| Author |
Topic: Mathematical formula for everyone to try at home! |
 |
markhowy |
Posted: 12-Nov-02 16:43 |
|
|
|
All you philistines and none believers of the ballistic approach can
try this at home>
This is a basic formula, but it will show excellent results!
The formula (polynomial for the data) can be obtained by taking three
lots of timings, with associated times of distance that corespond to
these timings or the distances!
First of all, the data you need from your timings must be spread over
a large spread of the data so that you are interpolating rather than
extrapolating!
So first of all you need to write down some timings, one after the ot
her, plus an associated time of distance with each data set. So basica
lly an example would be the following>
Times of each rev 10 11 13 15 18 21 25 28 35 42
Timing
Time of distance 207 197 184 169 151 130 105 77 42 0
with these timings
Distance associated 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
with these Timings
So an example would be the number 13 for a rev timing. we know now th
at it will take 184 units of time to drop and it will have taken 7 ful
l revolutions!
But obviously we need to know what will happen if we get a timing of
say 14 units or 23 units. This is where the polynomial comes in!
So we need three sets of data to predict the timing, and three sets o
f data to produce the distance!
Lets call these X(1), X(2), X(3) Y(1),Y(2),Y(3)
And we need to take a spread over a large data set, so using the abov
e data we will take three timings , one at the begining, one in the mi
ddle, and one at the end! Our timings of the revolution will always be
in either the time of distance calc or the Distance calc.
So first we will do the Time of distance, so lets take the data from
above>
X(1)=10 X(2)=18 X(3)=35 (Times of revolutions)
Y(1)=207 Y(2)=151 Y(3)=42 (times of coresponding times of distanc
e)
Place this data in the following formula>
Formula:
a=(X(2)*X(2))-(X(1)*X(1))
b=(X(3)*X(3))-(X(2)*X(2))
c=(X(2)-X(1))
d=(X(3)-X(2))
e=(Y(2)-Y(1))
f=(Y(3)-Y(2))
g=((c*f)-(d*e))/((b*c)-(a*d))
h=(Y(1)-(g*(X(1)*X(1))))
i=(Y(2)-(g*(X(2)*X(2))))
j=((i-h)/X(2)-X(1)))
k=Y(1)-(X(1)*(X(1)*g)-(X(1)*j)
This works out a 2nd order polynomial!
Which is the module 'Formula' in the program on the psion. You can us
e a calculator, or get the Psion to do it!
From this you want the numbers that corespond to g,j and k. These are
the three functions to go into your equation.
Now enter another number in the following formula>
we will call your number Z
Time of Distance for any given number = ((Z*Z)*g)+(Z*j)+k
So if you enter 21 for the value of Z, you should get 130 for Time of
distance!
Enter an intermediate value such as 23 and the formula will give you
the distance travelled and the number of revolutions travelled, this w
ill then correspond to observed data later!
To get the distance using the same formula, leave the value of X(1),
X(2),X(3) the same, just change the values of Y(1) etc to the associat
ed numbers of revoutions at the top, then do the formula again! This t
ime the formula will give you the distance for any given time of revol
ution!
If you do this sucessfully, then I will tell you how to increase the
predictive power of the polynomial!
Speak to you soon
Ps the above data does not corespond to true 2nd order data, it is me
rely just an example, but your data tried with this method will work e
xtremely well!
Have fun!y the basic maths for yourself, just to give you all someth
ing to get your teeth into!
