Very nice Snowman ...
You for sure know what you talking about, thanks ...

 
I will add some more to this topics ... soon

 
Pierre Basieux would say that the optimal window would be three hits within four trails and attack twice.
The hits could be straight or bi-modal within four trails.

The Nine Roulette - wheel signature - by Pierre Basieux use this bi-modal effect you talking about.
He also implement and random phase where you could play when they don't hit.

Sorry to say so do i not understand the random phase that would be highly interesting.
Use both bias signature with random phase signature - the beast of two worlds.

This issue is that the translation of the original german file is not so good.
I have both English translated and the original German file that Pierre Basieux gave me.

If you want a copy i can email you ...

Forgot to mention ... one signature use 3x3 numbers or total 6 and other signature 4x4 or total 8 numbers

Cheers

 
There is name for what you mention above " The Bi-modal effect " ...
Pierre Basieux write a lot about that ...

Cheers

Quote from: Turner on February 25, 2014, 10:47:37 AM
Bayes...and this is where some schools of thought differ
I don't know where I sit 100% but some will discount Paul because they are past spins....some believe Paul because there are no possible mistakes or tiredness etc
Some think Dave because they were his PP and he was actually placing bets.
Then we get into more trusting a bad result on merit than someone BS'ing how well he did.

Laurance say that playing the game change the game.

 
All is good ,,, forum function can post charts with only numbers ,,, i like it very much ...
Thanks

 

