Michael Barnett's roulette computer final test debate

This would be hard to explain so instead of explaining it I will simply present the facts from which ones I couldn’t come to any conclusion which would explain Michel’s behavior or his results.
At first I will need to point out that Michael Barnett (“MB”) was a casino consultant. Is he still the one, I am not sure, his age is over 70 and in past few years he wasn’t involved with casino conferences as he was in past. We came to know about each other few years ago when he approached me about particular person from France. Apparently that person who I will call JP have had Marks Howe’s roulette computer. He wasn’t happy with it, somehow he come in contact with MB which offered him his computer as an exchange. JP accepted it and part of a deal was that he sends it first to MB.

On the other side MB claimed that he received only empty box and refused to send his computer to JP. I have had the opportunity to deal with JP as well. I found him as very truthful and polite person. Why would JP send an empty box and why MB did not handle it better? Or perhaps for some reason Mark’s PDA during transport walked out from the box. What really happened is hard to tell and we can only guess.

Since then I did exchange few emails with MB about my recommendation for improvements on tilted wheel prediction that I come across in my roulette research. MB was telling me about his wins with his computer on “tilted” wheels and about his jackpot wins on poker machines.
Somewhere in October last year, MB approached me and told me that he would like to test my FF system if I do not mind. I did not mind at all but I politely told hem that I will not build FF for free even for my father. But since it is for testing purposes, I offered him a lower price, which he accepted.

First private response from Barnett was his disappointment because he couldn’t read the software code from my microprocessor to see which program is used and how calculation is done. Chip microcontroller was code protected.
Next he claimed that he accidentally locked the chip (it’s the systems security feature and it needs code for unlocking). I do not provide code to people who I don’t know well so I have had to send him a new chip. He asked me to send him software code instead, because he has microcontroller programmer and he would be able to upload it by himself. I refused it, of course. The code can be reverse engineered to assembly code (which is understandable). I definitely have no intention to hand out a code to anybody for a few hundred dollars only.

First public response from MB after his first test was positive and reasonable.

He made a post about his findings at his website and mine forum as well but soon after he removed it. He claimed that Mark Howe was pestering him and that he received a phone call from Stefano Hourmoutsiz. MB decided to remove review and that his final review will be for casino’s research or in his closed section of forum available only to selection of users.

Through further communication with MB he told me that his computer indicates a moment when the ball is falling. It is very easy do to it on tilted wheel but since my FF is very accurate device I instantly could see benefits if I add it to leveled wheel prediction. I do not need it on tilted wheel prediction at all. I told him: “Michael you’ve made me think about a great idea.”, and that’s how it came to an additional last zap improvement. I gave full credit for that to MB and I told him that I will soon modify chip and send him one so he can see how last zap is working.

It did not take me long to do it and many people were waiting for the new chip but I refused to send it to everyone.

For strange reason MB become very inpatient. He sent me an email in which he have stated that FF without his improvement couldn’t predict (if computer can’t predict ball falling time, it can’t be accurate) and since I still did not send him chip he has no other option then to write negative review.

Woo, hold on horses. I took it only as his misunderstanding. FF definitely could predict time of ball falling point but only it didn’t indicate it to the user as time but as prediction number defined by that time. If it couldn’t define it, then for sure I would be able to add it as additional control. However, I took his other complaint about everything taking too much time seriously and send him the new chip instantly.

From then MB was only complaining about not enough predictions.

Since he told me that he has microchip programmer, to assist him, I asked him to read available codes from the chip. He replayed that the FF is not in his possession any more but that one of his testers has it.
I asked for information from his tester how the system’s response after the set up is done but I never received an answer.
Since MB modified the FF for testing purposes (I wasn’t sure what was happening), I offered sending him my testing unit with sound beeps and a large LED, but he refused.

MB also stated that they video taped a test. I also asked him to send me this video but again my request was ignored.

When he exchanged few words with some other users of FF who confirmed that they do not experience problems with the FF as he does, he wrote at forum that percentage of predictions improved, but soon after he sent me an email that it predicts only 20%. He also told me that at that setting there is no last zap as indicator of ball falling moment. It is impossible. Something must be wrong. Part of program couldn’t have just disappeared. I was listening to only complaints from him and whatever I offered as a support was ignored. I requested that MB sends me the unit back so I could see what the problem was, but my pledge was ignored as well.
I even gave him an evidence of FF performance. A video where Stefano tested it and have had 66% of spins predicted with huge hit rate of 1:15. It still did not stop him in his attempt to do what he intended to do, so he declared the FF as system designed for wheels which are not available in casinos, therefore it can’t predict.

