roulette computer

[Cristov]

a

[eyeinthesky]

Ok,
Then let's make sure that we don't put our pits in a lab! Point being, aside from the devices coming in a nice little package, what is their practicality in a casino. How do you "connect" the system to the wheel, understanding that the supervisor, who may not always be a cheating specialist, is only inches from the wheel?.......the dealer's alertness, in accordance to one of Brian's comments of what a dealers "sees" on the table, movements and habits of people etc. Surley any device tracking a ball must be handled by a human to some degree.

In these tests, was it considered how the device would be handled on the floor?

I can only inform you as a casino worker that some of these devices may be dificult to work in a practical sense, despite advancing technology.

[Brian]

Christov,

Can you give us a few more details regarding Mark Anthony Howe's machine? I understand that you had no access to the code, etc., but perhaps you can outline the physical make-up of the machine itself along with a description of how the operator would input and receive data.

What was the size of the section used in your tests?

What do you mean by the machine produced an "edge of almost 70%"?

What do you mean by: "no matter how the wheel was tilted"? Surely the outcome would be affected if the wheel was jacked up to, say, 45 degrees above level?

For the card-counting devices:

Where did you obtain the devices?

How were they physically operated?

What do you mean by: "all with a gain over 2% over the house edge."?

I'll reserve my questions on your "wheel-clocking" experiments for the present.

[Cristov]

b

[Cristov]

c

[Cristov]

d

[Cristov]

e

[Brian]

Members,

Unfortunately, from time to time, this and the other forums become the targets of gambling "systems" scams. Recently, we had Bev711's goodwill message to the gambling fraternity regarding a failsafe craps system. Now, we are being treated to Christov's load of old bollocks about a roulette prediction computer that will turn up a sole predicted number 1 time in 20 spins (how come it fails the other 19 times?).

I've had a look at Mark Anthony (I come to bury your finances not to raise them) Howe's website and some of the Nowscape "roulette mail" baloney that Christov offered links to. It appears that the basic premise of the scan is that if you keep on saying that you are a scientist (horrible grammar being merely another eccentricity), throw in a few classic mathematician's names as product names, set-up a banter between yourself and a typical Russian (these Russians are very clever mathematicians and scientist, don't you know?) who can write in English but has trouble with pronouns, etc, (So he write like a "Russian" speaks, for example: "I have trouble with ball not leaving rim at predicted point." Etc.)

MA Howe tells us all about "least square fit polynomials" and other nonsense and describes how a "bunch of collage {sic} kids" came up with a device that was "stuffed into some 70's platform shoes with solenoids that would tap the sector or octant the ball was predicted to go in on the rotor". He goes on to tell us that this group of "collage" kids went on to reinvent the world, etc., etc.

This computer is not Mark Anthony Howe's crowning acheivement, though. Far from it. He has actually played God and invented his own laws and mathematical systems: "And I knew from my data and my personal manipulation of my own wheel that the 2nd order polynomial seemed to behave erratically. I later developed some more mathematics that would better suit the wheels rotor and ball, but more importantly get round the human errors of timing too!"

"Developed some more mathematics". This guy has gone where Copernicus never dreamed! He is truly the Dr. Frankenstein of the Mathematics world.

I'm not sure at this point if Christov is the Doctor himself, or some virtual Igor helping his Maaaster to bring his findings to the world.

I do know that all Christov's posts are designed to add credibility to the scam offered on MA Howe's website.

Christov will be permitted to answer these accusations for a couple of days (or until I get bored), at which point all of his posts will be removed.

[Cristov]

f

[Cristov]

d

[Cristov]

h

[Brian]

http://nowscape.com/blk/roul/Roulett...e_letters.html

http://Predictroulette.com/


Paranoid? I don't think so. The above are two of the links that Christov gave us regarding Roulette prediction computers. Both are for websites that make a bad job of promoting their "products".

There are numerous gaffs on "Mark's" website, one of the best being where a graph of his 1984 findings is supported by the detail that, the ball was travelling from left to right! This from a major scientist in the scientific community used to working out complex problems.

