6 ms·

> “I [experimented] until I had a rough outline of a system based on the previous winning numbers,” he told the Sydney Morning Herald in 1969. “If numbers 1, 2,

by lisper 5y ago

> “I [experimented] until I had a rough outline of a system based on the previous winning numbers,” he told the Sydney Morning Herald in 1969. “If numbers 1, 2, and 3 won the last 3 rounds, [I could determine] what was most likely to win the next 3.” I'm calling shenanigans here. I can believe that a roulette wheel might have biases, and that you might be able to leverage those to beat the house. I have a very hard time believing that a roulette wheel could have a contingent bias such that the next outcome depended on the previous one. What possible mechanism could cause that? I'm also skeptical that even if there were such a mechanism that you could reliably determine it with the number of data points that one person could plausibly collect and analyze, especially in the 1960s. In fact, let's do the math: 37*37=1369 so you'd need that many spins at a minimum just to see every possible number pair come up once. Let's suppose that a spin takes a minute. It would take a minimum of 22 hours of watching one roulette wheel to see every combination. More likely you'd need 10-100 times that much data to get a statistically significant result. And that is just for one wheel [UPDATE: and a one-round contingent bias. The claim is a three-round contingent bias. Collecting that much data for even a single wheel would take years of constant effort.] Nope. Not possible.

JKCalhoun 5y ago
Yes, I expect more obfuscation to keep the casino owners guessing.
iratewizard 5y ago
In the story, they tell the audience that he weaved a false narrative to the public about super computers. There's no reason not to believe that this is also a fabrication.
- ojosilva 5y ago
  In fact, the amount of press around the guy seems to work as an invitation for people to come to casinos. I wouldn't discard the whole thing as a total scheme, a fabrication set up between the "professor" and the cassinos interested in attracting naive gamblers in this perfect marketing stunt!
joezydeco 5y ago
I have a very hard time believing that a roulette wheel could have a contingent bias such that the next outcome depended on the previous one The funny thing about Roulette is not the hardware but the fact that the random sequence begins with a human being. I can honestly believe that a bored roulette croupier could reproduce an outcome by consciously (or unconsciously) releasing the ball with the same velocity and direction at the same wheel speed. When you do the job for hours on end wouldn't it be plausible that there's some amount of muscle memory that takes over? Having watched a few a work in my lifetime it sure seems like they even take it as a challenge to try and work up duplicate numbers. Maybe as a 'fuck the house' move, a cure for boredom, or perhaps a way to drum up more business when you get a streak on the tote board? Who knows.
- lisper 5y ago
  > I can honestly believe that a bored roulette croupier could reproduce an outcome by consciously (or unconsciously) releasing the ball with the same velocity and direction at the same wheel speed. I can believe that too, but that's not the claim being made here. The claim is that the bias was bound to particular roulette wheels, not particular croupiers. Also, even if a croupier had a reliable contingent bias, you'd still need a ridiculous number of data points to figure that out.
  - remram 5y ago
    There might be hidden variables. Maybe the previous results are a sign that a particular croupier is working that day, which is why you can count on some specific bias for the next numbers. I.e. some hidden process is causing both of the events, the first event is not causing the second. What you will observe is a high probably of the second event conditioned on the first.
    - lisper 5y ago
      > Maybe the previous results are a sign that a particular croupier is working that day A more reliable indicator would be, oh, I don't know, looking at the croupier's face and seeing who it is? Just an idea.
DavidWoof 5y ago
The "last 3 rounds" part is obviously metaphorical. It says he used teams of observers for a month to record up to 20,000 spins, not that he literally looked at 3 spins to determine the fourth. It all sounds unlikely in today's data-driven world, but I suppose that in European casinos a half century ago they had roulette wheels that had been in service for 80 years without any real maintenance and would show massive bias without anybody noticing.
- lisper 5y ago
  > I suppose that in European casinos a half century ago they had roulette wheels that had been in service for 80 years without any real maintenance and would show massive bias without anybody noticing. Sure. But not a contingent bias. And certainly not a contingent bias that was bigger than any concomitant non-contingent bias.
  - IggleSniggle 5y ago
    You could think of the statement as being about knowing the actual bias as a function of only being able to look at the previous rolls. In other words, it is “contingent” on the specific roulette wheel being observed, not “contingent” on which exact rolls were seen recently, per se. But language and thinking on these subjects has evolved since 1969, so the way to frame it to a layman would obviously evolve as well. It’s been over 50 years, after all! Trying to understand the statement in the context of 1969 makes the framing much more reasonable. Edit: I can also see how this framing might have been important to funding ongoing research, ie, perhaps you are right that there was some degree of unethical framing here.
    - lisper 5y ago
      Recall the quoted passage: > “If numbers 1, 2, and 3 won the last 3 rounds, [I could determine] what was most likely to win the next 3.” That is unambiguously claiming not just a contingent bias, but a bias contingent on the previous three rounds. My math was based on a one-round contingent bias. That is already in the realm of extremely unlikely. Three-rounds is just flat-out impossible.
alasdair_ 5y ago
>What possible mechanism could cause that? As a pure hypothetical, definitely not saying it's what happened in this case: if the wheel's bias is based on where the ball is initially dropped in, and a human operator is the one that chooses where to drop in the ball, it's possible that the operator does something simple like choosing a spot opposite the number that last won the round and that this human bias affected the result in some way.
codingdave 5y ago
You are right if it was just a simple bet on one number. But I suspect the article is skipping out on the full description. My guess is that it involved a system where multiple bets were placed each spin - Roulette's odds can be narrowed if you place bets on a color, a third, high/low, and a number, making sure to minimize doubling down on any possible result. That puts you in a position where almost every spin, one of your bets wins and offsets some other losses. When the spin lands on the bets with higher payouts, you win more and balance out the spins where you got lesser payouts. All told, you'll slowly lose money all night, and one of two things happens - you one number hits and you win big. Or the zero hits and you've lost. It is a very complex and pain-staking way to flip a coin. But, if you have any way to game that one number, and can afford to just let those bets ride for the hours for that advantage to play out... I could see it working. Also, back before casinos were computerized, people did spend years learning the specific machines in a specific casino. They would often do it in teams, so each person would take an 8 hour shift, and share the winnings at the end.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
misja111 5y ago
Yep, this is BS. There's no way that the next roulette result could depend on the previous. After the ball has landed, the croupier will give the wheel a new spin and after a little while drop the ball again. So the next result does not depend on the roulette, but on the croupier; how fast does he spin the wheel, how late does he drop the ball. And this is not the only part of the article that smells fishy. > In a matter of hours, he flipped his $100 into $5,000 This kind of profit has nothing to do with the kind of edge you can get when you have detected some irregularities in the wheel. Maybe you'll have an edge of a few percent. If he really flipped his $100 into $5,000 he was not only seriously lucky, but was also gambling a far too large portion of his bankroll, risking a 'gamblers ruin'.
- 41b696ef1113 5y ago
  A roulette payout can be 35x the wager, so $100->$5000 only requires two consecutive lucky bets.
  - klodolph 5y ago
    That assumes that the gambler is playing unskillfully, or assumes that they don’t care about going bankrupt.
  - faeriechangling 5y ago
    If he's betting high enough to win 50x his stake over two bets with a winning edge, he's a moron. A mathematician with a clue and a winning house edge would bet fairly conservatively and bet more as their bankroll expanded and bet less as their bankroll retracted to reduce their risk of ruin. Somebody making 50x their bet in an hour at roulette may sound impressive to many people, but it's obviously idiotic to any gambler worth their salt. It's so unlikely that it suggests incompetence at risk management more than it does genius gambling.
    - MockObject 5y ago
      The comment you're responding to said $100 -> $5000. He's a moron to risk $100? There must be some context you didn't make explicit.
chestnuttrees 5y ago
Probably none of these are true: 1. He explained himself clearly to a journalist. 2. The journalist understood what he was saying. 3. The journalist relayed it clearly and accurately. 4. He or the journalist didn’t exaggerate his success story. To your specific point I read that as a layman’s explanation of bias, and not at all as actually implying that if a 1, 2, 3 comes up then it’s sure to be a 4, 5, 6 next.