Now I have Stefano who says that FF works but with his video he is trying to prove that it isn’t easy to spot the ball at moment of zap and I have MB who is claiming that the FF can’t predict on casino wheels.
None is correct and those to findings simply can’t go together.The FF, with some practice, is very practical system with many advantages over audio files pronounced, it is accurate and it does give predictions. Usually, close to a 100%. By my opinion I would say it is most effective design for a single user.

If that’s so, then why MB has different results?

I have no answer to that question. It could be all kind of reasons and I simply do not want to believe in any.
I can’t say that he is incompetent because he should be at least as an average user and that sort of knowledge is more then enough to operate the FF.

I can say that he is arrogant, perhaps overconfident and ignorant. Simply he isn’t listening to me.
If 10 people tell me different about same product I would 100 times question what I am doing wrong and why I am getting different results.
At the end MB claimed that he didn’t test it but it was someone else who did. It was apparently his decision to get as much as possible unbiased test.

It is strange to say that. Can’t he trust his own testing abilities or personality? The test is a test and it should produce same result regardless are you biased or not. What you will do with it and how you going to present it may be biased. I would say he uses it more as throwing dust in eyes to look more convincing and to bypass the fact that he has his own computer listed at his site with 4 digits price under it.


Hm, I can’t say even that, at least until now he did not show as one. Or at least he looked civilized.

I always looked at his computer with sympathy, as simple and very limited device. And that is what it is.
Is it a scam? No, it probably can predict. It is an old fashion tilted wheel prediction and nothing else. Due to the system architecture it can’t even precisely measure time. But with some persistence and if applied on some wheels it will probably produce limited advantage. On a modern today’s’ wheel it will be harder, maybe even impossible, but MB likes to talk abut his wins that he had years ago and I believe him simply because it was quiet possible to do it at that time.

When I put it all together, an idea of getting some extra cash ($5,000) for a product based on ex (convincing) glory is not bad. Buying roulette computer from casino’s consultant who was for years involved in games doesn’t sound bad at all. It actually may look very attractive. Especially with the explanation that nothing else really works better then this.

Now I need to go back to this other character which first publicly showed himself as a Docker, then later on as Bob Gordon.
MB and him live in the same city, have same looking roulette wheel, have same looking hand that spins the ball and have same internet provider with same IP group. It’s still not enough evidence for anyone to be able to say confidently that this could be the same person.
In addition, MB sounds convincing because he has been in touch with casinos (same as Bob’s approach). He was selling roulette spins and if you buy it he would send you following email which looked as a rare opportunity only for some to buy his system as well. It looks convincing. He has a wheel in his possession and he probably came up with something worthwhile. He sent email offer to everybody except me when I bought his DVD’s.

Later on when I came across his system and reviewed it as totally useless Bob complained.
He claimed that I shouldn’t review it since it wasn’t publicly available for sale and that he doesn’t want casinos to know about his system. Well, if that the case, then you shouldn’t sell it, because you never know who could buy it. Bob threatened me that I’ll not be able to play in any casino in Australia or New Zealand if I do not remove my review of his system. I’m not the person who can be easily blackmailed. Interestingly enough, soon after, I did have a problem in the casino. I will not go into a detail but hardly that Bob would have access to search all Croatian names in the Jupiter’s casino. So who else could have access to it?

I may be wrong here, but I am only presenting a theory backed by available facts since I simply can’t understand a reason to MB’s behavior. I’ll let you all evaluate this closely and make up your own mind.
If he tested the system on some wheels and claimed not to have advantage, we can argue, but since he claims not to have predictions and since he ignored all my support, there is nothing more that I can do.

As a last resort, MB offered to remove his review and offered to me to make contact with a person who tested the system. I replayed “it is too late for that” his review is his review and it can stay. It has nothing to do with me since reallyit isn’t test. It is his unjustified claim that I have designed system based on parameters which do not exist.

"Shall we try one more time with you working direct with the tester by email?"

No. Not only that you insult me but you did same to my friends. Offering something that is imposable to do and what nobody will accept. It is same as Stefano’s $,2000,000 challenge. And probably something that you can’t deliver.
Let me test it.
Lets casino deposit conditionally $100 000 to my account. Then I’ll show my face at Gold Coast Jupiter’s. If my predictions are ~80% I keep the money. That is for claiming system doesn’t give predictions. Then I will play $1000+ per spin under conditions I select (leveled wheel of my selections, rotor 4 sec +, reasonable amount of ball rotations or other words at least 15 sec spins.) until I lose or until casino tells me to stop. If they stop me they need to pay me additional $500,000. If you want to look big then do big things.

I have no any interest in whatever you want to do with the FF in the future.
We can talk when you do your things right. Until now I offered you all options in attempt to find reason of your problems, but from now I simply do not care.

