Euromillions

yer_averagejoe said:
Taking wheel bias out of the equation, Judge is not saying that it's possible to predict where the ball is going to land using variables guessed by a tracking device. I.e, you can't go "the ball is travelling at this speed so it's likely to drop off here and fit this bump and it's projected bounce will be..." etc. But you CAN make guesses about where the ball might land, based on some statistical model.

The resolution of those guesses might be pretty huge. i.e you might only be able to say that the ball will land in a certain quarter with a 50% accuracy.. but that then tells you it's probably not a great idea to place a bet on the opposite quarter.

I'd assume one would need a pretty sophisticated set up to make decent guesses, though. I'd imagine a high speed camera would be needed from a top-down view. So those programs would probably not produce anything usable from a 25fps picture off a tv.
Click to expand...

In understand perfectly what he means but I still don't think it's possible given the bumps on the table that make the ball fly off in all sorts of directions. 1 nano degrees difference could mean the ball landing on one side of the wheel or the other.

Let's say each slot on a roulette table was magnetised so it pull the ball straight into the nearest slot when it drops, there were no bumps around the wheel and the wheel was spun rather slowly then I would concede it would be possible to calculate roughly where the ball will fall with sophisticated equipment but as I said, watch videos of roulette wheels being spun and you'll often see the ball start to drop then hit a bump or even the slots themselves and then violently fly out again and bounce all over the place.

I guess ultimately it's a futile argument because no casino would let you bring in the kind of equipment you'd need to do it anyway.
 
estebanrey said:
Sorry I still don't understand what you mean. In your hat example, where are you "removing one element of randomness"?
Click to expand...

Because rather than randomly picking a number out of both hats and leaving it to chance as to which one comes out, you're picking which number you want from one of the hats.

Is the chance of randomly picking the same number out of both hats not less than choosing one number and picking randomly from just the one hat?
 
estebanrey said:
In understand perfectly what he means but I still don't think it's possible given the bumps on the table that make the ball fly off in all sorts of directions. 1 nano degrees difference could mean the ball landing on one side of the wheel or the other.

Let's say each slot on a roulette table was magnetised so it pull the ball straight into the nearest slot when it drops, there were no bumps around the wheel and the wheel was spun rather slowly then I would concede it would be possible to calculate roughly where the ball will fall with sophisticated equipment but as I said, watch videos of roulette wheels being spun and you'll often see the ball start to drop then hit a bump or even the slots themselves and then violently fly out again and bounce all over the place.

I guess ultimately it's a futile argument because no casino would let you bring in the kind of equipment you'd need to do it anyway.
Click to expand...

Hardly futile, the futile part is saying you can actually do it. The unfutile part is the part where you are stating it is categorically impossible. It is, however, perfectly possible, you just cannot use it.As an experiment in modelling and probability/statistics it is perfectly valid .
 
yer_averagejoe said:
Taking wheel bias out of the equation, Judge is not saying that it's possible to predict where the ball is going to land using variables guessed by a tracking device. I.e, you can't go "the ball is travelling at this speed so it's likely to drop off here and fit this bump and it's projected bounce will be..."
Click to expand...

Actually thats exactly what I'm saying, the physics of a roulette wheel is pretty basic.

I'd assume one would need a pretty sophisticated set up to make decent guesses, though. I'd imagine a high speed camera would be needed from a top-down view. So those programs would probably not produce anything usable from a 25fps picture off a tv.
Click to expand...

The program I have is useable of use a framerate and similar resolution to the TV. (But yes needs top down view, it would be a lot harder to model at various angles of perspective).


As I've said a few times, its only needs to be able to say the ball will land within this 1/4 of the table to be money making.


Looking at my NDA again though, I don't think I'll be using or modifying the program any time soon :(

an insufficient remedy for any harm caused by any breach by you of the terms of this letter aggrement and that BLANK shall be entitled to seek other remedies, including (without limitation) the remedies of injunction and specific performance, in the event such a breach occurs or is anticipated

You acknowledge and agree that BLANK has a legitimate interest in the performance by you of your obligations under this letter agreement, and that damages may be calculated by reference to the profit (if any) which you make in connection with a breach of the terms of this letter agreement or any loss of opportunity or profit suffered by BLANK, as determined by BLANK in its sole discretion

You shall be entitled to disclose the information to the extent that such disclosure is required to be made by law or applicable regulation provided that in such circumstances you give BLANK prompt written warning of any such request, court order, summons of government action, as the case may be, seeking the disclosure of any of the information, so as to permit BLANK to consider whether there are appropriate grounds on which to object to such disclosure, and to assist BLANK in making any such objection. You also hereby agree to consult with BLANK as to the proposed form, timing and terms of such disclosure (which in any event shall only include such information as is strictly required by the relevant court body regulation law or rule to be disclosed)

You shall not, without the prior written consent of BLANK either during the term of this letter agreement or thereafter, make any public statement about BLANK or do or commit any act, matter or thing which would or might prejudice or bring into disrepute in any manner the business or reputation of BLANK.

