Beating roulette by wheel clocking?

[Terry]

I can't help but wonder why computer clockers haven't put Roulette out of business by now.
>>The computer was custom made in very limited quantities, and very expensive (six figures).

Even having the cash (and the willingness to spend it), a person must still be within a certain “loop” to have the opportunity to buy the equipment. Only six of the model I used were ever produced. I am aware of others being sold for prices ranging from $12,000 to $65,000. From what I hear, some of them work, some of them don’t. Let the buyer beware.

To really prove the method for a human you could let him practice on a private wheel under controled conditions.

Done that. The guy who bought the computer we used and who was bankrolling the operation called three of us to join him in this venture. He FedExed the equipment to us (he was living in Florida at time, playing BJ in the Caribbean) right before leaving on a month long European tour to scout locations. Unfortunately, he forgot to send the instructions. This being pre internet/cell phone days, he was pretty much incommunicado, and unaware of our dilema.

There we sat, three long time professional gamblers / advantage seekers, with two roulette tables set up in my kitchen and living room, and a computer we couldn’t train on. Enter the Laurence Scott roulette method.

Since I still seem to be in verbose mode, I’ll interject some background information here, to show you this was not some pie in the sky group of dreamers looking for easy money.

The four of us had first met during one of the all time classic blackjack promotions in the late 1970's. The Royal Inn or the Royal Vegas, I don’t remember which right now, was paying $10/hr to play $5 minimum single deck BJ. We exchanged knowing grins at the tables when we found that we had all discovered the same little “subtlety”. The dealer would shuffle up if you tried to increase your bet by more than double, but, if you “innocently” tried to play two hands of $5, they would politely inform you that to play two hands, both hands must be at least double the table minimum... plunk... one hand of $5 to two hands of $10 at the dealer’s request. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] So there we were, making $20/hr playing the game, getting $10/hr (and free meals) from the casino for doing it, and gaining respect for each others’ knowledge of BJ.

We developed a nodding, “how ya doing” relationship over the course of some other BJ promotions in other casinos. Then came progressive video poker and (beatable) Deuces Wild machines. When we all showed up independently at the very first banks of beatable games for both, all having developed our own computer generated strategies, we realized that we were among our own kind. When we all showed up at the same super beatable BJ game in Korea, a lasting friendship began. We started sharing information and research, and on occasion pooled bankrolls to help overcome some of the volatility of the games we played in those early days.

Between the four of us, we have, for over 25 years, beaten every beatable casino game we have ever discovered. One of the group even managed, through finding a biased set of balls in a now defunct Las Vegas casino, to gain an edge at Keno. When he calculated his win rate, including the time it took for research up until the time the joint figured out that something was wrong and ditched the balls, he made a little over $1/hour, but he beat Keno.

For those of you who have read this far, here is a little nugget that none of has ever talked about publically before, but since none of us are actively pursing this lately the guys say it OK to let this one out of the bag now: Bingo, played with the electronic cards, can be beaten – not for a lot, but a meaningful edge can be had (and I’m not talking about the $1/hr range here). No, I ain’t saying how. I will say that the method has definitely NOT been published, so don’t go browsing the system hucksters’ websites. If you are a would be advantage seeker, study some simple probability, go join the old folks at your local Bingo hall for a few sessions to see how it operates, and settle in to do some serious thinking.

Back to the background info. So you see, no pie in the sky dreamers, no glamour, no fast life, no high rollers. Dedicated long term oriented guys, willing to work, to train, to crunch numbers, to grind at small edges, to pound the sidewalks of the world in search of positive EV.

Whew, man, can I go off on some tangents, or what... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Back to Terry’s House of Roulette and the Laurence Scott system.

So, here we are, all having scheduled a month to train with the computer (it turned out not to take that long once we actually got underway), one of the guys having come from another state... what to do. Well, our plan called for first learning as much as we could about the mechanics of the roulette wheel, so we did learn to disassemble and reassemble them (told you were serious), and learned what we could about the history and manufacture of the wheels.

Our out of state BP-to-be wanted to go to the Gamblers Book Club, always an interesting place to spend some time. We spotted the Laurence Scott thing. We had heard of the guy, and he seemed to be pretty knowledgeable about, uh, some things. Although the thing was pretty pricey, we decided to give it a try.