|
| |
|
serchad |
Posted: 13-Nov-02 03:28 |
|
|
|
Ok, I surrender. I admit I'm stupid. Man, I don't mean to mock but I got lost 10 lines down. Now if someone here of average intelligence can say you found something meaningful and you understood the directions let me know and I'll believe that I have a chance to do the same, if I try harder. Are your directions the simplest most descriptive you could give? You could fly a spaceship to Saturn with all those instructions. |
| |
|
Kelly |
Posted: 13-Nov-02 06:30 |
|
|
|
@Mark
How do you compensate for the different kind of "spread" or scatter that different balls produce ? Some Huxley tables sometimes produce a spread up to 25-30 numbers from the kollision number. |
| |
|
FreeRoulette |
Posted: 13-Nov-02 17:22 |
|
|
|
Lets call these X(1), X(2), X(3) Y(1),Y(2),Y(3)
X(1)=10 X(2)=18 X(3)=35 (Times of revolutions)
Y(1)=207 Y(2)=151 Y(3)=42 (times of coresponding times of distance)
Place this data in the following formula>
Formula:
a = 224
b= 1001
c= 8
d= 17
e= -56
f= -109
g= .0189047619048
h= 205.095238095
i= 144.874857143
j = -7.527547619
k= 280
Time of Distance for any given number = ((Z*Z)*g)+(Z*j)+k
Lets try 21 for Z
Time of Distance =((21^2)*.0189047619048) + (21*-7.527547619) + 280
Time of Distance = 130.258500001
Conclusion:
What are we supposed to do with this information? How do we use it to
help us win ?
FreeRouletteSystems
http://viewcharts.com
[Edited by FreeRoulette on 13-Nov-02 18:23] |
| |
|
Kelly |
Posted: 13-Nov-02 23:39 |
|
|
|
@freeroulette
marks formula shows the exact landing spot for the ball. Could be very helpfull when using a computer.
But the way i read it there are no compensation for all the different physical effects that takes place at a real wheel. Deflector effect, tunneleffect, tilts that creates tunnel and deflector effect and also the spread of the ball when landing at the rotor. But maybe Mark will reveal a little more. |
| |
|
FreeRoulette |
Posted: 14-Nov-02 15:54 |
|
|
|
@Kelly
Your right, this would never work in a real casino. Maybe online if you knew exactly which number the ball started on and if the program didn't have random spin times. But in a real casino it would be next to impossible to see the exact number the spinner let go of the ball, then the spinner would have to spin it at exactly the same speed, and the ball would have to bounce exactly the same way. Yeah, the math formula is useless for roulette.
|
| |
|
Kelly |
Posted: 14-Nov-02 23:20 |
|
|
|
@freeroulette
A Visual Tracker or wheel watcher don`t need the releasepoint of the ball. Here it is something else which is important.
Playing dealers signature, you mostly need the releasepoint but a sector of 3 numbers or more is enough. You don`t need the exact number. When you look at the spread of possible numbers when hitting the rotor you see why. It doesn`t really matter if your releasepoint is 1 or 2 numbers incorrect.
I also spoke to a real expert on these ballistic computers, and he told me that the second order polymnial is not the perfect one. Thorpes was better (Exponentialfunktion x(t) = a times exp(bt) + c) and second, the "learning games" took advantage of a bunch of physics that the mathematical approach didn`t.
|
| |
|
markhowy |
Posted: 15-Nov-02 18:12 |
|
|
|
Hi Everyone
Well its sorted the men out from the boys!
Freeroulette was the only one who tried the maths which coincidently work, but was phased by how to implement it?
I am trying to prove that using a computer does work, without physically giving you a demo!
The formula means that you can predict quite accurately where the ball will land on the rotor and will also predict how long it will take to within a few hundredths of a second!
As for Kelly's remarks, and I know they are is personally, the formula you state from Ed thorpe is not the true formula because it is dealing with exponentials, which are a mathematically growing number and could not possibly take into account friction of the ball and air resistance. You are using an exact mathematical model using exact growth functions! The method I have used gives an exact relation to the observed data, its called 'downloading'. May I also add that reference to the correct polynomial for any data, this means any data by the way (From planetary motion to pendulum motion) can be applied if the correct order of polynomial is used. The way to find this is using the least squared fit, which calculates error differences in other orders. The info can be found out From Computaional numerical anslysis-publisher Harper collins. This is the same formulas used at NASA and it gives good reference to their uses in all areas of applied formulas to Data.
What your friend has stated is merely conjecture without any argument!
