The Fortune Maker Tackles Roulette

[Bayes]

This is a short review of a book called "The Fortune Maker Tackles Roulette" (available on Amazon @ $13.99).

You'll need to buy the book to see the details fleshed out, but the basic idea, and the heart of the method, is the following:

Collect some spins, the author recommends at least 1000 from each wheel, and for each number:

calculate how much you would have won (for all spins) betting the previous number and its neighbours - for 2 neighbours, then another 2, then another 2 etc, so you are doing the calculations for betting on  3,5,7,11,13,15,17,19,21 numbers. e.g. if your spin sequence from a wheel started - 23,4,13,29... you would compute your winnings betting 3,5,7 etc numbers centred around 23. Number 4 came up next, which would have been a loss for all, because even betting 21 numbers this would encompass a sector from 25 through to 9, which doesn't include number 4.

Having done all this, the next step is to make a comparison between the amount of numbers you would have bet, in terms of how much each would have won. The amount of numbers which gave the best performance will be the amount of numbers to bet (the last number spun and its neighbours). You then play that wheel using those numbers.

Obviously, to make a direct comparison, you need to "equalize" the results, because if you're betting 15 numbers then this is going to cost you more than if only betting 5. ie; 5 numbers @ $1 per number = $5, and 15 numbers @ $1 per number = $15. So in order to compare the two, you need to raise the bet level of the 5 number strategy to $3 per number ($3 × 5 = $15).

The multiplier is actually referenced to the maximum number of number you would play ie; 21.

So,

21 numbers @ $1 = $21
19 numbers @ $1.1053 = $21
17 numbers @ $1.2353 = $21
15 numbers @ $1.4000 = $21

etc.

Do this for each number you've collected, and record the results. You should then be able to determine, on the basis of a direct comparison, which (if any) number strategy is best for that wheel - whether 3,5,7 etc numbers should be played.

The idea is that IF any kind of bias is present, this analysis will pick it up. It is recommended that even if you don't collect 1000 numbers, you should always do what he calls a "dry run" before playing any wheel. This means collecting 37 numbers (one "cycle") and doing the above analysis. If any number strategy stands out as being particularly profitable, then by all means play it.

The author emphasises that it may not be the case that you have found any bias even if a strategy is suggested by the data generated by the dry run (37 spins is too small a sample) - it may just be "luck". However, there are also detailed explanations of how to closely monitor your results while playing, so you know when to quit.

It's not necessary, the author maintains, to know the cause of the bias, and states that:

"The intriguing thing about a bias is that it means nothing, if it does not cause an incident to repeat in a given number of wheel spins"

He defines the effect of a bias as:

"an event where the ball will repeat its position within a certain segment on the face of the roulette wheel, in a given number of wheel spins...regardless of the reason."

And this provides the rationale for the method described.

So that's basically it. Obviously, to do all these calculations by hand would be incredibly time-consuming and tedious, so you'll need to set up a spreadsheet or write a computer program. The author gives a url where you can download tools, but this seems to no longer exist.

The author also recommends studying the data to try to find other kinds of bias which are not necessarily keyed to the last number played. For example, you might notice that the number 5 has hit twice in a cycle (37 spins), and it's conceivable that the ball tried to get into this pocket on other occasions but didn't quite make it. Examining the data might reveal this to be so, in which case you might decide to target 5 and surrounding numbers. The above scenario might have occurred for more than one number, so you could end up playing more than one sector.

It would have been better if there were some guidelines on how to find statistical significance in the data, instead of merely telling you to pick the sector which won the most, which isn't very rigorous. Also, if you can't determine the cause of the bias, you're on shaky ground, but this isn't easy. Presumably, if you can do it, so can the casinos, that's why they have regular maintenance schedules.

However, in spite of these limitations,  the book is worth reading. There are chapters on money management and detailed charts showing, for each number strategy (whether playing 3,5,7 etc) whether you are in the "win zone" and if so what is the strength of the bias.

[I have cookies]

I like this post - many times I been thinking about dummy bets - witch is at least a bet that place bets on numbers when tracking for visual ballistic opportunities and there is allways ways to hide and seek to improve our appearance at the table.
Even if I know many things about bias I have not walk that path yet - but by exident I find a wheel where the light reflection indicate a small defect and have start to collect data - is just that I hate just stand and collect data and look into the wheel to verify the results are acc as I don't trust the boards marque.

Well regarding this topic I notice that previous five or other variations and does neighboors actually put me at zero or with a small win and I suppose with a negative outcome as I proceed - but then I would probably have my sample to determine if the wheel has at least a strong std and high cor and if the std is not due towards random fluctuation - yes that is correct there exist one formula and simulation to eliminate with very high acc if a wheel has a valid bias or are due towards random fluctaion with or with out the help of defect spotting.

So I find this topic having not so much to do with bias - as the principal is all wrong - but I find this topic great for does who has to develop a dummy bet selection to hide and proceed with out getting notice.
Some one once suggest play only once after each time you see 8 red or black - but just does littel details playing EC and then if a valid wheel just start to play numbers is a worry - as if we  track and play numbers it will look more natural when or if their becomes a valid situation to make a real attack.

[Mike]

yes that is correct there exist one formula and simulation to eliminate with very high acc if a wheel has a valid bias or are due towards random fluctaion with or with out the help of defect spotting.

That would be quite something if such a formula exists, but I don't see how it can.  It would have to take into account all the possible kinds of bias that can exist including temporary effects like humidity, ball type etc. That would be one mother of a formula.   

[I have cookies]

That would be quite something if such a formula exists, but I don't see how it can.  It would have to take into account all the possible kinds of bias that can exist including temporary effects like humidity, ball type etc. That would be one mother of a formula.   

Well i think you blow up things in the wrong propositions.

There is does who not know the difference between a pseudo std and a actually std witch make things worse and as i notice with the knowledge i have make many common AP to end up with a trap.
Also using the actually std, cor and shi does not cut it alone as you have to verify the sample and with the help of Monte Carlo Simulations we can also know how rare or commen 3,4,5 std comes and goes as random fluctuations.
I assume when Thorp and XXXXXXX discuss this it become a valid and as i know proven method.
Then other things as conditions will allways be part of the game no matter if there was or not a opportunity for defect spotting.

[toby]

This way to test the best group to play such us 3 5 7 etc is a kind od DS, nothing relative to bias.

[I have cookies]

This way to test the best group to play such us 3 5 7 etc is a kind od DS, nothing relative to bias.

I find out that the threshold is around 15 contra 21.

[toby]

What threshold?

[toby]

-