Back to the house. We go through the book and watch the included training video... verrrry interesting... hmmm. Like I said, we had two wheels set up, so we gather around the kitchen table, spin the wheel, spin the ball, and “holy jumpin’ j...” “do you see it?” “I see it!” “me too”. The strobe effect seems to freeze the action of the ball and rotor, and we can actually see the ball advancing toward, meeting, and progressing beyond the zero reference point.

Three guys who are not easily impressed by “gambling systems” scramble toward the other wheel in the living room, giggling like school girls. “Yep” “It’s there” “There’s something to this.”

We head for the nearest casino for something to eat, and yep, we see it on both of their wheels, too.

Home again. Reread the book. Watch the video a few more times. Set up a spreadsheet and start recording results. A week. Two weeks. Three weeks. The results? Same as yours. Random. Our EV? -5.26%. It “seemed like”, it “felt like” there was something there, but there was not.

We get a call from Scotland... “Sorry guys. I’ll have someone overnight those instructions to you tomorrow. I’m gonna travel around here and play BJ until you’re ready to come over.” And so began our greatest adventure... so far.

Epilogue: After we got a handle on the workings of the computer we talked a lot about our try at Scott’s visual method. When using the computer, the human operator enters the ball movement and the rotor movement separately, and the computer calculates the correlation. We think that human reflexes and the speed at which the human brain processes information are just not fast enough to process both ball and rotor data in time to give useable results. While it may be possible for some Rainman savant to do it, the typical man in the street needs electronic assistance.

[Homer]

Keep 'em coming! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

-- Homer

[PairTheBoard]

Very interesting. It sounds like your group did this a number of years ago. With the further development of cheap, powerful technological tools in the past few years, the large population of talented people who can develop software and work with hardware, and the relatively simple physics involved, it seems to me the potential payoff would stimulate the engineering of more Computerized Roulette Timers and the formation of more Teams like the one you belonged to. I can't help but think there is a little more to the story, like the potential risk in getting caught and Casino technology at work to catch such Roulette "cheats". If it could be done without use of computers I don't think the laws against cheating would apply. But it's hard for me to believe that there is a Casino on the planet where use of computers would NOT be considered cheating and dealt with accordingly if uncovered.

Thanks for the great posts and expert information. I've been curious about this subject for years. I really don't remember what got my interest started on this. I may have seen an advertisement for the Lawerence Scott method and rather than spend the money on it, tried to figure it out for myself. I'm somewhat pleased to hear I came up with the same observations and method as Scott. Considering the difficulty if not impossibility in making it work, I'm also pleased that I didn't spend the money to buy what Scott was selling.

oh, and on the subject of "Clocking" as was described by another poster as spotting the location of a number on the wheel when the dealer releases the ball, then correlating it to the number or area of the wheel the ball finally settles in; This would essentially be the most primitave version of this same general idea. Extremely primitave and with no chance of working imo. I do think I've heard of people touting it though.

[lunchmeat]

Terry’s passing mention about playing bingo with a positive expectation has gotten me thinking about that foul game more than I ever thought I’d care to. I didn’t even know the rules when I woke up, but now as I’m just about to go to bed I’ve got some ideas about how someone could beat bingo over the long run. At the end of the post I’m going to list the various methods I think could and could not work. I’d appreciate it Terry if you could tell me if I’m on the right track or barking up the wrong tree… or just using too many clichés in this sentence.

The easiest way to beat a game like this would probably be to run a past-posting type scam where an electronic card could be brought in and used according to what numbers have already been called. This way you could always have bingo after the first five (or four if you use the free space) numbers have been called. I assume Terry’s nobler than this type of hustle, so I won’t go any further with it.

Another way would be if the electronic system was not completely random. If certain numbers were either more or less likely to be called, you would play cards that would reflect the non-random tendencies of the number calling. I don’t think is likely either, just from the way Terry worded the text.

So assuming a random game with no cheating, the only variable that you can control is the cards that you play. Specifically, there are four factors you can manipulate in choosing a card that will affect your outcome. They are:
1) The total number of cards you play
2) The numbers on each individual card
3) The sequences of the numbers on the card(s)
4) The exclusivity of the numbers on your card(s)… By exclusivity, I mean the number of other people who hold the same numbers as you do.

I believe the fourth factor of exclusivity is the most important one, so I’ll give you my theory on that first.

It is a big advantage if you have numbers on your card(s) that no one else, or very few others have. For example, if you have a space for N32 on your card, and everybody else does too, you gain nothing when N32 gets called. Sure, you’re one square closer to BINGO, but so is everybody else. Thinking this square does you any good is like thinking you have the lead in a footrace because you’ve taken one stride, even though the other runners have taken a stride alongside you. On the other hand, if you’re the only person who has a space for N32, and N32 gets called, you gain a huge advantage because you’ve gained while everyone else has remained in the same place. I’ll call this concept “General Exclusivity.”

Another important type of exclusivity has to do with 8 key squares on the bingo card. The 8 key squares are the four corner squares, and the four squares in between the corner squares and the middle free space. (If anyone is having trouble picturing this, if you drew a big “X” from corner to corner on the bingo card, the squares covered by the lines of the X are the key squares). These squares are important because if the number for one of your key squares is called, you have 3 potential ways to make BINGO (horizontally, vertically, and diagonally). When a number for one of the other 16 squares gets called, you have gained only 2 potential ways to make BINGO (horizontally and vertically). Since the key squares are important, you want to have exclusivity on your key square numbers. For example, if you are one of 4 people who hold B7 on a key square, and B7 gets called, you all gain the same amount. However, if four people hold squares with B7, but you are the only one with B7 on a key square, and B7 gets called, you have gained more than the other B7 holders because you have gained three ways to make BINGO compared to their two. I’ll call this concept “Key Square Exclusivity.”

There is a second gradation of squares that I’ll call the middle squares. They are the eight squares going down through the middle column and across through the middle row (so if the key squares form an X, the middle squares form a cross). The middle squares are important because, while they only give you two ways to win, one of those ways involves use of the free space. The free space helps because, obviously, you need one fewer number to be called when using the free space to make BINGO. So, while not as important as Key Square Exclusivity, you want to have Middle Square Exclusivity as well.

The remaining eight squares are the least important. You want to have General Exclusivity on these, as you want with all your squares, but there is no advantage to being the only player holding a number on one of these squares that other players hold on better squares.

So General Exclusivity, Key Square Exclusivity, and to a lesser extent Middle Square Exclusivity are all important advantages to hold over your opponents when playing bingo. They’re probably big enough to allow you to play bingo with a positive expectation even after the house takes its cut. Unfortunately, being aware of these advantages and gaining these advantages are two different things. To consistently gain exclusivity advantages, you must know what numbers and patterns of numbers your opponents are going to play (or somehow handicap the likelihood your opponents will play certain numbers in certain patterns). I think a highly skilled, highly observant person playing against a small number of opponents could arrange his or her cards to have Key Square Exclusivity on a consistent basis simply by looking at other people’s key square values and choosing different key square values for himself. Against a large field of opponents, some sort of computer program that could tap in to the bank of electronic cards already picked could theoretically produce very accurate exclusivity ratios for a player’s card(s). At first it seemed pretty silly to me that someone would go through all the trouble of writing an advanced computer program just to beat bingo, but then I saw the size of some online bingo jackpots and it didn’t seem so silly. Considering Terry’s background with the Roulette computer, my best guess is that he beat bingo with an exclusivity computer similar in practice to what I’ve mentioned here. There are, however, other possibilities…

Without knowledge of the numbers on other players’ cards (again assuming a random game with no cheating), a +EV bingo strategy must make use of multiple cards. For just one card, no matter what process you use to choose your card, it is no better than picking numbers at random unless you have outside information. Playing multiple cards alone, however, will not increase your EV (unless you get extra cards for free or something like that.) It needs to be combined with at least one of the other aspects of bingo you have control over: the numbers on the cards and the sequence of numbers on the cards.

The numbers on the cards I don’t think are too important. Having completely different numbers on different cards might affect you standard deviation, but I don’t see how having repeat numbers on different cards would change your EV any. The secret could very well lie in having cards in which the sequences of numbers are such that you’ll never have repeat strands of 5 in a row. Buy enough cards and you could cover enough possibilities to have a positive EV. But even if this could work I doubt it would be feasible, as it would probably require an enormous number of cards.

So did any of my guesses come close Terry?

1) Past Posting seems easiest to accomplish, but if you did get away with cheating I don’t know why you’d start talking about it now. So I’d say this is very unlikely.