May I also add that Ed Thorpe could have never found out if his equation was correct(which it is not) because at the time of him building his roulette computer, digital technology did not exist, only analogue, which if you know as much as you claim, cannot produce very accurate results. This is probably why they never made any money with the system. It may also help you to know that if Ed thorps formula was correct that the formula I have just stated would be just as correct as it mimics physical observation, it can also mimic other formulas. So your friend again has made a fool of himself!
With regards spreading of the numbers and how to use the ballistic approach. Well you will need a small pocket computer. All you have to do is record on the computer all the timings, using a diamond as a marker. So you click every time the ball passes this point!
Then when the ball finally hits the rotor you do a final click!
Now pick three timings spread out within this data like 'Freeroulette' did and calculate the coresponding times of the distances, which is the time you have left after each timing! And find the values of the polynomial.
Now if you write a small program that can take a timing of just one revolution of the ball and place it in the play mode formula, it will tell you to around a few hundredths of a second how long the ball will take to hit the rotor! You also know the distances in revolutions, so you can also introduce this into another formula, so this will tell you how many revolutions the ball will go!
Now you go into the casino, and take the one timing of a full revolution of the ball from any marker you wish,and any revolution you wish, and the computer predicts not only the balls time of distance, but also its distance! If you doubt me or lack the understanding, go and present this info to a physics teacher to confirm!
Now all you need to do is work out the rotor speed and deceleration, I will save this info for a later date though!
Well now we deal with the scatter, sometimes the ball can have a spread of 25-30 numbers claims Kelly? HHHmm well I 'am sure that most of us have seen the ball travel right round the wheel ,sometimes twice, so Kelly's not such a keen observer afterall!
Now if anyone can try this simple experiment, go to the casino, watch where the ball comes down and hits the rotor, then record where it finishes up, you will have a graph like the one on my site>
http://predictroulette.com
The section in red is where the ball is predicted to hit, the hump that follows is the scatter, this always happens, no matter how many diamonds, or what type of wheel, or ball, all that changes is the spread of the pattern. But what is constant is that the ball will always show a profit at the place it hits the rotor first. And as you
can see from the graph, the highest point is the place it first touches. For Kelly's benifit, this is called a classic bell shaped distribution curve and occurs in everything in nature.
Now if you take the total number of bets you will have palced in the casino filling in your graph, and divide it by the exact hitpoint of where the ball hits the rotor, you will have a tremedous profit, 100% on Huxley wheels on average.
Please go and try this in the casino!
As for freeroulettes result of 130.25etc, it would have been more accurate if the info was from a true second order polynomial, but I made the data up and it is still pretty close! But I did mention this earlier about this decrepency.
so now with the computer, you can show a profit! |
| |
|
markhowy |
Posted: 15-Nov-02 18:26 |
|
|
|
You wrote this in agreement with Kelly>
YoYour right, this would never work in a real casino. Maybe online if you knew exactly which number the ball started on and if the program didn't have random spin times. But in a real casino it would be next to impossible to see the exact number the spinner let go of the ball, then the spinner would have to spin it at exactly the same speed, and the ball would have to bounce exactly the same way. Yeah, the math formula is useless for roulette.
All you need to do when you have the data of a fullset of timings is go into play mode using the second formula. You can take the timings of any revolution, either one at the end, or one in the middle, it will still tell you the time of distance and the numbers of revolutions. The formula interpolates all the values of any timing of the ball you enter, thats how it works.
so for a good time after you have your polynomial, you can make a prediction by taking ANY TIMING OF A FULL REVOLUTION of the ball, even if they change groupier, or spin fast, or slow!
This is the beauty of the formula and using a computer!
Turn your pushbike upside down, and spin the wheel, take the timings of the full revolutions of the bike wheel until it comes to rest, and then enter it into the formula. Now spin it again, take one timing of a full revolution, and the formula will predict its time of deceleration until it comes to rest, or its distance! It will always work! |
| |
|
Kelly |
Posted: 15-Nov-02 20:37 |
|
|
|
Well i have no foundation to say whether the formula is correct or not. Thorpes formula should incorporate any kind of tilt through a Sinus-Cosinus-Funktion. Im not sure incorporate is the correct word but i have to translate it from another language.