STDEV		% COR	1 in COR
1	0,84134474606854300000	15,86552539314570000000%	6
1,01	0,84375235497874500000	15,62476450212550000000%	6
1,02	0,84613576962726500000	15,38642303727350000000%	6
1,03	0,84849499721165600000	15,15050027883440000000%	7
1,04	0,85083004966901800000	14,91699503309810000000%	7
1,05	0,85314094362410400000	14,68590563758960000000%	7
1,06	0,85542770033609000000	14,45722996639100000000%	7
1,07	0,85769034564406100000	14,23096543559390000000%	7
1,08	0,85992890991123100000	14,00710900887690000000%	7
1,09	0,86214342796796400000	13,78565720320360000000%	7
1,1	0,86433393905361700000	13,56660609463830000000%	7
1,11	0,86650048675725300000	13,34995132427470000000%	7
1,12	0,86864311895726900000	13,13568810427310000000%	8
1,13	0,87076188775998200000	12,92381122400180000000%	8
1,14	0,87285684943720200000	12,71431505627980000000%	8
1,15	0,87492806436285000000	12,50719356371500000000%	8
1,16	0,87697559694865700000	12,30244030513430000000%	8
1,17	0,87899951557898200000	12,10004844210180000000%	8
1,18	0,88099989254479900000	11,90001074552010000000%	8
1,19	0,88297680397689100000	11,70231960231090000000%	9
1,2	0,88493032977829200000	11,50696702217080000000%	9
1,21	0,88686055355602300000	11,31394464439770000000%	9
1,22	0,88876756255216500000	11,12324374478350000000%	9
1,23	0,89065144757430800000	10,93485524256920000000%	9
1,24	0,89251230292541300000	10,74876970745870000000%	9
1,25	0,89435022633314500000	10,56497736668550000000%	9
1,26	0,89616531887870000000	10,38346811213000000000%	10
1,27	0,89795768492518100000	10,20423150748190000000%	10
1,28	0,89972743204555800000	10,02725679544420000000%	10
1,29	0,90147467095025200000	9,85253290497479000000%	10
1,3	0,90319951541439000000	9,68004845856103000000%	10
1,31	0,90490208220476100000	9,50979177952390000000%	11
1,32	0,90658249100652800000	9,34175089934718000000%	11
1,33	0,90824086434971900000	9,17591356502808000000%	11
1,34	0,90987732753554800000	9,01226724644525000000%	11
1,35	0,91149200856259800000	8,85079914374021000000%	11
1,36	0,91308503805291500000	8,69149619470850000000%	12
1,37	0,91465654917803300000	8,53434508219670000000%	12
1,38	0,91620667758498600000	8,37933224150143000000%	12
1,39	0,91773556132233100000	8,22644386776690000000%	12
1,4	0,91924334076622900000	8,07566592337711000000%	12
1,41	0,92073015854660800000	7,92698414533924000000%	13
1,42	0,92219615947345400000	7,78038405265464000000%	13
1,43	0,92364149046326100000	7,63585095367392000000%	13
1,44	0,92506630046567300000	7,49336995343271000000%	13
1,45	0,92647074039035100000	7,35292596096484000000%	14
1,46	0,92785496303410600000	7,21450369658938000000%	14
1,47	0,92921912300831400000	7,07808769916856000000%	14
1,48	0,93056337666666800000	6,94366233333318000000%	14
1,49	0,93188788203327500000	6,81121179667255000000%	15
1,5	0,93319279873114200000	6,68072012688581000000%	15
1,51	0,93447828791108300000	6,55217120889166000000%	15
1,52	0,93574451218106400000	6,42554878189359000000%	16
1,53	0,93699163553602200000	6,30083644639784000000%	16
1,54	0,93821982328818800000	6,17801767118119000000%	16
1,55	0,93942924199794100000	6,05707580020590000000%	17
1,56	0,94062005940520700000	5,93799405947930000000%	17
1,57	0,94179244436144700000	5,82075556385531000000%	17
1,58	0,94294656676224600000	5,70534332377543000000%	18
1,59	0,94408259748053100000	5,59174025194694000000%	18
1,6	0,94520070830044200000	5,47992916995580000000%	18
1,61	0,94630107185188000000	5,36989281481197000000%	19
1,62	0,94738386154574800000	5,26161384542521000000%	19
1,63	0,94844925150991100000	5,15507484900893000000%	19
1,64	0,94949741652589600000	5,05025834741037000000%	20
1,65	0,95052853196635200000	4,94714680336481000000%	20
1,66	0,95154277373327700000	4,84572262667229000000%	21
1,67	0,95254031819705300000	4,74596818029474000000%	21
1,68	0,95352134213628000000	4,64786578637201000000%	22
1,69	0,95448602267845000000	4,55139773215498000000%	22
1,7	0,95543453724145700000	4,45654627585430000000%	22
1,71	0,95636706347596800000	4,36329365240319000000%	23
1,72	0,95728377920867100000	4,27162207913290000000%	23
1,73	0,95818486238640500000	4,18151376135950000000%	24
1,74	0,95907049102119300000	4,09295089788073000000%	24
1,75	0,95994084313618300000	4,00591568638171000000%	25
1,76	0,96079609671251700000	3,92039032874827000000%	26
1,77	0,96163642963712900000	3,83635703628713000000%	26
1,78	0,96246201965148300000	3,75379803485169000000%	27
1,79	0,96327304430127400000	3,67269556987263000000%	27
1,8	0,96406968088707400000	3,59303191129258000000%	28
1,81	0,96485210641596100000	3,51478935840388000000%	28
1,82	0,96562049755411000000	3,43795024458899000000%	29
1,83	0,96637503058037200000	3,36249694196283000000%	30
1,84	0,96711588134083600000	3,28841186591640000000%	30
1,85	0,96784322520438600000	3,21567747956137000000%	31
1,86	0,96855723701924700000	3,14427629807528000000%	32
1,87	0,96925809107053400000	3,07419089294659000000%	33
1,88	0,96994596103880000000	3,00540389611998000000%	33
1,89	0,97062101995959100000	2,93789800404094000000%	34
1,9	0,97128344018399800000	2,87165598160019000000%	35
1,91	0,97193339334022700000	2,80666066597726000000%	36
1,92	0,97257105029616300000	2,74289497038368000000%	36
1,93	0,97319658112294500000	2,68034188770550000000%	37
1,94	0,97381015505954700000	2,61898449404527000000%	38
1,95	0,97441194047836100000	2,55880595216387000000%	39
1,96	0,97500210485177900000	2,49978951482205000000%	40
1,97	0,97558081471977700000	2,44191852802226000000%	41
1,98	0,97614823565849100000	2,38517643415086000000%	42
1,99	0,97670453224978800000	2,32954677502119000000%	43
2	0,97724986805182100000	2,27501319481792000000%	44
2,01	0,97778440557056800000	2,22155944294315000000%	45
2,02	0,97830830623235300000	2,16916937676468000000%	46
2,03	0,97882173035732800000	2,11782696426723000000%	47
2,04	0,97932483713393000000	2,06751628660701000000%	48
2,05	0,97981778459429600000	2,01822154057044000000%	50
2,06	0,98030072959062300000	1,96992704093769000000%	51
2,07	0,98077382777248300000	1,92261722275173000000%	52
2,08	0,98123723356506200000	1,87627664349378000000%	53
2,09	0,98169110014834100000	1,83088998516590000000%	55
2,1	0,98213557943718300000	1,78644205628166000000%	56
2,11	0,98257082206234300000	1,74291779376571000000%	57
2,12	0,98299697735236700000	1,70030226476328000000%	59
2,13	0,98341419331639500000	1,65858066836050000000%	60
2,14	0,98382261662783400000	1,61773833721661000000%	62
2,15	0,98422239260890900000	1,57776073910905000000%	63
2,16	0,98461366521607400000	1,53863347839255000000%	65
2,17	0,98499657702626800000	1,50034229737323000000%	67
2,18	0,98537126922401100000	1,46287307759893000000%	68
2,19	0,98573788158933100000	1,42621184106689000000%	70
2,2	0,98609655248650100000	1,39034475134986000000%	72
2,21	0,98644741885358000000	1,35525811464200000000%	74
2,22	0,98679061619274400000	1,32093838072562000000%	76
2,23	0,98712627856139800000	1,28737214386020000000%	78
2,24	0,98745453856405300000	1,25454614359466000000%	80
2,25	0,98777552734495500000	1,22244726550447000000%	82
2,26	0,98808937458145300000	1,19106254185470000000%	84
2,27	0,98839620847809700000	1,16037915219035000000%	86
2,28	0,98869615576144700000	1,13038442385528000000%	88
2,29	0,98898934167558900000	1,10106583244114000000%	91
2,3	0,98927588997832400000	1,07241100216758000000%	93
2,31	0,98955592293804900000	1,04440770619511000000%	96
2,32	0,98982956133128000000	1,01704386687197000000%	98
2,33	0,99009692444083600000	0,99030755591642500000%	101

