Author Topic: Old ways to determine visual prediction moments.  (Read 2465 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Old ways to determine visual prediction moments.
« on: July 21, 2016, 11:31:59 PM »
 To perform art of visual ballistic ( determine where ball gonna stop with probability higher then random), we need to identify particular moment into the spin , wich will become our prediction moment.
 A bit of physics. .. when ball is launched it has impulse  ( potential energy) on its maximum. Slowly it will convert this energy to kinetic  ( energy of the moviment). While potential energy is on its high, ball tend to rotate on upper ball track. Ball has negative acceleration.  It simply means that due to the friction and air resistance ball will loose it's speed gradually.
 Initial rotations of the ball do have very low deceleration due to the high momentum that ball posses. If you take timings of rotations of the ball, you will see that initial revolutions of the ball do have very little difference in time.
 It's not so when ball starts to slow down on posterior revolutions.... time differences between rotations of the ball start to grow.
 When we can reliable way to destinguish between rotations to pin point one specific between them , we may start to speak about prediction.
 Rotation timings are relatively "consystent".
 Why relatively and why ("")? Simply because timings of rotations do depend on some external factors including additional spin axis wich ball may have ( due to dealers type of throw), atmospheric pressure...ets.
But for explanation purposes we will consider them consistent.
 Traditional vb focuses on specific revolution of the ball identification. So wich revolution to choose for prediction moment?
 There gonna be one particular moment into the spin, when revolution timing will be considerably different from others. It will happen due to the fact that ball already lost much of its initial impulse  ( converted for energy of moviment).
 Warning... it's most visible on older type of wheels where separation for lower and higher ball track does exist.
 So.. ball lost its momentum,it starts to exit higher part of ball track and tougch lower part of ball track. On the moment this phenomena happens ball gain aditional friction point. Now it tougch ball track in 2 places instead of 1. It will be a reason for a ball to have higher decceleration ( loose more speed per revolution).
 This moment is called " knee point", because if you make a graphic of decceleration in time , you will see line being broken in one place. There are many of these graphs on google so long do not gonna bother to post one here.
 This " knee point " can be easy identified by both visual observation and distinctive sound that ball makes( on situable wheels).
 Later l wIll continue on the topic... if someone wish to add something , you are welcome. 
The following users thanked this post: kav, december, Sheridan44


Re: Old ways to determine visual prediction moments.
« Reply #1 on: July 22, 2016, 08:43:07 AM »
Another method to determine revolution would be to use a metronome.

 To upply method need to use multilap stopwatch previously a bit to take timings of ball rotations.
 To obtain timings of rotations choose reference point ( where to look, normally most visible vertical diamond) and start stopwatch when ball pass there ( every time ball pass under your reference point).
 Then use recall function to look timings of rotations and choose one wich is early enough  ( before no more bets signal is issued by dealler).
 Set metronome to vibrate on time interval wich is equal to targeted rotation of the ball.
 Now we start to speak about ball speed identification... speed is distance per time. Distance in this case is perimeter of the ball track . Time is timing of target ball rotation.
     Very good to have a metronome wich could be restarted on the click. In this case you just restart metronome each time when ball pass your observation point. When it vibrates 2 times consequtively on your observation point you identify particular ( target ) ball speed.

  Alternative way to use it would be to have metronome running and follow position of the ball on the stator ( not movable part of roulette wheel). Egain , when you see ball in the same place twice on consequtive vibrations , wait till it arive to your observation point and take your observation key.
   There are series of problems associated with both ways to upply the method.
 1. Timing of revolution  (exact value ball speed) may be not present in current spin, or may be, but associated with other diamond.
 2. Using this method we do not know where exactly on the ball track ball had this velocity.
 3. In case of restart on click metronome, you may add click error( difference between real time and reaction time of human to click in order to restart metronome). ....

« Last Edit: July 22, 2016, 09:21:51 AM by MrPerfect. »
The following users thanked this post: december

Re: Old ways to determine visual prediction moments.
« Reply #2 on: July 22, 2016, 09:27:22 AM »
The snag with determining a specific revolution is that you don't know whether you are at the beginning or the end of that particular revolution, unless the wheel has a single dominant drop it can be problematic as you can't tell which diamond will be hit. Which means that the strike number will be different. Unless your scatter graph is fortunate enough to cover a landing zone from various diamonds , you will have a problem getting an edge.

However I get the reasoning as to why a particular revolution of the ball needs to be identified.