by lisper 5y ago

JKCalhoun 5y ago

Yes, I expect more obfuscation to keep the casino owners guessing.

iratewizard 5y ago

In the story, they tell the audience that he weaved a false narrative to the public about super computers. There's no reason not to believe that this is also a fabrication.

ojosilva 5y ago
In fact, the amount of press around the guy seems to work as an invitation for people to come to casinos. I wouldn't discard the whole thing as a total scheme, a fabrication set up between the "professor" and the cassinos interested in attracting naive gamblers in this perfect marketing stunt!

joezydeco 5y ago

I have a very hard time believing that a roulette wheel could have a contingent bias such that the next outcome depended on the previous one The funny thing about Roulette is not the hardware but the fact that the random sequence begins with a human being. I can honestly believe that a bored roulette croupier could reproduce an outcome by consciously (or unconsciously) releasing the ball with the same velocity and direction at the same wheel speed. When you do the job for hours on end wouldn't it be plausible that there's some amount of muscle memory that takes over? Having watched a few a work in my lifetime it sure seems like they even take it as a challenge to try and work up duplicate numbers. Maybe as a 'fuck the house' move, a cure for boredom, or perhaps a way to drum up more business when you get a streak on the tote board? Who knows.

lisper 5y ago
> I can honestly believe that a bored roulette croupier could reproduce an outcome by consciously (or unconsciously) releasing the ball with the same velocity and direction at the same wheel speed. I can believe that too, but that's not the claim being made here. The claim is that the bias was bound to particular roulette wheels, not particular croupiers. Also, even if a croupier had a reliable contingent bias, you'd still need a ridiculous number of data points to figure that out.
- remram 5y ago
  There might be hidden variables. Maybe the previous results are a sign that a particular croupier is working that day, which is why you can count on some specific bias for the next numbers. I.e. some hidden process is causing both of the events, the first event is not causing the second. What you will observe is a high probably of the second event conditioned on the first.
  - lisper 5y ago
    > Maybe the previous results are a sign that a particular croupier is working that day A more reliable indicator would be, oh, I don't know, looking at the croupier's face and seeing who it is? Just an idea.