Can you combine physics and roulette systems methodology ?
That is a interesting question.

Lets assume we take advantage of the random parameters and back engineer things.
When you deal with visual ballistic you predict where the ball will land, the high probability area.
But lets say we reverse things and play the negative area and skip the high probability area (where the ball should end up)

This is what you can do with physics.
You can measuring the ball in the beginning of spin and know how many turnarounds the ball will make on the ball track (before hitting deflector).
So lets say we only play when ball will make 17 turnarounds on the ball track before hitting a deflector.
And we will use the same rotor speed each time.

So ball will travel constant between A to B with the same time-frame.
And same with rotor.
This means that the distance with both will be same and the only random factor left is the deflectors hits.

Now if one and same deflector would hit all the time, then the ball would have pretty much the same traveling distance for each spin.
And we would have our high probability area where the ball would end up.
Could be a sector around 6 to 12 numbers.

Reverse:
But now assume we pick a level wheel where all deflectors hits evenly.
Then ball has to start hitting one and same deflector (repeating several times) to have a chance hitting the sector we don't play.
And even if, so will scatter make the ball miss sometimes.

So you estimate the ball and rotor speed so they don't become random element.
You only play for example the spins that make 17 turnarounds with one specific rotor speed with random hitting deflectors.
So the only random factor you count on is the deflector hits.

After collecting data without betting you could see if you need to place 15 to 24 bets.
Measuring variance.

IF YOU AGREE ,,, THEN THIS IS HOW YOUR NEXT TEST SHOULD LOOK LIKE !!!

3 pin game or semi tilted wheel.

1. First you fix so the wheel hit 3 vertical deflectors 8 to 9 times out of 10 overall.
2. You only measuring ball cw and rotor acw.
3. Now pick the non hitting vertical deflector as you main reference point when you estimate the ball - knee point.
(Then ball will travel 0.25 0.50 and 0.75)

Test and theoretical assumptions - physics.

The last hitting deflector at 0.75 should get the weakest hits from the ball smacking into the vertical deflector.
Then ball should most of the times hit the middle part or the lower part of deflector.
This should create very predictable ball jumps - scatter patterns.

