# Prediction zap concept

[glow=green,2,300]I moved this topic from partly restricted area because I believe it may be interesting for all visitors. Forester[/glow]

This was a note to the testers, do you consider it correct and if so, is this concept understood by all?

[b]The prediction zap is a reference point.

It may be the predicted number or it may be 10 slots away or it may be on the other side of the wheel.

There are actually TWO offsets that need to be factored in.

The first offset is a fixed number of slots to align the prediction zap with the actual number under the ball as it enters the rotor.

The next offset is the scatter offset.

Think of it this way.

If the ball hit the twelve-o-clock diamond and 8 was under the diamond at the time and the prediction zap occurred four revs earlier at 34, you would apply a permanent initial correction offset of seven slots.

Then you would factor in a scatter offset.[/b]

Yes you can look at it that way except it looks too complicated.

You split offset as that only for better control in real game you always add it all together.

Let’s say ACW ball. Prediction 34 ball hits diamond at 0 and rotor at 7. That all together 15 pockets. And if the ball most of the time jumps across rotor 9 pockets that is 15+9=24
That is offset +24 or -13.
So all your spins you look if ball still hitting rotor about +15 pockets from prediction.
Most of the spins that +15can have deviation. If +15 is my center on good wheel we can expect 70-80% hits somewhere within +10 to +20. That is what we expect where the ball will hit rotor. We only observe it but we play +24 or -13.
Or simply find middle position results from prediction where the ball stops, exclude unusual ball behavior across the rotor.

But what if wheel causes the ball to end up unpredictably.
Due to coincidences we can have few spins where the ball hits +15, then may come spins where it looks the same but it could be one rotation difference. That is where last zap helps so we get better picture is ball traveling same distance according to measured speed or not. There are extreme cases where after some time the distance which ball travels may decrease even by 2-3 rotations.

Last zap (NOW) when the ball is due to drop is not as much needed on tilted wheel because we have full rotor rotation as control but on leveled wheel it is only one ball rotation, where is hard to separate did ball travel a bit longer from expected drop point or it was a bit shorter.

Yes that would be correct way. Remaining is defined by scatter law.

Just a short comment, what survtech does has been a part of the tool box for many VB players for years. If we couldn`t get a good strike number rate, there were no need for chasing that wheel. The scatter were booked with rotor speeds at the same time, but was worthless if one couldn`t predict the strike number well enough to gain an advantage that made it worthwhile. Good example is Monte Carlo. No big scatter but almost impossible to predict where the ball would fall because of a kind of very flat wheel that kept the ball hanging to the almost unbelievable.

Sorry. Carry on.

Perhaps one might consider the first number met by the ball immediately the ball enters the rotor… I have attached a recent personal observation chart from an Australian casino… the ‘0’ represents the ‘first number touched by the ball at the point of entry’ the positive numbers are the slots further on from that point where the ball came to rest… the negative numbers are the number of slots backwards from the first number touched by the ball at the time the ball finally came to rest… and for those interested the ball was always travelling clockwise… as you can see the ball came to rest +or- 5 numbers from the point of impact a sufficient number of times to produce an extreme advantage… 70%+ on turnover… by betting an 11 number spread…

Cheers
PJ

The device should indicate to the operator the number that it expects to be under the ball just prior to rotor entry and scatter; the prediction zap should be a prediction, not an interim calculation that requires operator interpretation.

Not on a leveled wheel. It would be possible only with some degree of success so it is pointless to go for it if we still do not know will result be as expected. We can only get close to expected but that isn’t good enough.

If it is done and if it is as you say “the number that it expects to be under the ball just prior to rotor entry and scatter” That still is not prediction as you asked for (the prediction zap should be a prediction). It would still need adjustment. To do it that way some additional calculations would be required and it would create more trouble then help.

For that we would need 100% rotor deceleration. It means we will need first to clock rotor few times to define it. It makes it more complicated and injecting possible errors.

With the FF as it is it is not required, because the system responds to changes.
If I clocked the ball which will exactly make 6 rotations to the end and if remaining time is 10 sec, if rotor calculation is that wheel will move by 2 rotations and rotor moves by 1.8 because it decelerates faster I do not have error. It is my offset. Of next spin I clock the ball at 7 rotations and 11 sec to the end that same error transfers and I lose only difference within 1 sec in estimated rotor deceleration and real one, which wouldn’t exceed 10ms.

Further more, on leveled wheel we do not have constant failing point. Additional part which will change offset is the difference in between clocking position and point where the ball actually fails. If I continue clocking ball revolutions to the end until ball hits the rotor, probably by measured time I can define position where it is hitting and compare it with what system predicts then make adjustment. But that last rotation clocking is very questionable. We would need to know expected ball traveling time in last rotation, then operator will have to be spot on with his last click or error will show.

With design as it is operator without any problem can press switch even ½ sec later and he will still have accurate prediction. His offset will shift (still not so much as if we do it for defining ball failing point) but accuracy will be close to same. All what will happen is that offset will shift by ½ of rotor speed per sec.
Perhaps if we do clocking to the end to more spins then analyze data we may be able improve calculation of ball failing point. But all together is more trouble then help.

Yes it would be nice to have prediction number = failing point or even final number automatically. But we can have it anyway, as long as we have needed accuracy that provides consistency in-between prediction and failing point. Does ball constantly hit 5 or 25 pockets in front of final number it shouldn’t be problem as long as if it is constant. Now if we say to the system ok, add 20 pockets we would have and accuracy and easy to use (PREDICTION = FINAL NUMBER).