As for the ball going going round the wheel for a full round i think you refer to the so called "rollers". Of course i have seen them but they are not what im talking about. You can make a diagram where you note the kollision number (number direct under the kollision diamond) in this case i would probably note the actual number that was hit on the rotor and then the outcome number. You then note amount of pockets between these 2 numbers. Then you can, after some spins, see how big the difference is between the actual outcome numbers. And here im talking about up to 25-30 numbers in worst case scenarios, but also less than that. In most cases there will be a "most probably" value you can transfer to the actual prognose. And this is different from wheel to wheel/ball (teflon/ivorine and so on)
Having said that, i still think your computer has a positiv pay out but whether you can hit 1 in 18 i don`t know, maybe. Could be good fun to see in real life. I worked in London in 1988-89-90 and used to play at the Sportsmans Club. I occasionally go back on vacation, maybe you will show me next time, although i probably won`t buy anything no matter how good it is. I prefer to play without computer.
Just another thing, if the wheel has a small tilt, it usually cause a sharp decelleration when leaving the top of the wheel and causes the ball to hit only a few diamonds although they should all have the same probability. If the ball gets over the tilt it would get another small acceleration just on the other side. Can your computer compensate for that ? |
| |
|
FreeRoulette |
Posted: 16-Nov-02 00:16 |
|
|
|
@markhowy
@markhowy
I'm still confused.
Given the formula will tell you exactly where the ball will land. Pretend the roulette wheel is not spinning, only the ball. If you spin it from any place on the wheel, you can predict where the ball will land. Suppose it always lands at the 95 degree mark in the #32 slot. Now, do the same thing when the wheel is spinning. It will still land in the same place, but in a different number slot.
What do you have to do with this ballistics computer? You click in the times and it will tell you how long it will take to land and how many revolutions it needs, but how can you know which number it will land on without knowing the starting reference point in relationship to the spinning wheel?
FreeRoulette
http://viewcharts.com
|
| |
|
markhowy |
Posted: 17-Nov-02 17:38 |
|
|
|
Hi Everyone
First of all Kelly, what I am getting at is the frequency of all this misses. Saying the spread is 25-30 is not good enough in mathematics, the frequency must be incorporated. So you need to know how much each discrepency actually is!
Its called the frequency!
And if you ever come to the sportsman, I will come and meet you if I aqm not busy and show you the system!
As for Freeroulette, now we have the timings of the ball and can predict where it lands. So now we need to now where the wheel is in relation to this.
This can also be done using the computer, its a little more complex to discuss here, but you get the same mathematical results as with the ball.
So you take a timing of the ball, then one of the rotor using the zero as a marker when it goes pass your timing point, the computer then calculates where the rotor will be when the ball will land and how many revs the rotor has gone. So if the rotor is travelling anti clockwise an goes 9.4 and the computer calculates that the ball has gone 14.5 clockwise you just simply add these two values together. So 9.4+14.5=23.8 . So the ball finishes up 0.9 pass the zero in a clockwise direction would be the number 35!
And before you ask, the computer does deal with the ball and rotor going in the opposite direction! Even if the casino reverses every spin! |
| |
|
markhowy |
Posted: 17-Nov-02 17:40 |
|
|
|
Hi Everyone
First of all Kelly, what I am getting at is the frequency of all this misses. Saying the spread is 25-30 is not good enough in mathematics, the frequency must be incorporated. So you need to know how much each discrepency actually is!
Its called the frequency!
And if you ever come to the sportsman, I will come and meet you if I aqm not busy and show you the system!
As for Freeroulette, now we have the timings of the ball and can predict where it lands. So now we need to now where the wheel is in relation to this.
This can also be done using the computer, its a little more complex to discuss here, but you get the same mathematical results as with the ball.