The second hitting deflector at 0.50 should get the middle force hits from the ball smacking into the vertical deflector.
Then ball should most of the times hit the over part or middle part of deflector.
This should create medium or erratic ball jumps - scatter patterns.

The first hitting deflector at 0.25 should get the strongest force hits from the ball smacking into the vertical deflector.
Then ball should most of the times hit the over part of deflector.
This should create erratic ball jumps - scatter patterns.

High probability area - 3 pin game

Test different rotor speeds and check what is the optimal rotor speed, when ball jumps from 0.25 and 0.50 donations into same high probability area as 0.75.
Then you have a 3 pin game correlation with optimal scatter pattern and optimal rotor speed.

This is the hardest and most difficult playing model to build.
I assume you know different ways to estimate ball and measuring rotor speeds.

Test and theoretical assumptions - level wheel

All this is based upon my own methodology and understanding and i can not see any other solution for level wheels.
It is based upon the same principal i mention above, you have to narrow down the weakest spot/deflector when you deal with a level wheel.

You have to deal with linear results and collect data upon this methodology.
Spot main reference deflector and get limit deflector hits around 0.25 0.50 and 0.75 ...
Then build your main offset around the 0.75 deflector that gets donations and have the most predictable patterns with specific rotor speed (optimal speed).

As you can see so is a 2 and 3 pin game the same as 1 pin game with the different spread.
And a level wheel should be treated as a 3 pin game.

I speak to some who claim they can get a very small edge playing level wheels.
The hints i got has been into the same area of my assumptions above.

 
Ok this is my territory ,,, but i am not expert on American wheel ...
I find this selection in Laurance Scoot book volume 2 ...

Line 2 and 5

It create a nice bi-modal bet ...



Pst ,,, take a look at Pierre Basieux signature and how number are conected with his bi-modal approch ,,, try do that with the american wheel ,,, very cool stuff ...

 
Nice ,,, did not know that this day exist ,,, very cool ...

What i like about this signature is the random phase, the random play for octanes ... very innovating approach ...
See attach file ...

Betting methodology for biased wheels

When we find a wheel which has passed the HARD limit, the procedure to follow is to bet every number which is in positive. If only the SOFT limit has been surpassed, we used to execute a cut on those numbers which positives didn’t pass from +8 in order to avoid “false positive” numbers which could be at this amount of positives by pure random. We made an exception with those numbers with lesser than eight positives which were surrounded -at the numerical wheel disc disposition- by other within a range of large “positivity”.For instance we had number 4 at +2 but its two neighbours 19 and 21 were both above +20: we’d play the three numbers.

The study about wheels’ performance with lighter or bolder biases (Types A, B and C), was made in an elaborated computerized fashion simulating roulettes with a similar behavior to those real tables we have been at, this way we could study its future behavior and their possible level of advantage. A “Table type A” should provide us with an amount of 30 “positives” at a 1000-spin sample. This mean we’d be winning the equivalent to thirty straight-up number payout once we played this amount of hands. At a “Table type B” net earning was 20 positives, being this amount shrunk to only 12 positives when dealing with “Tables type C”. With these calculations I did a forecast on earnings (70 million “pesetas”), which happened to be so exact at “Casino de Madrid” during summer ’92. I also calculated possible yield or return for our first month in Amsterdam, which was absolutely necessary in order to balance the high costs attached to staying plus the mandatory previous study we had to perform at the “city of canals”.

Let’s have a look at another interesting table created by those results provided by the computer at millions of simulations from an unbiased wheel:



[EDIT]Part 2: http://betselection.cc/wheelwatcher/part-2-how-to-spot-biased-wheels/[/EDIT]

Table types:

If we have reliable statistics, gathered from what we know is a single table after 5,000 spins, we have to know, by looking up at chart above, that the regular outcome is for total positives to go around +109, if they pass over +143 we can be in front of something interesting, and if they are above +192 we have in presence of an authentic bomb. This happened to our "Tables type A", which by this time have left behind every doubt, as they have gone past –in average- with their +197, the mythical hard limit. So we have more than 99.95% degree of certainty this particular table has bias, and therefore, the expected is for those deviated numbers to continue their sustained deviation as they have been doing.

Most common wheels we found when scouting, "Tables type B", were at +153 positives, and the worst ones, "Tables type C", with some (but very little) bias, were already at +135, still within the boundaries of the Soft Limit.

