Hi,Guys
been doing some sreiuos testing with the famous IQE6 system,and needless to say that for level wheel prediction,is a pretty cool and sometimes uncanny system to work with.
But,unlike the tilt2 sytem it gets no data from player when we have a very bad preditction,if we could finely tune the system for bad spins,it would be in my opinion an advancement of its time in the roulette computer world
Please vote or make your comment be heard,dont forget ,if our beloved forester dont here views then he cant act
Public opion is vital to us all,and for the ongoing advancement in roulette prediction,Roulette wheel manufactuars also never cease in there research to stay one step ahead of the Advantage Player so WE as a team must also play OUR roll to be also one step ahead of both the casinos AND the roulette wheel manufacturars
this topic is open is open for public debate and non members this is your chance to tell the forum and forester your wishes and ideas for furhter devolopment of the FF roulette prediction device
The question you have always to ask yourself is ‘why was that a bad prediction ?’.
And there could be many reasons which have nothing to do with the software. Did the air pressure or temperature suddenly change, did the dealer have a little more spin on the ball compared to normal, were there more players leaning on the table ? etc
If any of these have positive answers then it may make things worse by trying to alter the predictions in the longrun as the bad prediction could have been within statistical limits. No system will ever be perfect and there will always be bad predictions. To change parameters could make things worse.
When it comes to tilted wheel predictions the PS should exclude known bad timings. But this is a physical element and nothing to do with possible random effects like I described above.
So, my own view is that unless someone has a better analysis, it may be better to keep things as they are.
[quote=“drwho, post:2, topic:408”]When it comes to tilted wheel predictions the PS should exclude known bad timings. But this is a physical element and nothing to do with possible random effects like I described above.
So, my own view is that unless someone has a better analysis, it may be better to keep things as they are.[/quote]
thx for your input drwho
yes the conditons you mentioned above sure and will contribute to the outcome whether we play tilt or level wheel.
but to take advantage of the physical element as you describe would surely be a great advancement to level wheel prediction
and this i see PS excluding bad timings also
intersting to see how this could be developed if at all
thx again and look forward to your posts on your FFz
Remaining is wheel imperfections on the ball and ball track that affect the ball after the system already predicted.
For example the ball may be eccentric 0.0001mm, once it rotates around wider part, next time it may be different.
It may be that is hitting different bumps on the ball track…vibrations on table…and so many things.
Perhaps there may be something to be improved, but we have to be careful to not make it worst.
Can something as PS help, really not in function as it is now, but maybe something similar may help.
Most of people at start hated PS, until they understood importance of it.
Alternative way to PS would be building graph based on detected ball speed (it could relate to prediction) and final outcome. It would need few hundred of spins so the player/computer from graph which is strongly mixed with randomness of ball jumps can define where is the braking point in between rotations.
A bit better option would be building similar graph but to replace final ball destination with ball hits on rotor. It would still need many spins and for example instead the ball dropped on zero if it dropped on opposite side, the computer wouldn’t know if the ball made half rotation extra or ½ rotations less.
Until we build such graph anything can change on the wheel, and it will… That is why such approach is useless.
PS does it in one spin perhaps 2 or 3. And if there is a change, it can be fixed with single spin.
Playing roulette is dynamic game it requires us to be able to notice and adapt to changes quickly.
[quote=“Forester, post:4, topic:408”]You never know when one idea which may not be so perfect may trigger another idea that may lead to improvement.
I like this “No system will ever be perfect and there will always be bad predictions. To change parameters could make things worse.”
Perhaps there may be something to be improved, but we have to be careful to not make it worst.
Can something as PS help, really not in function as it is now, but maybe something similar may help.
A bit better option would be building similar graph but to replace final ball destination with ball hits on rotor. It would still need many spins and for example instead the ball dropped on zero if it dropped on opposite side, the computer wouldn’t know if the ball made half rotation extra or ½ rotations less.[/quote]
thx for your post Forester
would an experiment on entering the bad spin data to the FF,i mean any spin that is out by half a rev to full rev
as you say the computer woulnt know if ball made half a rev extra,mmmmmmmm,what if we could give the FF this input
Here is what i did , I sarted to test each spin 4 times WITHOUT setting the sytem ??? ??? ??? ???