DavidWoof 5y ago

The "last 3 rounds" part is obviously metaphorical. It says he used teams of observers for a month to record up to 20,000 spins, not that he literally looked at 3 spins to determine the fourth. It all sounds unlikely in today's data-driven world, but I suppose that in European casinos a half century ago they had roulette wheels that had been in service for 80 years without any real maintenance and would show massive bias without anybody noticing.

lisper 5y ago
> I suppose that in European casinos a half century ago they had roulette wheels that had been in service for 80 years without any real maintenance and would show massive bias without anybody noticing. Sure. But not a contingent bias. And certainly not a contingent bias that was bigger than any concomitant non-contingent bias.
- IggleSniggle 5y ago
  You could think of the statement as being about knowing the actual bias as a function of only being able to look at the previous rolls. In other words, it is “contingent” on the specific roulette wheel being observed, not “contingent” on which exact rolls were seen recently, per se. But language and thinking on these subjects has evolved since 1969, so the way to frame it to a layman would obviously evolve as well. It’s been over 50 years, after all! Trying to understand the statement in the context of 1969 makes the framing much more reasonable. Edit: I can also see how this framing might have been important to funding ongoing research, ie, perhaps you are right that there was some degree of unethical framing here.
  - lisper 5y ago
    Recall the quoted passage: > “If numbers 1, 2, and 3 won the last 3 rounds, [I could determine] what was most likely to win the next 3.” That is unambiguously claiming not just a contingent bias, but a bias contingent on the previous three rounds. My math was based on a one-round contingent bias. That is already in the realm of extremely unlikely. Three-rounds is just flat-out impossible.

alasdair_ 5y ago

>What possible mechanism could cause that? As a pure hypothetical, definitely not saying it's what happened in this case: if the wheel's bias is based on where the ball is initially dropped in, and a human operator is the one that chooses where to drop in the ball, it's possible that the operator does something simple like choosing a spot opposite the number that last won the round and that this human bias affected the result in some way.

codingdave 5y ago

You are right if it was just a simple bet on one number. But I suspect the article is skipping out on the full description. My guess is that it involved a system where multiple bets were placed each spin - Roulette's odds can be narrowed if you place bets on a color, a third, high/low, and a number, making sure to minimize doubling down on any possible result. That puts you in a position where almost every spin, one of your bets wins and offsets some other losses. When the spin lands on the bets with higher payouts, you win more and balance out the spins where you got lesser payouts. All told, you'll slowly lose money all night, and one of two things happens - you one number hits and you win big. Or the zero hits and you've lost. It is a very complex and pain-staking way to flip a coin. But, if you have any way to game that one number, and can afford to just let those bets ride for the hours for that advantage to play out... I could see it working. Also, back before casinos were computerized, people did spend years learning the specific machines in a specific casino. They would often do it in teams, so each person would take an 8 hour shift, and share the winnings at the end.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

misja111 5y ago

Yep, this is BS. There's no way that the next roulette result could depend on the previous. After the ball has landed, the croupier will give the wheel a new spin and after a little while drop the ball again. So the next result does not depend on the roulette, but on the croupier; how fast does he spin the wheel, how late does he drop the ball. And this is not the only part of the article that smells fishy. > In a matter of hours, he flipped his $100 into $5,000 This kind of profit has nothing to do with the kind of edge you can get when you have detected some irregularities in the wheel. Maybe you'll have an edge of a few percent. If he really flipped his $100 into $5,000 he was not only seriously lucky, but was also gambling a far too large portion of his bankroll, risking a 'gamblers ruin'.

41b696ef1113 5y ago
A roulette payout can be 35x the wager, so $100->$5000 only requires two consecutive lucky bets.
- klodolph 5y ago
  That assumes that the gambler is playing unskillfully, or assumes that they don’t care about going bankrupt.
- faeriechangling 5y ago
  If he's betting high enough to win 50x his stake over two bets with a winning edge, he's a moron. A mathematician with a clue and a winning house edge would bet fairly conservatively and bet more as their bankroll expanded and bet less as their bankroll retracted to reduce their risk of ruin. Somebody making 50x their bet in an hour at roulette may sound impressive to many people, but it's obviously idiotic to any gambler worth their salt. It's so unlikely that it suggests incompetence at risk management more than it does genius gambling.
  - MockObject 5y ago
    The comment you're responding to said $100 -> $5000. He's a moron to risk $100? There must be some context you didn't make explicit.

chestnuttrees 5y ago

Probably none of these are true: 1. He explained himself clearly to a journalist. 2. The journalist understood what he was saying. 3. The journalist relayed it clearly and accurately. 4. He or the journalist didn’t exaggerate his success story. To your specific point I read that as a layman’s explanation of bias, and not at all as actually implying that if a 1, 2, 3 comes up then it’s sure to be a 4, 5, 6 next.