I wouldn’t waste time justifying your actions… there is no need… you have always acted with integrity and honesty… two words the others wouldn’t even know the meaning of… and like I said in my other post MB has mixed (perhaps confused) agendas… he is effectively “yesterdays news”.


Docker and MB could easyli be the same guy. Docker were the first to deny that a computer was used in the Ritz (Dec. 2004 at GG) when Mark tried to get some attention by posting info on additional winnings the team had made. He wouldnt tell why he knew, just said it was inside info. What really gives him away is his writing style, though. Its not a fellony to post with a different nick, in fact, i cant think of anyone apart from myself who haven`t posted with a different nick on other boards, sometimes even on the same boards.

Docker also didnt fancy Scotts crossover method and said he couldnt get a straight answer from Scott when he asked him, i offered to give it a shot, but never got the question.

He always picked on Mark and Franki and posted this link on Marks and Allisons hair extension business.

What doesnt fit, is dockers "going away gift" # 1, 2, 3....etc. etc. which were basicly math systems. You wouldnt expect MB to have that sitting in his lab top.

I take my hat off for MB for taking the path that he is. Going from AP in the 90`s to the other side of the fence is creating more enemys than anyone can imagine and he must have known that before he did it. He has mentioned several times that if there is something new to the AP world he will attempt to get inside the sting so he can report after having dealt with it from the inside. Poker for example. Roulette computers another example. Black Jack with shuffle tracking software, you name it.

Look at it this way, if you on purpose have given him a faulty chip and he reports back “All clear” to the casinos, you are better off now than before. If you given him top notch equipment and he still reports “All Clear” then…never mind. Maybe one day when i get curious enough i will purchase a computer from each of you Forest, Mark, Stefano and do a 500 spin test on a Kies wheel. (We haven`t got the Cammegh anymore).

Well then it is clear.
I do have hard prove that Doker is Bob Gordon.

BG with his threat come up with picture which as I joke I sent to Doker and told him it is me. He did not know that I sent that picture only to Doker. So I looked and found saved email from Doker it did have same IP as BG’s.

I also have 3 video spins from Doker which are on same wheel as BG and same looking hand. That was clear to me from the start but I do not have hard prove that MB is same person.

Your comment only increases chance that he is.

If that is the case selling such rubbish as BG system is unforgivable.

On the end MB may really be retired or semi retired person trying to make some extra money based on his previous status. As response to his last very abusive email I told him that he can’t leave forever on his previous glory. (who knows even if that existed)
And he replayed “Actually I can, you arrogant young fool”

What is wrong with those people? On the end they all say that I hate them and that I am competitor but they do it all to them self.

Well Bob gordons approach is not faulty as such. If you define the correct key revoloution on a tilted wheel and has the rotor speed, you also knows where the ball will drop and if you do 20 spin after one another it becomes very clear that there is no longer 37 possible outcomes, you can say that you have a playable “bias” that will kick you in profit as long as the physics remains the same and the thump relations are the same. I don`t know wether BG defines it, but there are ways to detect wether you actually got the correct key revoloution. Also, you can build further upwards on his approach until ½ou get to a point where only a small tilt is needed.

Actually, in case you find a newer wheel with a Velstone track and a good tilt, you will find that the strike number is easyly defined using BG`s approach. Where an old dirty track maybe with a ball that makes a rattering noise, you might get some weird outcomes. Its not “number prediction” in a technical manner, but the usual random creators in the ball/wheel has been set a bit out work and you WILL get an edge where the size depends on your skills and the physics in the wheel/ball.

Wether Docker is MB or MB is BG, i don`t know. There are too many things that speaks against it, when you read dockers posts, but somewhere along the line, he could be very close to MB.

I don't know wether BG defines it, but there are ways to detect wether you actually got the correct key revolution.

Kelly but that is the problem with his system. He doesn’t defines it he only estimates it same as rotor.

Well I know that BG is Docker, but for MB I am not sure.
Whatever it is I don’t care.

I asume we are talking about “Advanced Roulette Prediction”.
I know Gordon has overcomplicated the explanation, but using a pulsating device you can easyli get the rotor pinned down to 0.10 of a second right out of the pocket. 0.05 if you have trained a bit. He uses 50 BPM where i might have set it for 60 BPM because it gets you fixed on 1 - 2 revoloutions earlyer and you can use this extra time for calibrating the ball speed more correct in case the wheel is not as tiltet as we might wished for, and the drop zone might have some variation.

In principle, the method is the same as MGM Gucken that Basieux describes on page 140 - 146 in his book “Roulette Hardcore & Software”. I have a personal variation i used when i used the thumper as standard equipment. (That was before BG and Basieux surfaced with their explanations).

