I started writing article with name “Do not buy any roulette computer until you read this”
It will be long article and I will try to cover everything important about roulette prediction.
http://www.rouletteplace.com/index.php/development/ffa-compared.html
[glow=red,2,300]
All comments and suggestions are welcome [/glow]
I have been away and have a lot of catching up to do.
All the post in this forum over the last 2 months, plus all the future new posts should keep me pretty busy this summer
I am sure that by the end of summer, I’ll understand all the important aspects of using FFA. ;D
OVER AND OUT… 8)
Guys this is ridicules.
I finally took 100 Stefano Hourmouzis roulette spins to see his prediction-rotor hits.
And this is how it looks.
Red is his prediction to rotor hit. If scatter as on white graph is applied he doesn’t get anything better then 2.7 hits on 100 spins which is just expected average.
No wonder why Kelly didn’t want to comment it.
To make it worst even if the ball doesn’t jump at all he wouldn’t get any advantage.
Please tell me that I am wrong and that I made mistake somewhere since it is assault to my intelligence.
I’m not sure I can follow your graphs… can you explain more about each graph (including the blue one). I have done a fair bit of work on his video and can’t see that he is doing anything more than “crossing his fingers”. I concluded (rightly or wrongly) that he has probably done many videos and has merely posted his ‘best result’ which to me is not very impressive anyway.
Cheers
PJ
PJ,
The red graph is a result of 100 spins from his prediction to the point where the ball hits rotor.
If computer has any prediction it needs to have pick point somewhere.
But Stefano’s computer produces completely random result as it is displayed on the red graph. It is shown that even if there is no ball bouncing he can’t have any advantage.
If he can’t predict where the ball will hit rotor then he can’t predict at all.
For example this is result when I applied FFA on same spins as Stefano was using.
You can see clear strong build up from position 5 to position 15.
Which really means that most of the spins the ball will hit about 10 pockets from prediction. For example 10 pockets from prediction with FFA we get about 5.5 hits which is double then what probability says. If there is no ball bouncing it would give to player more then 100% advantage. But after ball bouncing it gives 20% as it is displayed at blue graph.
FFA was predicting earlier then 10 seconds before then ball drops, and Stefano’s prediction was only about 5 sec to the end.
If I set the FFA to accuracy 4 (that would match his time ) I would probably get even better results. If you look his spins you will notice that after his last click the computer waits a lot before then it pronounces number. It is because it needs to initiate audio player. The FFA doesn’t lose time because it doesn’t use already made programs so computer doesn’t wait at all and audio is instant.
The white graph is scatter, not from his wheel but any, where the ball most of the time stops about 12 pockets from position where it hits rotor.
The blue graph is simulation what will happen if from any ball hit to rotor scatter law of white graph is applied. So it is really simulation for 100 x 100 spins = 10,000
You can see that he gets only 2.7 hits per 100 spins which is same as if someone randomly place bets. If we play 100 spins, to win we need more then 100/36=2.77 hits and that is where the green line is positioned.
He can’t get more since his computer doesn’t have consistency in predicting ball failing point. You can see that on red graph the ball is hitting rotor everywhere, instead of one pick point he has 10 which are nothing more then standard deviation on 100 spins created by coincidences.
Prior to those 100 spins he did additional 50 spins where he claimed that he tuned computer to have zero offset. It means that the ball most of the time should hit rotor about 9 pockets in front of predicted number. But the ball one spin hits zero pockets from predicted number next time +20 pockets, next time -5 next time +12 next time -15 etc.
And this is the difference in between FFA and Stefano’s computer.
His result is the red line, positioned around 2.7 and the blue line is result that FFA creates.
By the way
Do not buy any roulette computer until you read this / part 2
It still needs some editing
Ok, and this is a real result after 100 spins .
After 5 spins i decided to set the FF for offset of 16, therefore result are as i got them.
Perhaps i should set it to 19. I would get more then 50% advantage.
Yellow area is always a problemn, not many hits at position -2 , but if i played i would probobly shift it.
Ths was when the FFA was set to ACC4 giving prediction at 6.8 sec.
Going for ACC3 would probably be 30% and ACC2 20%.
Playing where is higher accuracy is much easier, the ball was hitting,
-8,-11,-10,-5,-14,-11,-11,-10,-15,-5,-7, +4, ???-7,-7,-1,-7,-14,-12,-1,-12,-13 etc.
in front of predicted number
