Interesting question for the AP crew

[Mr J]

I was thinking about this. Methods cant work blah blah blah. Okay, we got that out of the way. There are SOME people that get a casino ban for winning (roulette) long term. I'm not talking about cheating or AP (cough), I'm referring to playing METHODS. Well, how can this be possible? I cant wait to read the 'cover' answers to this question >>> "but Ken, you see its because of this..."

Ken

[pins]

at roulette  there is no system that a casino would not let you play. people are banned for other reasons they may claim to have been banned for winning at roulette but i do not believe that. people win small fortunes every day at the tables, how would you get your money back if you banned them.  and they will lose in the long run that is the certainty.

[Mr J]

Because I cant name names and give dates, it has never happened? There are a TON of members here and on other boards. No one has known a person (or heard a story) of someone being banned for winning long term in roulette? In the history of LV/AC, it has never happened? We read stories about keeping a 'low profile' when winning? Why would that be necessary if its a FACT that the person would lose it back to the casino in the future? I guess my point is, why keep a low profile (when winning long term with a method) if its not needed?

Ken

[John Gold]

Mr J, here is my personal experience from the UK.
A few casinos here are independant and not owned by a big chain who probably have a casino in every city.
These smaller joints are a lot more likely to ban someone if they consider them a threat to the bottom line.
The bottom line could mean you are just grinding out a weekly profit. They don't want someone on the payroll who is just going to sit there and drink their coffee all day. In some of these smaller places, you may not even get the chance to grind out a profit. If they suspect you of clocking wheels or attempting to use any kind of AP play, you could be history.
The bigger chains are a bit more forgiving to the grinders/AP guys. They know what to do in order to put you of your game. That may include speeding up the game or distracting you. These guys however will still not tolerate big winners. If you have the potential to take out a nights profit on a regular basis, then chances are you will also be history. Keeping a low profile and not killing the golden goose has a lot to be said for it.
I can understand where pins is coming from, casinos can ban you for many things. Bad personal hygiene, agressive and insulting behaviour, getting drunk on the premises too often, continually complaining, intimidating the dealers, them insinuating you may have a gambling problem. The list is endless. The great thing for them is they don't even really need to give you a reason. If you do get banned from a casino for whatever reason, then you need to ask yourself what went wrong, because in one way or another, you have drawn unwanted attention on yourself. I used to think it was cool getting banned from a casino. The reality is that it can be a pain in the ass.

[cheese]

The problem is, they will never tell you why you were banned, even if its counting cards. If they banned you from your local casino, they would say your play is no longer welcome and see you to the door. You could ask till your blue in the face, threaten to sue them, whatever, they still won't tell you. They don't have to. So yes, people could have been banned for getting lucky at roulette, but even they wouldn't know they were banned for that reason. What you want to do is, always be pleasant, talk to the pit crew, get to know them on a first name basis. Tip the dealers on a regular basis, get to know them too. The last thing you want is for them to not like you. If they see you as a friendly face, they are far more likely to look the other way. On the other hand, if you're always grumpy and complaining, never tip, argue a lot, and are a general pain to them, they're already not on your side and getting rid of you would be just fine to them.

[Mr J]

I dont feel like starting another AP (cough) thread but it is AP (cough) related. The author is Al Krigman and is an excellent read. Agree, not agree? >>>

More esoteric systems involve detecting irregularities in the apparatus which make some results more likely than normal, then betting accordingly. If such bias existed, and were great enough, players could indeed gain an edge. Here's how this might work.

In an unbiased double-zero game, the probability of each number is 1/38 or 2.63 percent. Paying 35-to-1, the house has a 5.26 percent edge. Say the bottom of one slot was spongy or the frets around it were high, raising its probability of winning to 3 percent. Bets on this number would have an 8 percent edge.

What if a wheel were tilted in some way favoring half the grooves? Ordinarily, bets on each of 19 numbers have 50-50 chance of losing $19 or winning $17 - giving the house its usual 5.26 percent edge. Instead, assume the bias creates 53 percent chance the ball will land on a known half of the wheel. Now betting on each number in that half gives the player 0.42 percent edge.

BIASED WHEEL SYSTEMS HOLD IN THEORY BUT FAIL IN PRACTICE. Roulette wheel construction and maintenance make large biases unlikely, and problems such as broken bearings would be noticed immediately and result in a game being shut down. Small biases require numerous observations and complex calculations before solid citizens can be confident that the effect is not random; even then, they may shift the edge toward the player too little to be significant during a session of reasonable duration.

