I will try to explain and also to highlight some facts about FF.
*“MH is clear, nice and easy to use.
FF needs practice and knowledge. Do not even try to play when you do not know perfectly where all numbers are.”
You shouldn’t play any system without that knowledge. When computer predicts you number I do not think anybody will play only that number, you played 15 numbers sector, to be able to do it, it is obvious that you already know what are numbers next to predicted one. The only difference is that with FF you must shift prediction by offset and with MH you do not. How good it is I will explain shortly.
*“With MH calibration is easy, and it predicts every spin. (nearly, MH call “out of range” when clicking is totally bad)
With FF I had my first calibration after 10 or 15 spins. My first prediction was after 30 minutes of clicking! It frighten me and give me only pain, I did not even notice predicted number!
What does it mean?
MH takes every data as calibration.
FF takes only timings which are very close to default, which “makes sense” for the system.”
(€¦LOL pain, it is again UK fault, the coils are from UK, I think they make them all the time differently. New chip can change strenght in 14 steps, for now adjust it properly or try to remove link inside the box".
If you want system to predict there is no easy calibration.
Maybe there is “Windows for dummies” but there is no “roulette computer for dummies”.
I have seen Marks DVD, what he is doing is nonsense.
You can not calibrate system based on one spin. It is imposable. You can have 2 100% same timings and ball can end up even by 2 rotations different. (Check it on DVD in slow motion). So how can you base your calibration on any of those spins?
His computer that you have definitely doesn’t predict. Well it is not secret any more since he admits it, for now he has excused that he made mistake in software. We shell see.
Let’s go back to timing. You think he has good error correction. No it is not.
3 pockets difference is huge it is almost 100ms. There is no correction which can correct that. To understand it here is an example.
One ball rotation 1000ms next one 1200.
What happens when you by mistake from that get 1000 and 1300.
His computer predicts. Now think can computer know was it 1000-1200 or 1100-1300 or maybe even 1000-1300. It is about 18 numbers difference. No mater what and how you calculate it you can’t get it to reasonable level of accurate prediction. FF will not predict if error is greater then 1 pocket of clocking, It uses calibration all the time while you play and accumulates a lot of data it can reduce error further to reasonable amount. Average person makes errors about 30 ms (that is 1 pocket).
IQE6 will reduce it and if you do tests with all together (calculation, rotor, and indication of predicted number) you will find out that most of the time prediction is within 3 numbers of accuracy.
The reason why Mark has all the time close to same number is simple. Computer doesn’t work, is not prediction according to ball speed and that is why you had random results.
If you take IQE6 and shift position of clocking by any amount so you feeding FF with different ball speeds you will see that system responds and predicts according to that speed. Of course with shifting and rotor is in different position therefore calculation of that ball speed and that rotor position should still produce same result as previous one. It is same spin.
Now there is part which I do not understand. IQE6 should predict at least 90% of spins. Set up is easy because basically you do nothing but system does it for you. It takes only few spins that system gets tuned to reasonably good stable prediction. If you didn’t have many predictions you definitely did something wrong. What confuses me more is when you say that you must observe rotor speed. Why is that? System calculates rotor. You will have possible errors only if change is huge, and that is only if different scatter develops.
Did you do last click when ball hits rotor and did starting pulses changed from 0.6 sec to 1.2 sec? If not then rotor is not calculated.
I do not know did you have problem only when you started or all the time.
If you have problem understanding I do not mind to give you phone call.
After 15 minutes everything will look simple.
IQE6 should predict about 90% of spins if you don’t have it talk to me.
Tilt 2 should predict 50%, it may take few spins to be able to set it.
With new chip that problem is solved.
I did think about changing accuracy while you play. It may be good idea.
Saving data is easy, only few lines of program, thought about that a lot but I couldn’t see much of benefits. It takes only few spins to tune system so why to save. It may give more confusion. Maybe with next chip.
Building graph,
For all that stuff you need to enter data in computer. How can you do it if you play? It is too much to worry about. Mark for number 29 must press switch 2 times then 9 times. What if you mistaken ball directions. FF doesn’t have problems like that. And anyway entered data is not so good compared to my manual analyzes.
When I play I do not want to think about entering data. I observe more important stuff.
If I want graph same as he does I would prefer to write prediction-winning number manually and exclude spins where the ball bounces out of order.
By observing how far ball hits from predicted number does not take long to know where to place bets. With graph as his even 100 spins is not enough. Because as one component in the graph you would have randomness of scatter. Simply on the end you may get pick point somewhere but you can’t know was it coincidence or result of prediction with average scatter. To see graph you must hide yourself in toilet. With FF you can play few hours without living table or looking for anything.
Lets say you get use to FF, I think you already did since you said that you had few good visits to casino.
Would you prefer system as you asked PDA, hearing aidetc
Or you would like system simple as FF, theoretically undetectable reduced to size as 10c coin? If you look board now it isn’t big something as 3x4 cm.
With surface mounting components it can be very small, so everything can fit under the toe. On the other side of board only plates for zap.
I tried it, it’s cool only my toe increased in size.
Please do not get wrong idea. :-*
,_Croatia.jpg)