So you take a timing of the ball, then one of the rotor using the zero as a marker when it goes pass your timing point, the computer then calculates where the rotor will be when the ball will land and how many revs the rotor has gone. So if the rotor is travelling anti clockwise an goes 9.4 and the computer calculates that the ball has gone 14.5 clockwise you just simply add these two values together. So 9.4+14.5=23.9 . So the ball finishes up 0.9 pass the zero in a clockwise direction would be the number 35!
And before you ask, the computer does deal with the ball and rotor going in the opposite direction! Even if the casino reverses every spin! |
| |
|
Kelly |
Posted: 18-Nov-02 14:44 |
|
|
|
I will take you up on your offer, Mark, could be good fun. But if you are getting caught, i don`t know you  .
In 89 we played a game where the croupier was in on it. All we needed to know was his release point and we could safely place our bets. We made a hit in 3 out of 4, betting 7 units x-3-3. I came from Denmark and at the time my English was very bad. So i would play the unknowing tourist, dum, deaf and almost blind. Talking to the croupiers and pit bosses while placing bets on the x-3-3 and a couple of small bets on the EC`s and dozens, taking notes like a system player. Actually i played a system on the Ec`s that i thought would work long term... that was then this is now. |
| |
|
markhowy |
Posted: 19-Nov-02 09:42 |
|
|
|
Hi Kelly
Well give me a shout when you visit, and by the way it is totally legal in the UK , but they obviously don't like you doing this!
I will look into Ed thorpes formula somemore and give you some feedback as to wether and if it could be used!
There's alot more intelligent people out there though relating to gambling that know 20 times what Ed thorpe ever knew! He was just around at a time and point in History when he publisized for his work, but if you read his books you will find that card counting was really his game, but his arrogance thought that he was some gambling guru in every field, which he is NOT!
I only deal with Roulette, thats it, and dabble with predicting the stock market, I only claim that I have developed a system that works very well for roulette, because I have, My ego in the field of gambling only goes this far, and my friends repute me as some what of an expert in this field! I am no good at playng Poker, blackjack, or any other gambling game!
I recently have spoken to a Russian from the Ukraine, His ideas that he has put forward in just a very short time are excellent, and these are the people that will possibly take the roulette prediction game a little further!
Soon the game will very acessible to predict, and then the laws will change, but until then ,you can still take money from the casinos with ease!
Maybe you always will find a way , who knows! |
| |
|
FreeRoulette |
Posted: 20-Nov-02 16:24 |
|
|
|
@markhowy
You gave us the formula to calculate where the ball will land in relation to it's starting point. = ((Z*Z)*g)+(Z*j)+k
Now we have to add the distance the wheel is spining to the distance the marble travels. That distance from the starting number should tell us around which number the ball will land. Lets say it's margin of error is one or two numbers from our guess.
Now the ball will bounce. Pretend the ball is exactly the same anywhere roulette is played weight, density, etc, we need the average distance the ball will bounce given that the ball can bounce at an infinite amount of points inside the domain of [directly into the slot.. or bouncing on the top of the number divider].
I think we need those two other formulas to make an educated guess.
Do you have those?
|
| |
|
markhowy |
Posted: 20-Nov-02 20:05 |
|
|
|
Hi Freeroulette
WEll I bet you want the other two formulas, alot more people have emailed me for them too!
But I was only trying to prove that it is feasible mathematically, and so is the wheel bit! I am not here to give away the secrets that have made me so wealthy in the begining, just a taster to show how simple it really is!
Imagine that the rotor is always traveling at a constant speed, driven by a motor!
We know the time of the distance the ball is going to travel, lets call this A=12.4 secs, and also the distance, Lets call this B=15.3 revolutions! This info has come from one timing of the ball X!
So now we wait for the zero, click, then zero again, click again!
We now have X -the timing of the ball, y -the timing between the timing of the ball and the rotor, Z- the timing of one rev of the rotor!
