I see that this was over a year ago. So what ever happened to the rest of the study anyone? Forester? 
On some occasions the ball travelled one more revolution after the device said "now". Had the ball not travelled one further revolution the prediction would have been accurate.
When i read this and then wondering the following - when some one with the help of a thumper and level wheel can predict the correct turnaround left to end with out travel one further revolution - wish only would happen around once out of ten times at most.
Make me wondering if some computers use basic visually ballistic knowledge based upon the wrong principals.
Is not just to use a static reference point wish would indicate with measuring if you have and will be a certan amount to end.
Wish is a false positive - as the moment when ball calibrate and divide at certan spot on the wheel with certan time interval - then if some one use this place or spot on the wheel where the moment occur and start to use it as reference point towards how many turnarounds is left - it wont go one extra revolution - wish only would happen at very rare moments.
One simple thing is that isolate the momentum of the ball speed force and measuring it from a static point of view is just wrong - because the momentum of the ball speeds force calibrate and divide at different spots as it is not by nature static where it will occur.
So i assume to use any kind of measuring software to use clicks and static reference point and map and categorise spindevelopment is based upon the wrong principals.
It happened that Barnett got very upset with me for showing that picture.
Because sometimes I talk to much no more info.
@LS, extra amounts of ball traveling are always happening regardless how it is predicted and how accurate it is measured.
One spin 1000ms /rotation ball may travel 6 rotations, some other time it may be 6.5.
The ball doesnāt always hits every single bump on ball track on same way, also the ball is never 100% balanced in weight or shape.
Therefore whoever tells you he can get 1:3 real ball drop point on a levelled wheel is a scammer.
Ball traveling distance, by itself deviates more than that. For same reason itās impossible to predict how ball will deflect form diamond.
lucky_strike
MB has got plenty of high tech toys. he is a paid casino consultant to keed casinos updated about people like us. heās certainly welcome to tryā¦ ;D
The ball doesn't always hits every single bump on ball track on same way, also the ball is never 100% balanced in weight or shape. Therefore whoever tells you he can get 1:3 real ball drop point on a levelled wheel is a scammer.
@Forester u are the expert and my 2 cent is with out any futher comment - when A appers then the wheel is rounded from that spot and to get one full extra rev it has to hit or pass A to become one full extra - it is not difficult to test and observe it.
@ ?? yes i know who B is and that is not the issue - the post above that i made is about RC measuring and using static reference point wish the force of the ball speed has no knowledge of as it will by nature calibrate at different spots wish and should be A that indicate the amount of rev to end - not a static reference point wish would be a false positive to isolate that specific momentum that way.
Again Foresters is the expert i just have my own opinion.
I think you both raise valid points. lucky_strike you raise a valid point from a physics point of view, and Forester you are right based on the laws and rules of roulette which no one here knows better than you. 
We have theoretical prediction based on measured parameters and the way how the ball decelerates. If program is ok that part we can be very accurate. Reality is that ball with came measured speed doesnāt have to end at same place. If deviation is too high we simply cannot have recognisable stable advantage.
Thatās the reason why for any knowledgeable AP person someoneās claims that he can predict any levelled roulette wheel are ridicules.
The ball can pass predicted point by full rotation most likely if it is predicted as level and the wheel has significant tilt same can happen if it is predicted as tilt.
Donāt tell me I am the expert, you spent hours researching roulette so your 2c is same as my 2c.
Did you ever see me replying to anyone, you have no idea of my technology and what my computer can do. 
That looks as reasonable offer from Barnett.
Dr. Spock did see book in forums support section about BJ shuffling.
Have a look, it is in one of top posts, I got it from guy for whom I know that he won 3 millions playing Black jack. 8)
Without ploughing through the entire thread. I was chatting to one of the managers at Jupiters last week, I would just to like to make it public knowledge, that somebody took a computer device to demo it at the tables. So now the pit crew are weary of anybody betting very late or whom keeps one hand in their pocket (I donāt know if this is a requirement for Foresters device).
I also have noticed that I havenāt come across any roulette tables in Oz which have the neighbor bet racetracks unlike which exist in the UK, the latter making it far easier to lay down late bets. Like was mentioned in this thread, casinos are well aware of these devices.