Author Topic: Pierre Basieux's Misunderstandings  (Read 6359 times)


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1864
Pierre Basieux's Misunderstandings
« on: November 11, 2011, 01:52:07 PM »
A while back I got Pierre Basieux's latest book. It's in German so I had to scan it, convert the text to images with OCR, then translate it all. There is nothing new I personally learned from it, and in fact I found some critical mistakes in his understandings.

Anyway he mentions me a lot in his book, and he really says some uneducated things. I can understand he hasn't done proper research but what I dont understand is how someone with such limited information automatically thinks he's an expert about me and what I do.

Nevertheless, I'll address his "criticisms" about me, from what little he knows. I have said my hybrid roulette computer can achieve up to 1 in 5 direct number hits. Generally this means if you got a single number prediction, you can expect to win 1 in 5 spins. There is more to this as we never actually bet on 1 number as I explain later. Anyway he claims that 1 in 5 is impossible basically because the ball never bounces predictably enough.

So here's a lesson about how ignorance works:

1. I said UP-TO 1 in 5 hit rate. This means just that - the best possible. It is not an expression of what to expect on every wheel. It is an expression of what to expect in IDEAL conditions, which is heavily tilted wheel, and minimal ball bounce. As per for the hybrid, the average exact number hit rate for the average modern wheel is 1 in 14. But it really varies so it is very difficult to give an average value.


i. When used to predict the same spin on a TV screen, the same number is predicted almost every time. This means the timing errors are negligible.

ii. Pierre appears to think ball scatter is whatever happens once the ball leaves the ball track. This is incomplete. From a VB player's perspective and with basic/quick scatter analysis, sure you can take that approach because you don't have a roulette computer to calculate with more precise variables when it comes to play anyway. In reality, scatter is different when the ball hits specific diamonds and hits them in different ways. If you assessed a wheel's "ball scatter" and considered all spins together, then scatter may be 1 in 30, and you may think the wheel is near impossible to beat.

But hey, consider the scatter for when the ball hits a particular diamond, and you may find the scatter is more like 1 in 8. And with a well designed computer that takes extremely precise timings automatically, you can determine with high accuracy which diamond the ball is most likely to hit. Both my Uber and Hybrid] computers do this. This means it can reject spins where it determines the ball will bounce wildly, and announce predictions when it determines the ball will bounce much more predictably.

The above is one thing., but if you also consider rotor speed in your scatter assessment, you can increase accuracy by up to (UP TO) 5 times. This is not only what I've found - also George Melas who is one of the designers for John Huxley wheels shared his knowledge about this with me. He calls it the coefficient of restitution. But that value actually changes depending on where the ball loses its momentum, so its not that simple. To date, my roulette computers are the only ones capable of compensating for the different ball bounce on different rotor speeds AND different ball falling for different parts of the wheel, not to mention adjustments for ball deceleration rate changes.

Consider all this ... and suddenly, claims of "up to 1 in 5" are not unreasonable at all. I assume Pierre doesn't believe my claims of up to 1 in 5 because:

1. He doesn't understand what "up to" means (best case scenario, in ideal conditions).

2. He assumes scatter is whatever happens after the ball track, without giving consideration to specific diamond hits, and varying bounce on different rotor speeds

3. He assumes every spin results in a prediction, without any risk assessment (ie setting the computer to only give predictions on the most predictable spins)

On another note, he also made some comments indicating he once saw some documentation about my primordial methods. He would know them as correlation charts. My players would know them as primordial (very basic) charts. And he assumed the primordial charting document was my system in its entirety, when it is simply an introduction to what I teach. Pierre is not "unintelligent", but unfortunately ignorance and lack of education about matters overrules intelligence.

I very often waste time educating people that think they know best, and think my claims are outrageous because they don't understand it. It is not uncommon for other "professionals" to attack me. I'm not so sure they've developed anything close to the hybrid roulette computer, or have achieved anything close to my teams. Perhaps I should expect a little "flak", whether from envy, inability to understand, or perhaps both. So I'll try not to waste more time, except for this last note:

If you had a 1 in 5 direct hit rate on a wheel, say you played on 100 spins with $1 bet per spin. That would be $620 PROFIT

Now let's say you won 93% of the time when covering 15 numbers per spin with $1 per number. Over 100 spins, this is $1848 PROFIT. This is the accuracy achieved in the public demo at

So you win much more by covering more numbers. For this reason, we never bet just 1 number in real play. Also even if you had a 1 in 5 average hit rate, over 100 spins which is short term, you may have just missed out on a win a few times, making you lose. This will almost never happen if you are covering more numbers.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1864
Re: Pierre Basieux's Misunderstandings
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2011, 02:35:22 PM »
The below image shows the "jump" chart from the public demo

There is no denying the difficulty of the wheel. Early predictions, mk7 velstone, 3 evenly spread dominant diamonds, deliberately bouncy ivorine ball etc. This is using only the basic settings. The chart shows about 60 spins. The highest peak is 6 values high and central to main peak (there are 3 peaks). So this means with the basic settings alone, the direct number hit rate is 1 in 10.

What I could have done is have the computer only give predictions when the ball is likely to form part of the larger peak. This would greatly reduce the size of the other peaks bringing the direct number hit rate closer to 1 in 6 or so.

Remember this is deliberately difficult conditions, and using only basic settings. 1 in 5 not possible my backside.

Anyway again I shouldnt waste more time on this. I should be used to other people having trouble believing what is everyday stuff for me.