So if the wheel is going at a constant speed, the formula would be>
A-Y/Z=P the position of the rotor and number of revolutions it has made.
incorporate this into the next formula>
P+B=F the fraction of the rotor where the ball has hit!
It can be minus or positive from the Zero, it does not matter ,because the computer can deal with both scenarios!
This is assuming that the wheel is constant, but its not, the wheel slows down graduately, so it will not do so many revolutions as in the above example!
I will not divulge any more info regards this method, there is alot more though!
And also Freeroulette, it does not matter about different balls, the computer is using a 2nd order polynomial every 20 spins to set the equations up, so if they change the ball, guess what, the polynomial changes to suit the data and outcome, even if they change wheels,size of balls, the polynomial is always changing with the data it observes!
Have fun/
You can lead the horse to the trough, but you can't make it drink!
I think I have given you all enough info!
|
| |
|
markhowy |
Posted: 20-Nov-02 20:10 |
|
|
|
Hi Freeroulette
Another thing, try going to the casino like I said, and fill in hit points of where the ball hits the rotor, and where it finishes up! I am sure if you do this that you will be able to see a pattern appearing that proves conclusively that the ball will land more in the place it will hit, than anywhere else!
Try it if you do not believe me! There will be an high spot, every time, on any wheel! even with all the scatter of infinate bounces, like you claim!LOL
The proof is in the casino, not with my words! |
| |
|
FreeRoulette |
Posted: 21-Nov-02 13:18 |
|
|
|
Hey markhowy,
It's not really a secret, it just physics, the ball mattter, not because of the travel time, but because of how it bounces. What your says is a good idea, to make a guess based on what the ball did in the past. I'm just wondering, does that machine have three clickers on it? To time each thing, the ball, wheel, and some kind of bounce deviation? I've never seen a roulette machine. How accurate is it? Out of 20 spins, how many times does it guess the correct number?
|
| |
|
markhowy |
Posted: 21-Nov-02 18:43 |
|
|
|
I am not making a guess Freeroulette, just as the mathematics on this topic that I showed you and others does NOT MAKE A GUESS, it calculates!
Just like it did when you tried it!
I am obviously wasting my time talking to you directly, and you have not bothered even to look up classical mathematical bell shaped distributions patterns, if you did the research, you might find out what you are looking for, but your just tell me attitude is feeble, and if you showed a little more promise with contents of your mail, I may have told you?
For the rest of the people who have read the thread, I hope that it has been informative for you, and that you all have a clearer understanding of the ballistic approach, and hopefully the understanding to see how it works!
All have a good week! |
| |
|
FreeRoulette |
Posted: 21-Nov-02 21:05 |
|
|
|
Markhowy,
I think you are totally avoiding my questions. You can not calculate the random bounce of a marble, the bell curve doesn't tell you exactly, it give a range. That's all I was wondering is what kind of range you get. I know for a fact that your computer does not pin point what number the ball will land in, so it's making a estimation of where the ball with land. That's calculated guess work. You want us to believe the marble lands in the exact slot, based on one formula, which in itself is not enough to come to the conclusion that the machine works.
|
| |
|
Kelly |
Posted: 21-Nov-02 23:30 |
|
|
|
I don`t know how Marks computer works, but i would imagine that it would be something like the player without computer. When it comes to the bouncing of the ball. The "normal" ballistic guy would be, if betting 1 unit each time, have a hit 1 in 25 times which means that 24 spins would be wrong mainly because of the bouncing. It is still way positive because you know which half of the wheel it lands in and also know which small sector is most likely. Randomness will take care of the rest. With all the normal fluktaitions that comes along. 2 or 3 hits in 20 spins or no hits in 40 spins. The probabilitis is moved in the players favour so sooner or later you will win. Just like the casinos will win in a classical system sooner or later. |
| |
|
markhowy |
Posted: 28-Nov-02 17:56 |
|
|
|
Listen freeroulette to what I say, take in what Isay, go and try it in the casino for yourself, the maths can predict quite accurately where the ball will come down and hit the rotor, that bit I have proved! So all you need to do to back up your opinion is to go into the casino FILL IN WHERE THE BALL HITS THE ROTOR AND THEN WHERE IT FINISHES UP! And come back to me with your results!