I can't say that I'm happy that "Christov" has removed his own posts and run away. I would have enjoyed hearing his future arguments and receiving all the extra information that he promised to send us "when he got back to the university".

Take a minute (well, it might take you two minutes if you read all the scientific data also) to have a look at the "Predict" website. It's hilarious.

{Note: The a, b, c, etc., posts by Christov are the result of his editing his former "university experiment" posts out.}

[ian]

Hello Brian,

Cristov appears to have also changed his email address after I contacted him.

He mentioned that he was half russian/lithuanian but had a very British sounding address.

This is an open Forum. It would be nice if everyone who posted was straight and up-front with us and used the service for genuine reasons.

But we live in a crazy complex world and that would appear especially true for this particular subject.

Ian

[Mark Howe]

Hi Brian

I found your prose a little disconcerting.

We can all use Microsoft's Grammar and Spellchecker, you are not the only one;-)

I would like to address to Brian in this post, primarily regards his comments on a computer system been able to work.

I can see that you amended your childish, brash attack on Cristov and my WebPages, including the comments made about the team that achieved some success in the late 1970's. The steroids must have worn off.

I am not a Web page designer, if the Web page is poor, then so be it! The Web page is there to inform people that there is a system available that can beat the roulette wheel. It is there for people to contact me and ask questions on the mathematics employed, how it works, what is the expected maximum amount one could possibly win with such a system. Most of my purchasers have been and viewed the system working.

You are just a glorified Door Supervisor with a little management skills, in the UK; your job would be described as semi-professional at the most!

But here you are Brian, condemning not only my work, but also that of the guys in the late 1970's from the book 'Newtonian Casino' by Thomas A Bass. People like Claude Shannon, Dr Edward O Thorp, Doyne Farmer, and Thomas A Bass, but to name just a few.

You are DEFINITELY NOT QUALIFIED TO JUDGE THESE PEOPLE OR ME, but you may have the chance to prove me wrong, you possibly could have majored in Mathematics, who knows, so here is some mathematics for you to check out at the end of this post.

Let everyone on this board know that you can back up your comments made on me and others with some EVIDENCE, its a lot more professional.

The other posts made by Cristov on Security, regards remote opening of the cage are employed by major banks though out the world, such a two way remote system would cost around £1000, yet you replied it was impractical. Its simple to knock someone else down in order to make oneself look intelligent, I think everyone on this board experience's and come across someone like yourself on a regular basis

A note for IAN, when you commented, if you had read all the posts, Cristov did actually say that he worked in the UK, maybe that’s why he lives in London, be thorough before you make comments.

[Mark Howe]

Here we go Brian>

1) Could this be the mathematics of the ball distance>?

N (t)=A*LN {COS(C*[t-t_beg])+B*sin(C*[t-t_beg])}, where A, B, C- constants being determined by geometry of the wheel and friction indexes but obtained from experiments, t-timings of distances, t_beg-the very first timing (zero timing).

I would be very interested to hear your comments on what the Cosine and Sine values relate to regarding ball distance.

2) This next question relates to the predictability of any roulette wheel. Is it correct, or is there a flaw in the mathematics? ;-) Read the short Paragraph.
It concerns the calculation of a minimum required prediction rate.


Say, we use some frequent, persistent, convenient pattern to set up equations and this pattern (or a set of conditions in this context) has some good scatter histogram between a reference point (that we predict) and final resting place (win number).



Let’s made some definitions:



N-total spins



P-indicates how many spins from N spins match the chosen pattern (expressed in fractions)



H-the peak value in the histogram ("NOH")



PR- prediction rate, with which we can predict the hitting diamond (and hence the reference point) using our prediction algorithm.



Say, we can predict the reference point perfectly, that is 100% of time or PR=100%. Hence, using our prediction and betting on the offset point with the highest peak on the histogram we will win in H spins. But our predicting and betting scheme will work only for P*N spins as we base on the histogram taken from these spins.