I think that the real problem that needs to be resolved is the scatter, or perhaps being able to identify which diamond the ball is going to hit to enable you to pick the spin which has the most consistent scatter.  Or perhaps there is a wheel speed/ball combo that has the ball jumping to the same landing zone regardless of the diamond hit.

I just don't know.

The following users thanked this post: kav, MrPerfect.


Re: Old ways to determine visual prediction moments.
« Reply #3 on: July 22, 2016, 09:40:28 AM »
 If rotor speed is stable from trial to trial, we may use rotor itself to time the ball. In this case no need to count or use metronome.  Example of such measurement would be to observe half ( or 1/3) of rotor pass under your observation point between rotations.

 For example, near the target speed of ball ( could be determine by feel alone with some practice ), we observe zero on our observation point ( under diamond of choice) when the ball pass. Next time when the ball pass we observe poke separator between 5/10.
 It means that 1/2 of wheel passed under our reference point between rotations. 5 or 10 ( on your choice) become our visual key.
  For this purpose you can use entire rotor rotation or fractional ( wich suits better), depending on the range of rotor speeds you choose to play.

 Positive moments:
no need device to apply method... it's always with you.
 Negative moments: same as with previous post method... there gonna be more then one revolution wich look alike. Better to focus on first deviation from target speed then on the speed itself. It permits to judge if revolution timing is present and partially determine if revolution of choice was pin pointed correctly.

 What do I mean " first deviation"?
 First deviation is a moment where ball speed is more slow then the target one. Instead of observing ball exactly at the same place twice or exact difference in numbers as by this method, you observe next rotation after the event and see deviation of distance ( on stator or between numbers).
« Last Edit: July 22, 2016, 09:45:22 AM by kav »


Re: Old ways to determine visual prediction moments.
« Reply #4 on: July 22, 2016, 09:46:52 AM »
@Shadowman, thank you for your contribution, and you are absolutely right. Slowly we will arrive to determination of ball speed instead of revolution,  and how to do it. For now lm focusing on creating database of reference for future students. It's really nice to see that some people actually do think here and do have some expirienice.  Probably you could help me a bit on creation of such a knolidge Base?  Your comments and propositions are more then welcome. 


Re: Old ways to determine visual prediction moments.
« Reply #5 on: July 22, 2016, 10:15:04 AM »
 So we are back to the methods....
 Next method l would like to call your atention to will be my old " slysing method". It is still require stable rotor speed , but it brings additional benefits.
 Method does require you to count rotations that ball does per full rotor revolution. I will simpify it for explanation purposes ( hate to type a lot), but astitute minds will be able to restore it from my description and expand it.
 What is it and how it's upplied? 
 You choose observational point ( most visible diamond)..
 Start to count how many revolution ball does to complete entire rotor rotation.
 Imagine ball is thrown and when it pass your reference point there is a zero number there.
 Ball does 5 more revolutions and there is a zero there again ,  4 revolutions after we observe same number zero on reference point when ball pass there... 3 more...2 more.
 We record 5.. 4...3..2.
 Zero becomes our visual key and we correlate it to outcome ( final number.).
 Next time we observe sequence of 5..4..3..2.. ball revoutions of ball per rotor revolution we know that spin is " same " or very alike.
 So what is additional benefit?  We can judge slyses that ball cuts from rotor on every revolution of the ball. When slyses are same in distance between numbers wich ball "cut" on the wheel- spin is " normal". If slyses start to deviate, we may say that ball has additional axis of rotation and treat it as different kind of spin.
 Deviation of slyses means that during one rotor rotation slyses can be same in number but different in distance between numbers. Besides we may clearly see by conformity of distances that the ball cut with each revolution ,the moment when ball starts to roll on stable way ( loose additional axis of rotation).
 It's a very powerful method and l pray to fortuna being able to code it to my rc someday to make it rotor speed independent.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2016, 10:21:26 AM by MrPerfect. »
The following users thanked this post: december


Re: Old ways to determine visual prediction moments.
« Reply #6 on: July 22, 2016, 10:32:30 AM »
 Previos method explained was a start of my " blasfemie" system toolbox. In this particular stage of my development as AP l challenged all methods and beliefs described in the books or other methods... If you ask any AP who know me , they will probably tell you that l do everything " different". This resulted in difficulties in comprehension between me and other AP . Often people say that l go " too deep" and pay atention to things without importance. Probably it's truth, but according to my personal believe,  any tiny persentage of advantage we may obtain is important in order to reduce variance and bankroll requirements.  Bet less to obtain more is my phylosofy.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2016, 10:38:25 AM by MrPerfect. »
The following users thanked this post: december, BlueAngel