2) Is electronic card bingo non-random, and asking to be taken by advantage players? I doubt this too, but it’s my second guess.

3) Is there a way to obtain exclusivity, as I call it, in bingo? If there is a way to beat bingo, I think this is it.

4) Or is it just a system of choosing the right pattern of cards? With all the possible combinations of cards I find this highly unlikely as well.

[Terry]

I’m glad you guys have enjoyed this little tale. Thanks for your thanks. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

RE: Bingo. I’m not talking about any sort of scamming or cheating, nor any nonrandom flaws in the system. I’m talking about a quantifiable mathematical advantage; when you have it, you will know you have it, and you will be able to calculate it and write it down.

I mentioned it only as an example of positive EV sometimes being found in unexpected places. Should it become widely known, the advantage will, of course, evaporate. I will not respond to any further questions on this particular subject, either publically or privately – if you have an interest, you’re on your own.

RE: Roulette computers and modern advancements in computer technology. Well, the International Space Station runs on 386's. It’s not so much a matter of processing power – the old technology is sufficient (as long you’re not trying to run Windows.) It’s more a matter of having and knowing how to use expensive and sophisticated electronic lab equipment to design, manufacture, and calibrate the precise timings needed for the setup. I think it very unlikely that roulette computers will ever become a mass market item.

RE: Even where they’re not illegal. Although there are many locales where there are no “device laws”, there are certainly hazards involved should a person who is literally wired from head to foot with a concealed electronic device be discovered sitting at a roulette table. I think that too will always tend to limit the “popularity” of such a thing. Add in the recent increase in difficulties that might arise while trying to board an airplane with a bag full of electronic equipment that is obviously designed to be worn covertly on the body, in conjunction with a large amount of cash, and you have something that will likely remain, shall we say, of limited appeal.

[PairTheBoard]

I don't know much about how Bingo is played using Electronic Cards. It sounds like Terry is talking about something else, but if people create their own E-Bingo Cards using their favorite numbers then it seems to me the Exclusivity principle has merit. Choose commonly unpopular numbers when creating your E-Card. This would be the same method advocated by Ziemba for theoretically gaining an edge in lotteries. As this brings to mind the Ziemba system for Show betting in Horse Racing, I think I'll start a thread on that topic as I've always wondered if anybody ever made that work.

[Terry]

“I have a job” Jamie said to the kindly stranger who had smiled at him in the buffet line. “I’m an official bingo player” he beamed, his obvious enormous pride being acknowledged with bemused and understanding looks from those within earshot.

I doubt very much that any of those who witnessed this often repeated scene ever had any idea that their understanding was incomplete, that Jamie was indeed an “official” bingo player for quite a few years.

Sure, his brother and his mother managed the money, worked out the math, did the legwork scouting locations, provided transportation and supervision, etc., but that stuff is a part of any business endeavor. Jamie did the “job” – he put in his hours sitting in the bingo rooms, playing the games. He contributed to the family income. Even the grouchiest of old ladies never seemed to begrudge him his paydays or his “bingo dance.”

Jamie was lucky. He managed to escape the drab gray institutionalized life that could have been his, and lived the sometimes boring sometimes exciting life of an “official” gambler. Jamie is gone now, but his brother said he thinks Jamie would be very happy for you guys to know that he had a job.

[crazy canuck]

I'm just curious...how did you hear about Ziemba? I was in his classes last year.

Anyhow, the conclusion for lottery was that it does have a positive expectation (especially when carryover happens...meaning when nobody wins the jackpot and the price is added to the next drawing) but it would take millions of years to take advantage of it.

[crazy canuck]

I don't know anything about bingo but I just read some places in Vegas have progressive jackpots, so it's possible there can be +EV there(just like lottery).

And damn you Terry for getting me to think about this [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]...fun thread tho.

[crazy canuck]

If you want to win at Bingo, play bingo on nights that are generally slower for the operators (Monday - Thursday usually less players than weekends). Being a game of chance if there are fewer players then there are fewer cards in play. If you have as many cards as you can comfortably play and there are fewer cards in play, due to lower crowds, then you have a larger percent of cards in play. Odds in your favor? I think so, especially if the hall you play at offers electronic bingo (computer bingo) and you have 2 or 3 cards per game.