The example of the bias on a single number involved a 0.37 percent increase in probability. To be 95 percent confident in detecting this small an anomaly, data would have to be analyzed from roughly 71,000 spins. A 99 percent confidence level would require about 122,500 spins. Neither is even remotely feasible.

The second example involved a hefty 3 percent change in probability. To be 95 percent confident of detecting this large a bias, a player would have to analyze data from only 1,100 spins. To be 99 percent confident of the bias before going for broke on the favored half of the wheel, data would have to be analyzed from 1,850 spins. These many observations might be possible, for instance with a team of trained observers monitoring results and relaying the data to their computer experts for analysis. But this doesn't account for the time wasted checking unbiased wheels. Further, this much bias is unlikely to occur or persist - and still only gives players under half a percent advantage.

[Kelly]

What if a wheel were tilted in some way favoring half the grooves? Ordinarily, bets on each of 19 numbers have 50-50 chance of losing $19 or winning $17 - giving the house its usual 5.26 percent edge. Instead, assume the bias creates 53 percent chance the ball will land on a known half of the wheel. Now betting on each number in that half gives the player 0.42 percent edge.

A tilted wheel doesn`t favour any numbers at all, i don`t know where he gets his infos from.

A tilted rotor gives a "wobble" and could favour some numbers but BY FAR NEVER 1/2 a wheel, one would need to only bet on the numbers that has established an edge, not the entire half because also the donating numbers would be covered and taking away the edge from the receiving numbers.  Again, wishfull thinking from Kriegmann that also believes that quit when ahead will always work.

[Mr J]

A) BIASED WHEEL SYSTEMS HOLD IN THEORY BUT FAIL IN PRACTICE.

B) Roulette wheel construction and maintenance make large biases unlikely, and problems such as broken bearings would be noticed immediately and result in a game being shut down.

C) even then, they may shift the edge toward the player too little to be significant during a session of reasonable duration.

D) To be 95 percent confident in detecting this small an anomaly, data would have to be analyzed from roughly 71,000 spins. A 99 percent confidence level would require about 122,500 spins. Neither is even remotely feasible.

E) data would have to be analyzed from 1,850 spins.

F) But this doesn't account for the time wasted checking unbiased wheels.

G) Further, this much bias is unlikely to occur or persist - and still only gives players under half a percent advantage.


I love this Al Krigman guy! I should send him a Christmas card.

Ken

[Mr J]

I re-read this article again. Point 'F' is fantastic and VERY correct.

Ken

[Mike]

The points are correct as far as they go, it isn't practical or effective to rely soley on stats to find a biased wheel. But this guy Krigman is just regurgitating everything the casinos want you to believe, and he clearly hasn't done any real research. The points assume a very simplistic approach, there are many more types of bias than he has indicated in the list, and more efficient ways of detecting them.

[Mr J]

The question being.....can a person WASTE their time looking for a bias wheel including ALL the time charting?

Ken

[Mike]

You could say the same thing about testing methods other than AP. Even if you stick to just collecting numbers (which I wouldn't recommend) you may have to spend 200 hours before you find a wheel which you're confident has some bias, but it may be time well spent if you then make 10 times what you would have made working in a "normal" job for the same length of time. How many hundreds of hours do YOU spend researching systems which are ultimately losers? I bet if you totalled it up over the years the hourly rate of return wouldn't be that great.

[schoenpoetser]

Looking for biased or tilted roulette wheels in dutch casinos is waisting your time.You cannot banned if you win a lot In Holland is Rob Hollink a legend.He claims he is banned in several casinos long ago.I am convinced a profitpercentage of 0-2% is possible on a 0 wheel with a good strategy.I shall never play on a 00-wheel.
On internet there is another problem.Playing a strategy and waiting 2 or more spins for a  chance to wager you become a warning "you will be banned if you do not wager".You have to bet every spin.In that case I bet a small unit on RED and Black with the risk I will lose one unit if zero landed. The livecasinos on internet have  the objection of a very small display.
For my strategy I need at least the latest 10 numbers.

[John Gold]

I have never seen a warning like that schoenpoetser and I play at most of them. What tends to happen is that they will log you out if you don't place a bet for 10 spins or so.
I wonder what threat VB poses to the online live casinos? One particular online casino I play at has changed a few procedures just lately. They used to spin from the very last number all the time. Now the croupier spins the ball from something like halfway round the wheel on every other spin. In fact they are being coached when to throw the ball. You can see they are watching for approval from someone in front of the wheel for when to spin.
I suppose this could be an indication that they may be cheating in some way as well, I would not rule that out.
This is probably what to expect from Costa Rican outfits on the whole.

[Nathan Detroit]

..................................why play  ON-LINE with all those pit falls ?


N.D.

[Nathan Detroit]

-