A classical bell shaped distibution curve predicts trends very accurately in everything in daily life, from electronics to economic trends, from mathematical trends, social trends etc!
I do not know your background, nor really wish to know, but your lack of understanding with simple mathematics makes my task almost impossible and extremely frustrating!
DO not reply to things you do not understand, you are only making a fool out of yourself! |
| |
|
bebini2002 |
Posted: 30-Nov-02 11:45 |
|
|
|
Hi there!
I found another good formula, but it costs...
This guy is great, I made on demo money over 12,000 bucks.
It's fantastic how to play without loosing...
Check this out: http://bcinc.freeyellow.com |
| |
|
FreeRoulette |
Posted: 02-Dec-02 14:04 |
|
|
|
markhowy I understand what your trying to say, I want to know what the math equations are, so I can see for myself if they actually work. You gave me part of it and want me to believe the rest. The only specific information I got was the first equation which is not enough to put the whole system into play. Thanks for the first part anyway.
|
| |
|
Kelly |
Posted: 03-Dec-02 00:22 |
|
|
|
@freeroulette
I hate to blend in between you and Mark but i don`t see how you are going to use the algoritmes in real play. If you put them into some software yes, but otherwise no.
You can predict where the ball is going to hit the diamond and which part of the wheel is below at that point. From there on statistics and "distribution curve" will show where the most likely outcome number is. There are no way anyone or anything is going to predict exactly how the ball "scatter" on the rotor in a specific spin, but thats not nessecary either.
The wheel watcher coordinates ball speed and rotor speed by watching a fix point at the wheel. Depending on the speed of rotor/ball the fix point might sometimes have to be moved sideways to predict correct. The less round allowed before "no more bets", the more incorrect the prediction.
See Scott and Basieux for more info. |
| |
|
FreeRoulette |
Posted: 04-Dec-02 14:43 |
|
|
|
@Kelly
From the statistics and "distribution curve", do you know the average range the ball travels from the time it lands? I know it's based on speed.
On another subject, computers are not purely random. Are there programs that predict where the ball will land given that you spin at the correct time? The program would have to account for connection speed, and based on past results figure out the gambling computer's timing, then be able to align it's own timing and project what the ball will do on a future spin, then spin the ball at that exact time in the future.
|
| |
|
markhowy |
Posted: 04-Dec-02 17:30 |
|
|
|
Hi Freeroulette
The whole purpose of this thread was to prove that once you have the polynomial,the polynomial will give you the Time of distance and the distance of the ball!
You state that you would have to get the exact time again to give a the exact same result( Iam trying to understnad your logic), but I was trying to explain that with polynomials, you could enter the timng ,3.234567, it would still calcualte the exact position and the distance of the ball and the time it took to travel, its time of distance!
Again you have not looked at classic distibution curves, which I asked you to do, sheer laziness!
The number that the computer predicts is the exact , most frequent number that the ball is likely to go in, this is based on observation and computer calcs, IN OTHER WORDS IT IS NOT ONLY ITS POSITION THAT THE BALL LANDS IN, BUT ALSO ITS FREQUENCY( THE NUMBER OF TIMES THAT IT LANDS IN THIS POSITION). This is always the case the high point of the classic distribution curve, it is unique to every roulette wheel and is its signature. It can be found very quickly by observation and logic ! As long as you take your timings reasonably acurrate, then you will be hittlng the high point of the curve!
Hope you go away and do some studying before you reply!
speak to you soon!
|
| |
|
Kelly |
Posted: 04-Dec-02 23:27 |
|
|
|
@Freeroulette
Like Mark says, the distribution curve is uniqe to each wheel. Also the distribution curve for a specific wheel changes when you change the ball. The croupier has also influence. A swap of both means new measurements. Also when only switching ball. |
| |