All notes, paper, memoranda, records and writings (in whatever media, including that which may be stored on a computer) made by you in relation to the business of BLANK (including any information) shall be and remain the property of BLANK and shall be handed over the BLANK or deleted from time to time on demand and in any event upon the termination or breach of this letter agreement.

The terms of this letter shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, English law and the courts of England and Wales shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of any disputes relating to it.
Click to expand...

So I can't really say any more about the program or method either without getting myself into hot water. But its simple enough physics :)
 
Well, either way, roulette isn't facing trouble from smartphones any time soon.

All I was trying to say is that it's certainly not impossible to draw statistical conclusions about where a roulette ball might land if you are given a ball's velocity, the velocity of the wheel and the relative position of the ball to the wheel when those velocities were taken.
 
PiKe said:
Because rather than randomly picking a number out of both hats and leaving it to chance as to which one comes out, you're picking which number you want from one of the hats.

Is the chance of randomly picking the same number out of both hats not less than choosing one number and picking randomly from just the one hat?
Click to expand...

If I understand your question the chance is exactly the same, 1 in 49.

You pick a number from the first hat, which can be any number. The chance of the second number from the other hat matching is thus 1 in 49.

If you pre-select a number in your head and then try to match that by pulling a number from 1 hat the chance of that matching is 1 in 49.
 
PhillyDee said:
Hardly futile, the futile part is saying you can actually do it. The unfutile part is the part where you are stating it is categorically impossible. It is, however, perfectly possible, you just cannot use it.As an experiment in modelling and probability/statistics it is perfectly valid .
Click to expand...

But I've never said it was "categorically impossible", I'm saying it is practically impossible. Kind of like in the same way time travel isn't 'categorically impossible' but it is practically impossible (because you cannot travel faster than the speed of light).

The amount of variables you would need to calculate and know make it practically impossible in any realistic scenario. An example would be the angle of slope around the wheel, just half a degree degree in difference between two tables could make the prediction completely different. Then you have things like the weight of the ball and even down to things like the wind resistance in the room where the wheel is. You will never know these variables unless you are doing the experiment in a lab with your own precision made equipment.
 
Wind resistance is luckily negligible, and think you are underestimating the accuracy of commercially available sensors now. Creating a model to work under real conditions is practically possible, getting away with it is the hard part.
 
Judgeneo said:
Wind resistance is luckily negligible, and think you are underestimating the accuracy of commercially available sensors now. Creating a model to work under real conditions is practically possible, getting away with it is the hard part.
Click to expand...

It is negligible but it's variable none-the-less. I guess what I'm trying to get at is how much of a 'butterfly effect' you would get from your formula if any of the inputs were fractionally wrong.

Any system that could claim to do this would basically boil down to a long formula with various inputs, what I'm asking is if one of those inputs is wrong even by a millionth of a degree would it have a large effect on the outcome.
 
Most trajectories are stable physical systems, and such slight variance in the input only has a marginal effect on the outcome.
In the case where the ball is projected to bounce against a certain angle of deflector though, the system is far less stable and slight variance in the input does have a large outcome on the result. Such scenarios are easily predicted and the program returns no outcome
 
Back on topic, just bought 10 tickets for tonight's draw. :)

[homer simpson mode]

With so many tickets, I can't possibly lose!

[/homer simpson mode]

I wonder if I can buy Academi (Blackwater) with £95M.... :D
 
Assuming thIs thread is still about the Euromillions...

I got some numbers from tonight.

My 5 year old predicted on Saturday that there would be a rainbow on Monday at Nana's. There was.

Today he predicted the lottery numbers.... Hopefully he will be right about them too lol :D
 
estebanrey said:
But I've never said it was "categorically impossible", I'm saying it is practically impossible. Kind of like in the same way time travel isn't 'categorically impossible' but it is practically impossible (because you cannot travel faster than the speed of light).

The amount of variables you would need to calculate and know make it practically impossible in any realistic scenario. An example would be the angle of slope around the wheel, just half a degree degree in difference between two tables could make the prediction completely different. Then you have things like the weight of the ball and even down to things like the wind resistance in the room where the wheel is. You will never know these variables unless you are doing the experiment in a lab with your own precision made equipment.
Click to expand...

It's been done before where gamblers won over £1 million at the Ritz using a smartphone to predict approximately where the ball will land.

http://www.completetosh.com/weblog/2004/12/08/ritz-roulette-gang-keep-their-winnings/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/mar/23/sciencenews.crime
 
alx said:
It's been done before where gamblers won over £1 million at the Ritz using a smartphone to predict approximately where the ball will land.

http://www.completetosh.com/weblog/2004/12/08/ritz-roulette-gang-keep-their-winnings/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/mar/23/sciencenews.crime
Click to expand...

something kind of similar has been done without smartphones. someone recorded the results of a badly maintained roulette table about 5000 times, found out which numbers were most common due to the wear and tear, then made a tidy profit by betting on them

another person also did exactly what you are talking about in the very early days of computers by putting a computer in his shoe which he tapped when the ball passed a certain point on the table and when the roulette table rotated a certain amount. again, lots of money was made
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom