Independent advice about FF


#1

Im interested in buying a roulette computer and would like more information.

All the computer providers say theirs is best so I am looking for independent reviews. Forester you say on your website that yours are the only ones that casinos found to be a threat.

Your site says: “Only our roulette computers in different stages were investigated and tested by casino consultants and classified as a threat.”

But then I found this on another site:

“Time will tell if there is a viable threat to modern well-maintained roulette wheels but at this stage the FF device is not it.”

Did the tester really say this?

If they did, then why are you advertising claims that your FF device was found to be a threat?

Also do you give any demonstrations?

If so, how do we organize one and where is it done?

I will be seeing a demo from one of your competitors. Any advice about what I should look for? I am hiring a wheel to have in my home and aiming a webcam on skype so Im sure the wheel isnt fixed.


#2

Michael Barnett a casino investigator never wrote that I do not know where did you find it and I do not care.

You can find the article here;

in short:

"It should be noted that we were only interested in the predictive accuracy of the device (which was very, very good) not the end result, which is influenced by the behaviour of the ball after it has entered the rotor.

This is a well-made professional device. I understand from its manufacturer that it has sophisticated error correction algorithms designed to smooth out operator clocking errors and prevent the unit from providing a prediction if the parameters are out of specification.

This device is capable of providing its operator with a significant advantage under varying conditions unless consideration is given to the ball behaviour after it enters the rotor.”
"

So the sentence you quoted I assume is someones free interpretation of what is written here, however it has not much to do with common sense.

Casino consultant investigated 2 of our computers but it was a long time ago, therefore it has not much to do with today FF roulette computers.

Never did and I never will.

I also never make videos as the other sellers to convince people into buying RC. I make only videos to explain how to operate it. Most videos I have seen are rubbish made to attract people without much understanding.
Don’t dream of easy winnings.

Good luck with your research.


#3

Thankyou. I have some more questions.

Michael Barnett a casino investigator never wrote that I do not know where did you find it and I do not care. So the sentence you quoted I assume is someones free interpretation of what is written here, however it has not much to do with common sense.

He did write it. I found in part 2 link I’ll give.

Your sales page doesn’t show part 2 results, where he said your device is not a threat to casinos. You only show part 1, where he even said more testing was planned.

Part 1 was testing on an easy wheel. The results were good but the tester said: “FF does a good job of giving you a consistent reference point on wheels that exhibit stator bias (drop_zone) but there are several others that do this relatively trivial task (for a computer) equally well and don’t require you to have the visual acuity of a Nighthawk.”

So on an easy wheel, several other computers got around same accuracy but were easier to use than your FF. It’s at the archive site. He doesnt say which computers they were, but several. I would give more links but your forum wont let me.

Part 2 test results are at https://web.archive.org/web/20080720053050/http://www.survtech.com.au/discus/messages/1/145.html?1206574929 where he says:

“Tests were carried out on several different styles of wheel and a variety of ball were used.”

"When the device did produce predictions the results were close to random. The testers were unable to obtain a statistically significant advantage on any of the test sessions. "

“Whilst there is much talk of the device, it’s capabilities and it’s continuing development, at this stage it is just that, talk. I do not know of anyone, including the manufacturer, who claims to use this device to gain an advantage away from the kitchen table.”

“Time will tell if there is a viable threat to modern well-maintained roulette wheels but at this stage the FF device is not it.”

There is nothing like this on your sales pages. He even tried multiple wheels and balls and couldn’t get an edge. He concluded your FF device is not a threat. Your site says the opposite, and doesn’t explain the only good results were on an easy wheel.

Casino consultant investigated 2 of our computers but it was a long time ago, therefore it has not much to do with today FF roulette computers.

You’re saying negative test results you didn’t know about are now unimportant, although equally old but positive test results ARE important (you use them to sell your device).

You already said you never saw his negative test results, but I’m asking for confirmation in case of misunderstanding. Are you saying he only told you about stage 1 testing and never stage 2 testing? Is that why I can’t find the full unedited report on your sales page?

Thankyou again for your time Forester.


#4

Heres one more link
https://web.archive.org/web/20080720053235/http://www.survtech.com.au/discus/messages/1/135.html?1193695509

It’s not someones interpretation and I’m not trying to annoy you. These are the tester’s words. I just want to find a computer that I can make money with, and there are some questions about your sales page. You say casinos said your device is the only threat. Now I find extra results (which you didn’t publish) where they said other computers are even better on the same easy wheels, and that your device is not a threat, and couldn’t beat several different realistic wheels in the extended tests. These and other contradictions don’t exactly inspire faith so I appreciate you making things clear.


#5

Here you have what Mike wrote.

For rest, I hardly remember it was ten years ago.

I remember that at some point he wrote something negative. First I thought he did that deliberately, but on end, it was a mistake they made in testing, or I sent him wrong update chip. For some reason, they couldn’t make the system even to predict all spins. Now I do not remember what the reason was, but I know after discussion that the problem was rectified.

The link you provided was March 2008

Here is May 12, 2009 - 03:39 pm
http://www.survtech.com.au/discus/messages/1/173.html?1242113945

Last year I purchased a roulette prediction computer from MZ Electronics with a view to testing and reporting on it’s effectiveness.

I carried out some tests on a wheel with a very good drop-zone; the results were excellent.

I then handed the device over to a client casino for further testing on a new wheel, which had not yet been commissioned.

A synopsis of the testers findings can be found here: -

http://www.survtech.com.au/discus/messages/1/145.html?1206574929

Last week I purchased another device from MZ Electronics. This device is far more sophisticated than the first device in its operation and operator feedback.

This device has a synthesized voice output, comprehensive menu system and Bluetooth communication.

The device was tested on a modern Huxley wheel, which was displaying a solid drop-zone.

The device was set to play a drop-zone wheel and calibrated for time-to-drop.

The device provided extremely accurate predictions.

The device output only one error (would not produce a prediction) over several dozen trials. This is vastly better than the previous tests.

This device would provide a very significant advantage to its user against a wheel with a drop-zone and manageable scatter.

We then adjusted the level of the wheel in an attempt to remove the drop-zone and create a random ball fall-off point.

The device was then set to play a so-called “level” wheel and the time-to-drop was set.

The device provided predictions on every spin without error.

We observed that when the device said “now” (this is the point at which the computer predicts the ball will fall from the rim) the predicted number was directly under the ball.

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.

The device was providing predictions nearly twelve seconds from the end of the spin.

We will carry out further tests but I strongly suspect that the drop-off revolution will be predicted with greater accuracy if the device is set to perform calculations one or two revolutions later.

It should be noted that we were only interested in the predictive accuracy of the device (which was very, very good) not the end result, which is influenced by the behavior of the ball after it has entered the rotor.

This is a well-made professional device. I understand from its manufacturer that it has sophisticated error correction algorithms designed to smooth out operator clocking errors and prevent the unit from providing a prediction if the parameters are out of specification.

This device is capable of providing its operator with a significant advantage under varying conditions unless consideration is given to the ball behaviour after it enters the rotor.

Bottom line nothing of this matter today

For example FF he tested used 2-4k microcontroller today’s FF uses 128k.
Stevens computer users had to use the camera to record spin than go home, in slow motion take times of ball rotations, add times to RC and run to the casino to play. I don’t believe it matters any more obvious he had to change something.

Mark Howe tried to use a mobile phone to predict and finally gave up because of problems I was highlighting from the start.

Most likely and Jafco improved his computer so after the battery gets flat he doesn’t have to reinstall all software or to work better than the traditional VB.

Maybe in all this story, the most important is the reason why Mike did not invest in the other RC’s to investigate. He simply knows from a conversation with owners and from videos they publish how much they know…


#6

How you do not understand that wins not a computer, even not a program - wins player and results mostly depends how good is a player.

If you will take the best formula car - you expect to be the winner in the race?
If you have braked leg - you expect to be a winner in run only because you bought good crutches?

I think you do not doubt that calculator count well, but to use it you must recognise numbers and know what mathematical actions mean.
But if calculator does not do square rise operation for one that can be bad, but for other - without a difference.

Really player with computers helps only do some measurements with some accuracy which depends often from players reaction. When measurements are done program do calculations and no matter which device - such calculations will be done identically.

I can’t really understand how casino consultant can say his opinion about computers when he is not player , not a programmer, not electronical engineer.


#7

Barnett can, he was and player and made his own stuff from RC to shuffle BJ computers. He also won many jackpots with his team.

All reviews 10y ago are irrelevant today.


#8

Are very simple way how do the test - are predicted numbers and are real winning numbers. very easy is to calculate the distance from the predicted number till the final number. From these distances, we have all dispersion of possible results when dispersion overcome some value to win is not possible.
But even when dispersion show that to win is possible - that will do far not every player :slight_smile: