With a computer based roulette where the ball started by its computer and not controlled by human. It goes 3 times around the wheel then no more bets sound arrive. Can you also use it there?
Computer needs to clock rotor one rotation or at least half, then at least one ball rotation.
It takes time.
Computers that talk also need to wait until zero comes to particular position to be clocked which may add 2-5 sec.
FFZ or FFV (zaps or vibrates) doesn’t need to wait for rotor to come to particular position but the rotor can be cloaked at any position so we do not lose that time.
Some roulette computers programed in Java also lose about 1-1.5 sec until start pronouncing prediction number. FFA doesn’t lose any time.
When FFZ/V R5A program come out, (multiple predictions) nobody is really interesting in talking computers, they need to many wires, around players neck and earpieces inside their ear.
Where to buy the best roulette computer? ;D
But as I explained, none can full fill your requirements.
sorry mate time is totally against you
inly a decice that could do rotor and ball at same time could maybe be a help to you
or a device where you start to clock rotor thrn ball and then final clcik for rotor (cough)
but i dont think with only thre ball revolutions you could make it work for you
here this might at least point you in the right direction
Hey and welcome to the forum
Sorry once again but this time I could have a slight ray of hope for you
I noticed with some airball wheels that rotor often does at least one revolution before ball release and with a reasonable drop zone you could actually after clocking two ball revs make a bet within the time permitted by NMBs being called
So to answer your original quistion YES FF could give you an edge
:-* :-* :-*
I have been using “VB” (of sorts) on an automated airball machine with fairly good success. after ball launch, I count four revs at six oclock diamond then bet on number + neighbors under diamond. I use racetrack layout and bet number + neighbors (one button). I have plenty of time. in fact, I think If I had a FFZ I could clock at least one or two rotor rev. and two ball revs and still have 5 or 6 seconds to receive and place bet. Usually the number + neighbors that are picked under diamond come in or the opposite side comes in, except for bad bounce or bad scatter. (not perfect by any means)
I am considering FFZ to help improve my VB game. I am new to the forum and welcome any comments or suggestions.
Why not try to improve your VB.
Somewhere at start of this thread I made an explanation about what is bad in counting rotations from start of the spin.
I would like to improve my VB, but the automatd airball machine is all thats available in my area. There is a very short time from balll launch to no more bets so traditional VB is not really an option. Spins out from NMB is probably twelve spins. I think from reading about FFZ may be a better option, it is much faster and can predict farther out. comments ?
Correction: spins from NMB to ball landing is 12 spins.
Once the ball launches I only have 4 ball revolutions to make prediction and get bets in before NMB.
The post is not about traditional VB but about counting rotations form start of the spin.
If you claim to have an advantage then small improvement may help.
“(Until ball makes 3 rotations form 20-17 if average ball rotation is 0.4 sec all together is 1.2s
If we look 15 to 12, ball rotations are slower, let’s say in average 0.6 sec per rotation. 3 x 0.6=1.8 sec
1.8s is 0.6s longer than 1.2 s, that’s’ why it is worst. This is important to understand.)”
Counting few rotations form start of the spin makes it wost.
I would better use that time to observe rotor (if there is a changes in rotor speed).
FFZ wouldn’t be able to help you since 4 ball rev. are not enough time for prediction.
Ok, I understand your your point about ball rotation and VB. I just want to make sure u understand my paticular situation with this machine. I reference ball rotation purely in the sense of the time I have to observe /
make prediction before NMB. From your post you say I should use time before NMB to observe rotor speed and make prediction based on that.
Ok, the rotor speed varies fom spin to spin (actually seems to rotate for 6 or 7 spins at a particular speed, the either speeds up or slows down for the next series of spins). So it seems if I were to use FFZ to clock rotor speed I could gain advantage. again, ball speed seems to be launched at the same speed each time, rotor speed is the variable. I keep bringing up FFZ because of the speed and accuracy of it should always be better than VB.
I hope this is making sense to you. Thank You
To use FFZ you need,
To clock rotor or at least 1.2 of rotor rotation.
Let’s say it takes 3 sec.
Then you need to clock ball at least 2 rotations
So let’s add 2 sec and total is 5 sec.
If the ball as an indicator is used it takes about 0 to 0.7 sec to get prediction.
So we need ~6 sec to get FFZ to predict.
Since you believe spins are close to constant in time to use timer as FFZ has built in.
Adjust it to let’s say 2 sec.
Then clock rotor with it.
One spin in 2 sec. rotor makes 18 pockets you observe results.
Next spin rotor in 2 sec makes 20 pockets it is 2 pockets more in reference time of 2 sec.
It means 1 pocket more in one sec.
If your spins are 15 sec long it means you need to add 15 pockets to prediction of previous spin.
In other words for each extra pocket to add 7.5 pockets to prediction.
Because reference time 1.5 sec is only short that is why we have so much to add for each pocket of difference. When all is moving and timer starting and ending it is easy to be wrong by 1-2 pockets.
Adjusting timer to 4 sec and observing rotor change in that time would be more accurate for earlier predictions where the ball still has significant amount of time to travel.
When we use roulette computer we are better off.
Especially with FFZ or FFV.
We clock rotor, it may be 4 sec, so even if we are by one pocket wrong in clocking the error is smaller. If we use half rotor clocking then it would be same but RC is still better.
Because the time for rotor starts after we finished clocking so total ball traveling time is a bit less.
FFZ is even better then talking roulette computers because rotor calculation is based on remaining time form moment we finish clocking the ball. Another advantage is that computers designed as FFZ can clock rotor at any position, so player doesn’t waste time with waiting for rotor to come to particular position.
But everything has limits
Thank you for your quick response !! It sound workable in both scenarios !
Im out of town for a couple of weeks, so I wont be able to gather additional info. to decide which scenario is best. However I will be in touch to discuss purchase of FFZ.