The Fraud In The Game Of Roulette – How to know it?
The world of gambling has been faced with the problem of fraud and fraud. For many centuries, players have racked their brains over how to get a big win at the casino. The desire to ruin a casino, having broken a big jackpot, turned out to be almost universal. Once in this occasion, the world-famous Albert Einstein expressed the opinion that the only way to win from a casino is a dishonest way: theft and deception. Such a perception of the essence of the problem made of waxing wishing to earn money from roulette, inventing more and more schemes of deception. It should be said, however, that the very tendencies of the casino, as well as many (sometimes, fair) accusations against the gambling house. In fact, in the first years of the existence of gambling houses, the owners of the casinos themselves invented a variety of ways to win. Many casinos from Paris to New Orleans hid from the players some details of the game on roulette, thus leaving room for deception of unsuspecting players. And to the very roulette wheel, casino owners invented all sorts of chips to ensure that the winnings as often as possible fell out in favor of the casino.
By the beginning of the twentieth century, due to the declassification of many rules and tricks of roulette, the situation has changed dramatically: the gambling industry has been abandoned the dubious manipulations committed to deceive the players. Best sports betting SBOBET does not have the fraud activities in sports betting. It will increase the engagement of the players at the platform. You can do proper research at the market to avoid the fraud betting. It will increase the winnings with the players.
In turn, the deception of casino players was no less (and sometimes even more) sophisticated – the history of this gambling (since the 19th century) knows a lot of examples.
The famous player Joseph Jaggers
Cheating in a game of roulette The famous player Joseph Jaggers fraudulently cleaned a casino in Monte Carlo thanks to a simple method of Observation. Jaggers brought in the casino six team-mates, who watched all the roulette tables in the institution. As a result, it turned out that one of the numbers was
much higher than the average. At this table Jaggers and his team managed to win 300 thousand dollars. As a result, the casino sued him.
Technological progress has led to the complication of fraud behavior strategies. In the XX century, casinos improved roulette wheels to get rid of problems with non-random number loss. The transition occurred in the 80s after the case in England, when the American players managed to use the defective tables. Producers of roulette wheels, such as John Huxley and George Malas, have been supplying wheels to improved wheel construction since 1986. Technical innovation pushed players and mathematicians to invent new guaranteed ways of winning.
Gonzalo Garcia
Palayo used computer analysis and forecasting to uncover the device of new roulette wheels. Garcia-Pelayo recorded the results of the games at the tables in the Spanish Casino de Madrid, after which he processed them using the computer program. Having on his hands. In the mid-90’s, the Casino de Madrid tried to sue the winnings, but failed to prove the fault in the wheel.
In recent years, attempts at fraud at the roulette table have attracted the attention of scientists and academics. In the 60s, the mathematician Claude Shannon put forward the idea of a computer program that predicts where the ball will fall. The program could be installed on the small computer secretly carried by the casino. The Shannon program would measure the speed of the ball, and it would stop. In 1991, Thomas Bass in his book The Eudaemonic Pie wrote about college students who used the Shannon computer program option to gain an advantage at the roulette table. In 2009, TV presenter Derren Brown used individual elements of Shannon’s theory in a show devoted to roulette. Brown put £ 5,000 on a number that, according to calculations based on physics, would have been most likely. Brown was not lucky, however, he was one of the winners.