Update your Bookmarks

Author Topic: Elephant-in-the-Room!  (Read 360 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


« on: December 04, 2017, 10:26:07 PM »
Mr Dobbelsteen, I bring this to your attention in particular, because I know you will understand my point of view and reasoning.
Has consideration been given to the priority order for reference numbers in Spielbank or other "permananences" archive lists.
For example, we normally compile and record numbers, at a table on a chart, with the numbers recorded top down and left to right.
Eventually the score card is filled from top left to bottom right.
The "carousel" usually fills from the top down, the most recent coup/outcome being shown at the masthead.
Exactly in REVERSE to the players recorded reference chart.
My research into this matter indicates that the top left number recorded in ANY archival list, is in fact the most recent outcome recorded on that particular table.
Therefore, for real wheel (actuelles) numbers to be usefully incorporated into review testing, the sequence of outcomes has to be put into the correct directional sequence first.
Otherwise, it negates any research or discovery plans based on prior data.
That would make a monumental difference to testing of systems, expectations and results.
The following users thanked this post: Reyth


Re: Elephant-in-the-Room!
« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2017, 10:35:28 PM »
I have an admission to make.  I have never actually used permanencies.  I have accessed them, looked at them, I know where they are but I have never used them.

Because they are used so much by so many people, I would presume that this issue would have been known and dealt with long ago?

No insult intended to anyone, I am just an RNG fool. :'(