This is almost certainly unlawful in the UK. Phil Ivey was successfully sued just for edge sorting. Introducing a device is far more obviously dishonest.
Yes Thorp had secured a hard to schedule meeting with Shannon regarding his research. Turned out Shannon was more interested in the analysis of a few gambling games that Thorp had thrown in the conversation.
The wide interest in things that Shannon held from weird gadgets to possibly the most famous Masters thesis dissertation, Shannon has me in awe and respect. Had he been a good storyteller, I suspect, people would have been as familiar with his name as Feynman.
A great reference, thanks! I can imagine both Thorp and Shannon desperately trying to solder loose wires in a toilet booth could make a great awkward scene in a future film
There were also some early shoe-based devices I have read about, which used earpieces (difficult to avoid breaking the thin wires necessary to hide them, and prevent damage from sweat). Some of these stories unfortunately weren't documented super well -- I think I came across them from the original participants chatting on a long-defunct forum or newsgroup -- but it is mentioned in passing here: https://jimsudmeierstories.com/adventures-with-a-concealed-b...
> Then around 1976 came “David,” using the Z80 microprocessor, oriented towards team play (the Big Player making the big bets) with hand keyboards operated through holes in pockets and transmitters to signal the Big Player. Later came “Thor,” a computer to track the shuffling (and possible clumping) of multiple decks. One of his inventions involved networking players together with fine wires about 3 feet long. Then there were “Magic Shoes” in which 12 batteries, computer, and all were hidden in “Frankenstein” shoes. Later still there was “Narnia, the sequencing computer.”
> It depends on the computer version. Normal mobile phones cannot accurately process timings, so they are unsuitable for roulette computers. This is why our phones are modified. How we modify each phone depends on the model, but in most cases we install a crystal oscillator that acts as a microprocessor timer, then we re-program the phone firmware to source it’s timings from the new timer. The phone has the timer, custom firmware, and interface software depend on each other. This gives the best combination of accurate timings and complex algorithms to predict roulette spins. The modifications are difficult and expensive, which is why most roulette computers are unmodified phones or PDAs, or microprocessors.
Is it just me or does this sounds more like a justification for the cost and/or to discourage reverse engineering? I'm skeptical this is actually necessary.
Yes this would defeat it, but standard practice is that you can keep betting a couple rotations into the spin. The reason for that is that some people believe the croupier can target his shot to some extent. (I don't think it's farfetched that someone who spins a ball 8 hours a day could get above chance at targeting.)
I don’t have proof to back up my assertion but my gut says a lot of these online/non-us/crypto casinos are cheating. How would you the end user know? The house knows where the big money is placed on the table and then magnetic or some mechanism control where the ball lands. Profit even more than their statistical edge.
This is almost certainly unlawful in the UK. Phil Ivey was successfully sued just for edge sorting. Introducing a device is far more obviously dishonest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivey_v_Genting_Casinos
Fun fact: roulette computers were (arguably) the first wearable computer [0] in 1961 and co-invented by Claude Shannon of information theory fame.
[0] https://mitmuseum.mit.edu/collections/object/2007.030.014
Yhe initiator of the scheme, Edward O. Thorp, was also a father of modern blackjack card counting, and wrote the definitive book about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_counting#History_of_blackj... . "The Invention of the First Wearable Computer" http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/graphics/courses/mobwear/resourc... is Thorp's paper about the blackjack-computer scheme.
(Another famous '70s card counter, Ken Uston https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Uston ended up writing one of the very earliest video game guides, Mastering Pac-Man (it came out in 1981, the same year as Tom Hirschfeld's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Master_the_Video_Games .) Apparently one of its readers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semyon_Dukach discovered Uston's blackjack books as a result, got into blackjack and so ended up on the later, late-'70s-to-early-2000s MIT Blackjack Team led by J.P. Massar .)
Yes Thorp had secured a hard to schedule meeting with Shannon regarding his research. Turned out Shannon was more interested in the analysis of a few gambling games that Thorp had thrown in the conversation.
The wide interest in things that Shannon held from weird gadgets to possibly the most famous Masters thesis dissertation, Shannon has me in awe and respect. Had he been a good storyteller, I suspect, people would have been as familiar with his name as Feynman.
A great reference, thanks! I can imagine both Thorp and Shannon desperately trying to solder loose wires in a toilet booth could make a great awkward scene in a future film
There were also some early shoe-based devices I have read about, which used earpieces (difficult to avoid breaking the thin wires necessary to hide them, and prevent damage from sweat). Some of these stories unfortunately weren't documented super well -- I think I came across them from the original participants chatting on a long-defunct forum or newsgroup -- but it is mentioned in passing here: https://jimsudmeierstories.com/adventures-with-a-concealed-b...
> Then around 1976 came “David,” using the Z80 microprocessor, oriented towards team play (the Big Player making the big bets) with hand keyboards operated through holes in pockets and transmitters to signal the Big Player. Later came “Thor,” a computer to track the shuffling (and possible clumping) of multiple decks. One of his inventions involved networking players together with fine wires about 3 feet long. Then there were “Magic Shoes” in which 12 batteries, computer, and all were hidden in “Frankenstein” shoes. Later still there was “Narnia, the sequencing computer.”
The inventor Keith Taft talks about it in more detail in an interview here: https://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/gambling-with-an-edge/interv...
> It depends on the computer version. Normal mobile phones cannot accurately process timings, so they are unsuitable for roulette computers. This is why our phones are modified. How we modify each phone depends on the model, but in most cases we install a crystal oscillator that acts as a microprocessor timer, then we re-program the phone firmware to source it’s timings from the new timer. The phone has the timer, custom firmware, and interface software depend on each other. This gives the best combination of accurate timings and complex algorithms to predict roulette spins. The modifications are difficult and expensive, which is why most roulette computers are unmodified phones or PDAs, or microprocessors.
Is it just me or does this sounds more like a justification for the cost and/or to discourage reverse engineering? I'm skeptical this is actually necessary.
There's a classic book from 1985 about an early, successful attempt to make one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eudaemonic_Pie
Isn't this easily defeated by closing the betting before the wheel starts spinning? Is that not standard practice anyway?
Yes this would defeat it, but standard practice is that you can keep betting a couple rotations into the spin. The reason for that is that some people believe the croupier can target his shot to some extent. (I don't think it's farfetched that someone who spins a ball 8 hours a day could get above chance at targeting.)
I don’t have proof to back up my assertion but my gut says a lot of these online/non-us/crypto casinos are cheating. How would you the end user know? The house knows where the big money is placed on the table and then magnetic or some mechanism control where the ball lands. Profit even more than their statistical edge.
> How would you the end user know?
There are "provably fair" schemes where casino reveals a hash of the outcome before players bet.
I am referring to “live” dealers where they spin a actual wheel and ball.
don't gaming commissions perform anonymous audits to make sure your game has the odds it claims to have?