After a while you realize that the thumper is really not nessecary once the puls/thump is as natural to you as your right leg is. The double pulse beat that Gordon desribes is basicly the same that happens when Scotts crossovers is surfacing. With the thumper you don`t have the luxury of judging the marching patterns, although you face the same problem with the thumper. You will sometimes have some borderline spins where you can have doubt wether you actually ARE in the right key revoloution. Usually if the double thum occurs just before or just after the fixed reference point.
A small note for that spin and counting the remaining revoloutions usually gets that feeling a bit more classifyed and understood.

Using the thumper on Marks video i get around 40 spins, out of some 50, predicted with the right key revoloution within a 9 pocket sector. (As i recall it, i might be a bit out of line here) Using more advanced thumper tecknickes it gets even narrower. The only thing about dvd/video testing is that you get a certain feeling for spins you have already seen once or twice and the predictions are getting better from time to time. Thats not nessecaryly the same as your skills has been better, you might be in for a wake up call once you hit the casinos. Thats why i prefer training on a real wheel, preferbly where you throw the ball yourself and get accuainted to the sound of the different ball types at the same time.

Kelly applying what you know on principle of tilted wheel is not the same as what he is explaining. You can’t group rotor speeds in 0.5 sec steps then play streets with numbers on opposite sides and all together with approximated right ball rotation.

RE: Mike Barnett AKA dinosaur.
Forester:youre strenghth is you’re weakness.I respect that.
You played it straight and honest from the start, when others would have ripped thier hair out…my god you are a patient man…seriously LOL.
So barnetts mask finally came crashing down…his grumpiness in old age finally betrayed him.Good.

I belive barnett wanted to nick you’re code and rebrand it. And/OR approach casino cap-in-hand with “STARK WARNING OF NEW THREAT TO GAMING…BY ME MIKE BARNETT…WITH EXCLUSIVE ACCESS TO SUPPORT FORUM” blah blah blah…

His lofty opinions of himself must have lead to some wild fantasies with hi…s name up in lights. ;D How arrogant can you get.Mike you vulcher go and be a politician…you turncoat…his credibility is shot to sh’t now( he never had any in my eyes).
His arrogance was, and is his undoing…he blatantly lied here re; test results…I had to interject and correct this “expert”… his results improved greatly IMMEDIATELY…now, this begs the question…why when I say I get good test results he immediately changes predicition rate? Answer: his own computer is such a pile of Crap, he never really believed FF/roulette computers could work in the first place…OR… he’s not testing FF but fabricating story for own agenda…OR… HIS TESTER IS A MONKEY.Why take my opinion on board and ignore Forester EVERY TIME???..Maybe he felt foolish or compromised with initial good review of FF…Maybe he feels he should share the bennefits…maybe…why give good review if nothing in it for me??

I posted similar about barnett before but asked that it be removed as i was humbled by Foresters patience towards this individual…I hate being right sometimes…I say the things you wont Forester ;D ;D ;D ha ha only kidding.lol

Mike concentrate on bullshitting one group of people at a time you scatter-brained twit…no offence. ;D
Forester I genuinely am sorry he offended you so rudely…I’m sure it’s no problem for you…as you said they do it to themselves and you’re right… some people hate being found out, and they turn into children instantaniously regardless of age…Any casino staff reading this i suggest you give the old b’st’rd(mike barnett) a free tea and biscuit and maybe a free $10 chip to play with.He will surely see this as his foot in the door and you can take him for his pension while he waits 3 hours for the manager, only to come down to the gaming floor and turf the old fart out on the street.



Did I/we lose?

I get paid for my work of building the FF. He didn’t get it for free.
It triggered adding the last zap as an improvement.
It helped me to easier decide that with new design I will spend more time to expend systems range.
His test with positive or negative results is irrelevant to me.

Positive, is probably only good for personal satisfaction and perhaps increase sale for which I do not care at all.

Negative is good for everybody since I already have enough people that want new FF and they prefer it to be out of publicity. Most of them would like if I completely close and site and forum for public. One even bought system that still doesn’t exists and few others asked me if I want them to pay me now.

What MB did (claiming that system doesn’t give predictions) probably is the best.

Later on he asked me to remove it and I replayed please not. It suits me the best.

Somehow I still do believe that he did experience problems but it isn’t my fault if he likes to be ironic and refuse all help for whichever reasons. After knowing that he has problem he ignored it and tried to put pressure on me. He likes to be high and dominant, and I am very assertive person. It just doesn’t work with me. I simply let him cut the branch on which he was sitting.

Here I lose a bit because I never want to create enemy, but that part probably couldn’t be the other way and anyway it wasn’t up to me. I also got back peace within members in support section they feel much better without him.