I was amazed in what happened ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? the predictions wernt wild like they are when system is set
i beg all of you to try this and preddictions where ALL good and consistant
Forester ,what have i stumbled accross does this info tell you something how can you use this info etc
i know we are told to set the system but i just kept going through SH dvd of level wheel and was truely amazed ??? ??? ??? ???
then i did eventually set the system on the 12 oclock diamnd and,yupp,you geused it prediction whent from 4 to 24 REALLY all over the place ,switched off the system and started it again and on the same spin prediction was good and again the next 3 times prediction was also very good ,set system and it was well ,mmmmmer well crap ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? :’( :’( :’( :’(
ok Lads try it out acc 3 and at times youll need to do half rotor clocking to get most of SH spins,hey and normally half rotor clocking on iqe6 is also not good but when system is NOT set it is very constant
forester please look into this maybe this has opened up a new door for you
If you do not set the system, there is no rotor calculation!!!
Spins you’ve tested have reasonably constant rotor that is why you could have results.
I have had similar case; someone was clocking all rotations after system gives prediction, on first spin.
It means he was setting system to 4 sec remaining time. He claimed he is winning with it.
Sure he does, if rotor doesn’t change.
What you explained means that your 1/2 rotor clocking sucks.
But I give you a credit for PS for IQE6,
We may add it to see if it can help.
Of course it will not work as PS but it may only give E4 if we want to avoid some bad ball speeds. It may be good for semi tilt. :-*
Securityman what system are you using? I have FFA and sometimes predictions seem unstable. I havent quite figured out some things and its killing me. Securityman I think you might be finding a similar thing.
Forester do I have to set the rotor or something? You said we need to set the system or there is no rotor calculation. Could this be the source of my error 4’s?
If i use same spin, sometimes ff is very accurate and sometimes it is opposite side of wheel and sometimes I get 4 or 5 error 4’s in a row even when its not the same spin. I think there is definitely refinement needed because these things cant happen in the casino. Mostly I am happy with most of ffa, but like I said there are things that are needed to make it better. I’m guessing the latest ffa-u might have some bugs.
He is using older program, it needs to do last switch click when the ball hits rotor.
If you do not do it the system doesn’t calculate rotor.
In your case I need to know what exactly you using , which settings so I can do some testing.
The program is new but I did not notice any trouble with predictions.
It doesn’t mean that it may not be on some settings.
If you look upgrade section, there is small change in program which your FF doesn’t have.
If we are using tilt 2 or IQE6 system still can predict few times.
If you use IQE6 predictions may not be always so close in al rotations because it is so sensitive.
I tried to make program to predict against same sample part. It had small mistake and it can predict in the other part which may be not so accurate.
For example (not real values)
Sample you clocked for set may be 1100 1300 1500
The system should select 1100 to 1300 and have first prediction in between.
Ball rotations you clock may be 1000 1200 1400…
When you clock 1200 it predicts.
In your case it may predict and when the ball is 1000. Theoretically it should give you same prediction, but sometimes it doesn’t because not every spin would have 200 ms difference every time. It changes. On tilt 2 this could shift prediction to the other side or PS. That is why the best is to have first prediction always at same time within same time frame from sample. This doesn’t reflect to all spins. But it is better to upgrade program.
Also as I explained earlier E4 is in clocking rotations is removed so it doesn’t mix with PS E4. If you can get programmer it would be good, it would be easier to find out from where you getting E4. I can’t know since I hardly ever get it except if I play tilt 2 and ball really doen’t hit dd.
If you want record few spins so I can see what you are doing it may help.
what im getting then is just PS value from he system :-\
i think we could be on to something as PS value from a -d is veryy different,maybe if we could add different off sets to different diamonds as they seem to be well defined by PS value or at least where the PS value is very differnet between diamonds between say a diamond and c diamond
if you dont understnad what i just typed then that maakes 2 of us
hey got all the parts from shop thx for you support
Hi Forester and thx you thought the idea of PS would be worth trying
would be interesting to test but ,hey what do we class as a bad spin
I think your idea of the diamonds a b c d might be even better,and maybe player would not need to add so much data
ie,0 predicted .ball at diamond and number also at diamond but,ball travel clearly and unhindered 180 degees to C diamond,insted of doing a conventional PS it may be best to give that data to the system,with 90 degree difference might be best at the begginig to be left to the system ,as you point out the system will never ne 100%
as i tested old and new system i found new system seemed to be more accurate,i can only think this is as system now has learned from player a defined end time,if this is the case,the method above in these curcumstances would hopefully help rather than hinder,
also id like to add that all predictions where the ball did strike the SET diamond where all deadly accurate…i can help but think there is something to be learned from this
ok ill wait for your return,has anyone got any comments,has anyone tested new system out for iqe6