So for these P*N spins we win H*35 bets and lose P*N-H. For all the rest (N*[1-P]) spins we win

[Mark Howe]

[N*(1-P)/37] * 35 and lose N*(1-P)*36/37 according to the theory of probability.



Our advantage is equal to:



(H*35-(P*N+H) + [N*(1-P)/37] * 35- [N*(1-P)/37] * 36)/N



Or



[H*36-N*(36*P+1)/37] /N



Of course, we cannot perfectly predict the reference point so in P*N spins (when our prediction algorithm can be applied) we will win less than H. So that we could remain in positive advantage we should win:



[H*36-N*(36*P+1)/37] /N >0 gives H> [N*(36*P+1)] / (36*37)



If Hmin [ N*(36*P+1) ] / (36*37) then minimum required rate of prediction of the reference point should not be less than Hmin/H


PRmin=Hmin/H





For example, let’s look into the sheet “65”(I described it above). Let’s look for these conditions when setting up the equations and making the histogram. Say, we perfectly and ideally have set up our equation and can predict the “End Diamond” with no error. The histogram tells us to bet on a pocket located 18 numbers offset ahead from the rotor number, which will be passing under the predicted “End Diamond”. The conditions on which we count are met in 82% of time (P=0.82) or in 246(N=300, N*P=246) spins. So from 246 spins we would win in 14(H=14, see the peak value of the histogram in the best-offset point)(by our ideal prediction) and the roulette "owes" another (300-246)/37 =1.46 wins (by theory). This gives us advantage of 85.5%. (=[15.46*35-(300-15.46)]/300)

But we never can predict the diamond perfectly. To stay in a positive advantage we should win by our prediction at least on average in 6.87(just set the P, H, N into the equation for Hmin (see above) and you will get Hmin=6.87) spins otherwise we will lose. So the rate with which we should predict the diamond should not be less than PR=49%(=6.87/14 )! I would say it is rather high rate for predicting a diamond…L

The question is:

Can you steadily predict the diamond with the equations at such high rate of 49% ?


I took a look into the scatter histogram (575 spins). If you perfectly predicted the reference point in my case and bet on the 8 pocket ahead from it (where I can see the highest peak of 36) then you would win 36 spins and have an advantage of 125%! =[(36)*35-(575-36)]/575. To stay in a positive advantage you should win by your prediction at least on average in Hmin=15.97 (H=36, P=1, N=575) But your imperfect, real diamond-predicting rate should be more than PR=44%(=15.97/36) so that you could stay in a positive advantage. So you must have a rate not less than that. !

Look forward to your response, but guess you will just delete this post, for you could never challenge what I have just written. Your superiors seem to be very interested in what I am doing though?

Regards

Mark Anthony Howe

[Mark Howe]

¡§Some secondary thoughts about the influence of the ball size on the real distance offset on the rotor.¡¨

Let¡¦s simplify the movement of the ball along the rotor pocketed surface to a simple moving of a body on which some braking or friction force acts. We can assume that the main part of this force is due to the Nx (the horizontal part of the vector {N}). {N}-reaction force from the pocket divider.
So, the braking force: Fbrk=k*Nx, k-is just secondary coefficient showing the proportional dependence between Nx and Fbrk.
Using general formulas for deceleration movement we get:

dS=-d(V^2)/(2* k*Nx/m)

after taking integrals:
S=V0^2/(2* k*Nx/m),

V0-initial relative velocity between the ball and the rotor when the ball enters the rotor,

S-distance which the ball manages to travel till it finds rest. (as we have simplified the situation so in real it would be the most frequent on average distance which determines the peak on the real distance offset histogram)


Nx=|{N}|*sin(Y), the more Y the more hitting energy redistribute in favor of horizontal braking of the ball.

R*cos(Y)=R-H gives cos(Y)= (R-H)/R and sin(Y)= (2*R*H-H^2)/R^2

Hence

S=V0^2/[2*(|{N}|/m)*(2*R*H-H^2)/R^2]

If we increase the ball radius R at given H(pocket divider height) then we see that the distance S will increase.
Say, we have two balls: 21mm and 18mm diameter. R=10,5mm and R=9mm

The height of the pocket divider is 5mm(as my wheel has). H=5mm


Then finding the relative change of the averaged travelled distance with changing the balls (leaving V0 and H unchanged) we obtain that the bigger ball travels about 9% farther than the smaller one.

I think it¡¦s worth taking into account when we define the offsetsƒº))

[Brian]

Mark Howe,

I'll answer your questions after mine have been answered. Cristov failed to. Will you?

On your website you wrote: "Ball travelling from left to right hits the rotor at the area marked 'B'" (under the graph in the "my system' section.)

What did you mean by, "Ball travelling from left to right"?

How were you able to develop "more mathematics"? Do you mean that the mathematics you used was not in existence until you developed it?

Do you know Cristov personally? Have you ever met or corresponded with him?

You wrote:

"We can all use Microsoft's Grammar and Spellchecker, you are not the only one;-)

I would like to address to Brian in this post, primarily regards his comments on a computer system been able to work."

What did you mean by: "...been able to work"?

If you will answer these questions and perhaps one follow up question, I'd be more than happy to answer your mathematics queries.

[ian]

Hello Mark,

So you got my email to Cristov then. I wondered why you both had the same ISP number. Where is he by the way?

So you have all the mathematics and your little device for predicting the outcome of a spin. How are you going to make it work in the casino environment and do you use the device yourself.

If so, do you keep records of your trips and how much you have won?

Ian

[gra]

I've been working on a few calculations myself -

If you take - [H*36-N*(36*P+1)/37] /N

then add - [N*(1-P)/37] * 36)/N

now divide this by - (H*35-(P*N+H) + [N*(1-P)/37]

= 1k ea.



no....not Ikea....but price per unit I need to shift this crate load of calculators!

Anyone seen Cristov?

[Mark Howe]

Hi Brian

I am not one of your staff you are talking too, you moron?

You said>
Answer my questions, then I will answer yours.

A feeble attempt to absolve from attempting to discredit my mathematics, which you are incapable of achieving.

You have definitely got an attitude problem, but that's always been the case with door supervisors.

A small percentage of the mathematics has been presented to prove that my system is certainly not a scam!

Your reply is enough for me to say that I have simply won the case, you have not replied to the most fundamental of mathematical questions relating to roulette!

I rest my case!

@IAN

You have part of the evidence in mathematics submitted to verify that a roulette computer is feasible, and you diverge by commenting incorrectly that my ISP address is the same as Cristov's. Nice guess, but wrong!

I have a sneaky suspicion that Cristov is actually you guys, nice try boys! Ignoring my emails at Cristov's address was the give-away, you should have also employed someone who knew what they were talking about, and their maths was incredibly poor!


To both of you, enjoy working in Security, some people are successful, others are just middle of the road!

Goodbye.

[anin]

Mr Howe seems to be a little too sensitive to legitimate questions about the practicalities of his device. Could his replies be another case of bull sh**t trying to baffle brains? If the mathematics were so good and the actual device as easy to use to gain the advantage quoted why sell it? Why waste good earning time to market it?
IMHO we are moving from the printed “how to win systems” to the electronic. The same principals are in place. The system does not give the returns expected when put to use by the developers so they market it as a sure fire way of beating the casino and allow others to take the risk while they have a guaranteed return on their investment from the sales.
If the device is as sound as Mr Howe would like us to believe he would stay on the forum and answer any question on it that the members pose!!!!
anin

[ian]

Hello Mark,

The ISP number for Cristov
195.92.168.163 (webcacheB01a.cache.pol.co.uk)


The ISP for you
195.92.168.168 (webcacheB06a.cache.pol.co.uk)

Not quite a match. But likely to be on the same network.

The Forum has a very comprehensive control panel. This information is normally used to help control spammers.


I asked how do you use your device. Do you use it yourself and do you keep records of your wins.

Quite simple really. No need to start ranting.

Ian

[Brian]

Mark Howe,

Quote: "You said> Answer my questions, then I will answer yours."

No. I have outstanding questions that you, in your post-graduate university scientist Cristov guise, failed to answer. I think it only fair that you respond to those questions before I respond to yours.

Quote: "...you should have also employed someone who knew what they were talking about, and their maths was incredibly poor!"

A mathematical question for you: What is the formula for measuring the arc taken by the grammatical banana-shot above?

The fact is that you are "Cristov". You came on here expecting to have an easy time of promoting your ridiculous website and the product it offers and you got shot down in about a day. You thought we'd all buy "Cristov's" claptrap about testing roulette systems and discovering yours to be the only one that worked (which UK university is going to spend money on four roulette wheels for such a pointless experiment). You still believe that by coming on here as Mark Howe and arguing a long-lost toss that you can hope to salvage any credibility. Surely, as a "major scientist and inventor in the scientific community" (no credentials proffered) used to tackling complex problems you can see that the probability of anyone buying your device after reading this forum may be worked out using the following mathematics:

Shot > 1 + 999,999 : 1

BTW, your "mathematics" look like a load of old rubbish too. I poured over them and scrutinized them minutely for hours. NOWHERE did I find the co-efficient for the vector of the average velocity of the bigger ball that would allow for the 'Did you see that? The friggin thing bounced right out of zero!' effect. In addition, your:

dS=-d(V^2)/(2* k*Nx/m)

stands in flagrant violation of Sod's Law. And where do you get off presenting us with roulette mathematics that allow for changes in air temperature and air pressure and that fail to take into account slipperiness of wheel polish used?

Please restate your formulas, taking into account rim slipperiness and the associated friction issues, both at time of ball release and climax, and have it on my virtual desk Monday morning. {Cristov, DO stop sniggering boy!}

Use the following formula for slipperiness:

Ds = AEG x £/No. of spins

where
Ds is Diminishing Slipperiness of Rim
AEG is Applied Elbow Grease
£ is cost of lubricant used

[Mark Howe]

You're own guy Ian now seems to admit that my ISP address in not the same as Cristovs lay off the steroids Brian. I still do not believe the ISP is so close, just fabricated by yourselves, first it was me who was Cristov, now the ISP is just close, make up your minds!

@BRIAN - I should not waste my time preventing you making a fool of yourself yet again, but just a few pointers>

The mathematics I present is accurate and a true representation of attributes of the game of roulette. It is obvious to everyone with a degree or advanced high school mathematics level. By your reply you are just reaffirming my belief that you are unable to challenge my mathematics, so you simply and safely ridicule it!

I have already had several emails from people on this board who have a mathematical background and have read my mathematical posts with great interest. One person who actually knows you said they would not expect any other reply than what you have posted, as you are just as ignorant in the workplace and with other staff members, their claim is that you are just humoured and tolerated LOL

You are as predictable as the roulette wheel!

@Ian

So, I would be so stupid to inform you how the system is implemented in the casinos, there is at least 30 different ways I know off, take your pick!

The funniest thing is that people are taking money from your casinos right under your noses!

Seems like some of you on here are not doing your jobsLOL

I suggestion to Brian And Ian >

Please wake up and smell the coffee!

If you were intelligent enough to do your homework by the way you may find some interesting scientific facts about my research and inventions, my purchasers have, but their intellect far exceeds yours!

You are just so obvious in your feeble attempts to find out my real address, keep on searching, good luck!

Back to Brian, I have permission to post this, Sibby has now left her employment>

One girl called called Sibyl, asks if you have sorted your little problem out below Brian, her exact words are you was hung like a hamster!

Steroids does indeed shrink the penis, seems like the testosterone has only your head left to visit, hence the verbal diarrhoea that you keep spilling uncontrollably!


What we do in life, echoes in eternity