theorical problem when betting a "sleepers" oriented strategy: you'll never know whether the given results are real fluctuations or produced by a biased wheel.
In the doubt I'd prefer to either not to bet at all or to wager what happened instead of what it didn't happen so far.
Moreover, a sleeping numbers cluster could easily contain one or more number to sleep several hundreds of spins. And just for normal statistical reasons. So I'm betting maybe 16 or 17 numbers vs a larger pool than a 18/37 ratio dictates.
Of course a smaller numbers ratio could get an empirical slight higher probability to appear and it seems you have found such situations to be more probable than not. 

 
as. 

Hi!

As you well know, the fact that 12 silent numbers can be sleeping for a lot more than normal dozens or columns do is just a reflex of the innumerable possible combinations forming clusters of 12 numbers.
The table layout has only six possible combinations of such possibilities.

I recordered a sleeping dozen created by 12 silent numbers that remained silent for 92 spins (I tried your same methodology several years ago taking a Marigny De Grilleau suggestion).

Don't know about 18 numbers, I think you can expect to get them silent for 50 or more spins.

More interesting is the study of the exact position of dozens or, better, lines (6 numbers) coming along the way in order to build a dynamic new even chance.
You'll have to wait the situations when the positions in the last three spins are different, then betting the remaining three positions. This is your trigger.
Since you won't bet when positions are repeating, you are excluding a large part of the random world and at the same time you'll be more confident that sooner or later at least one of the three remaining positions you bet will be filled.
In a word, you shift the problem from "what" (line) to "when" (position) and "how" (actual distribution).

Cheers
   
as.




   





   

Congratulations Al!

I always liked the tone you used to counter back members' different opinions.

Now stop to talk about trends value     Just teasing....

Happy New year!

as.

Happy New Year to everyone, hoping you'll get a lot of naturals when betting P side and a lot of asymmetrical hands when betting B hand!

as.