We started our bias attack when the numbers which have been appearing the most at target Wheel do have passed the Soft Limit. By having 95% certainty of their bias, we tought it was worth risking remaining 5% (only once out of every 20 occasions) having the regular outcome of these attacks being the table "moving forward" and deviating in favor of those numbers while we were betting, till it passed by the "hard limit" which gave us absolute security (no wheel passed this hard limit and went back; unless it is manipulated, there is no way back from it). If the target wheel went back from SOFT limit -as we mentioned, this can happen 1 ouf of every 20 times-, we simply stopped betting on it and its losses were compensated by the wins obtained from those which have been faithful to their spotted biases.

If we have recorded 10,000 spins from a single table (this record could be at intervals, made at several days, several different sessions, without it being an impediment for going off the table a half-hour to have diner, but we must always be 100% certain they are from the same table, which hasn't been replaced in any of its elements; reason for which we have to take note of any identifiable physical traits which ensure us proper identification of this particular wheel), with this record we already have a clear definition from what this machine can offer us. Even if its quality for the effect of our attack is reduced ("Table type C") for the purpose of eligibility it should have gone past "Soft Limit" already (+174) and must be at least at +195. If it doesn't has reached these numbers, it is better to just forget about what this table has to offer, as there is little to no advantage to be derived from it.

When a random table reaches a 30,000-spin sample, its average and soft limit start to descend and it it expected to continue under this fashion until the point on which, after many spins analyzed, there won't be any number with "positives" remaining, as house advantage has imposed over all of them and none achieves appearing above the expected when averaged against 1 per every 36 spins, as its actual probability is to make it once per every 37 spins and that "flagstone" has been imposed over them in a definitive way. But is the table has Bias, some number would have been "catapulted" or "rocketed" and they will continue going upwards. Even at a "Table type C" it would have passed above the hardest limit, guaranteeing its advantage, even if a small one. IF the table has any quality and it is a "Table type A", it sails now at an stratospherically high +966 which is impossible to find at a truly unbiased level wheel which has its "random maximum" (by pure luck) placed at a hard limit of only +294.

Let's analyze the tables above with four different amounts of spin samples.

If we have to use a 300-spin length sampling, we can observe the sum of "positives" (times above the expected considering 36-spin cycles) for numbers is around +37. Let's turn it the other way around; if there have been 300 spins, each  numbers has to have been spun 300/36 = 8.33 in order to be breaking even. This means those which have been spun 8 times are losing a little, and those which have showed 9 times are winning something. If a number has appeared 14 times it is clear it has 14-8.33 = 5.67 which we will express in an abbreviated form like +5. Let's suppose the exact same situation has occurred for 6 other numbers also, they all will make a total sum of 5.67 + 5.67 + 5.67 + 5.67 + 5.67 + 5.67+ 5.67 = 39.69. as no other number has been spun over 9 times, then we say the amount of total positives at this table at 300 spins is +39. We can declare the table is a bit above the "randomly expected " (+37) yet in addition it is far from the "soft limit" which is located at +46.

What is the "Soft Limit"? It is the maximum reached by 95% of those 2,000 trials. Only 5% of trials went over this amount of positives, then we can affirm it is hard to pass the soft limit, as this only happens at this 5% of instances by pure random luck at an wheel without any bias.

What is the "Hard Limit"? It is the one which has only happened once at these 2,000 trials. Therefore it is something belonging to a probability factor of 1 in 2,000, a tiny 0.05% to be spun by pure "random luck", which finds here the limit we were looking for.

Previous example with its 39 positives doesn't unveil anything about this particular table. Some numbers have appeared more than others but not in a significant enough scenario. If would be significant shall the sum of the positives at this table were +50, which albeit not being one 100% certain, it does places the table past the Soft Limit and makes us think this wheel points to the right direction. The true wonder would, be if its positives get to sum +64, which would clearly state this table as having a very strong tendency, which we can consider like a savings account for us to take the money from. When doing a 300-spin sample I haven't accounted for such a deviation. We need to collect more spins for statistics, as the best wheel we have found (we call them "Tables type A") have to go with this amount of spins at a +39 approximately. Please allow me to make a pause in our walk to further explaining what is a "Table type A".