Kelly even VB player on tilted wheel after defining correct ball revolution doesn’t know where the ball will hit until he finds it out.

Survtech

This was your words and how you explained it 5 months ago.

"It is important to understand that device does not advise you of the final number, it does not even advise you of the number under the ball as it enters the rotor. Instead it is designed to give the operator a reference point which should always be the same distance from the final entry point to the rotor"

[glow=red,2,300]Can you understand that?[/glow]

@Survtech

I sense enormous frustration coming from the “advantage play industry expert”… ;D

I refer to your comment…“As it stands we need to accurately log the number under the ball at prediction_zap”… are you saying that you are unable to "accurately log this number? or are you saying that you have not yet performed this analysis?

further to that you stated…“We need to accurately log the number under the ball just prior to the ball entering the rotor”… this number is almost always (80%+ in any session of my play) the same distance from the number that was observed under the ball at the time of the zap… however the distance does vary from wheel to wheel… and often from session to session even on the same wheel… When you claim that your analysis has not confirmed this and yet by your own words you appear to be confused and frustrated… I can’t help but wonder whether your analysis has been objective or subjective… and further to this your latest claim conflicts with your original commentary regarding the FF… Survtech, you appear to be “in Noddy Land”…

AND by the way the impact point with the rotor IS THE ‘ZERO’ ON THE SCATTER CHART I POSTED… the point I was making is that this ‘IMPACT POINT’ is the holy grail… and incidentally where you stated “PJ’s scattergram isn’t worth as knob of goat-shit if we don’t know when the ball is going to fall into it”… is also bemusing in that “WHEN” is totally irrelevant… perhaps you mispoke and meant to use the word “WHERE”…

I am sorry to say that as an advantage play expert… you just don’t have it together… and perhaps never did… it was you who was selling a few lines of simple code that purportedly calculated the TTD (Time To Drop) for U.S.\$1000 (far more costly than a KNOB OF GOAT SHIT) wasn’t it… or is there another idiot out there using a very similar name?

Cheers
PJ

Survtech you are confusing me.

I thought that you could understand it 5 months ago.

Next what confuses me is when few weeks ago you complained that tilt system doesn’t produce last zap, but also IQE6 in some settings. Tilt should not produce last zap and Iqe6 must produce it in all settings.
And the worst is that in accuracy 3 you couldn’t get more then 20% of prediction.

Since you told me that you have programmer I asked you to read me some data from the chip but you sent the system to someone else for testing.
I asked if he can tell me amount of pulses after set up, and still no answer.

When I put it all together I do not know what to think.
I know that you modified FF, it could create damage if it isn’t done properly simply because it can overload outputs. It happened 2 times. I sent you 3 chips, one as replacement for one that you locked, next one with added last zap.
Perhaps it could be that something on the board is wrong.

You can’t properly test the system and get only 20% predictions.

If you want you can send me the unit back and I will test if it works properly.

If Stefano from 31 spin could get 21 predicted with ~1:15 hit rate I do not know why you shouldn’t. Just look from that perspective so you can understand that there must be problem somewhere.
Even with this new wheel that I am struggling with. I am getting 40-50%. But that wheel is really at the edge of system limits.

(the prediction zap should be a prediction)

Says who?
Do not think as that, as I said it will not work. Stefano is trying to do it that way that’s why he built nothing more then RNG. First I couldn’t understand why he is struggling so much with rotor and deceleration. Anyway he is struggling with everything. Or just look Mark Howe’s set up process.

If I do it I would probably be able to get it most of the time within ½ of rotor but there is no point to do it, if it isn’t spot on. Resources need to be focused on something that is more important and achievable.

PJ was that wheel with deep pockets?

[sup]Kelly even VB player on tilted wheel after defining correct ball revolution doesn’t know where the ball will hit until he finds it out.
[/sup]

Really…? How would he then expect to predict anything ?

If i can`t handle the predictive part of the spin, then there is no need to place any bets. The first few spins are learning spins, but after that a known wheel speed also produces a predictable drop zone in the area of 5 - 7 numbers. Once the learning spins stacks up, and you get the feel for fast, spot on and slow ball speeds, you can narrow the strike number area down to maybe 2 - 3 numbers. Asuming you got the right ball revoloution and a known drop zone of course. Strike number check is a basic control method that shoul NOT be avoided.

A few years back they had a wheel in Munkebjerg that were so tiltet that there were only 1 strike diamond. After getting the feel for the ball speeds i could predict the strike number 8 out of 10 times. The flip side was that it took me 2 days and 450 spins to get the scatter under control. A 12 number peak with a rough estimat of 30% edge.

Sorry for messing up the thread.

@ Forester

YES… that was a wheel with deep pockets… the good old fashioned type… my personal favourite

I must say that the “expert analysis” being undertaken at the moment is falling way short of CREDIBLE…

Even “DUMB and DUMBER” could have made a better go of it… ;D ;D ;D

Cheers
PJ

Take a look at Mikes board…oh oh … Shortly Strip Crusher and other nicks will turn up on the GG, shooting at forester.

Suggestion for forester: To eliminate all misunderstandings, why not do a personal demo in company with Mike and team, and explain exactly when the zap is and what is looked at and what the strike number will be. Do 500 spins CC and post whatever came out of it.

Otherwise you will have a flaming war against not only Mike but also all the “pop ups” on GG.

I am truly sorry that I was unable to tender a favorable report.

It is contrary to my business interests and therefore in all your best interests for me to dismiss a potential threat so I can assure you I gave it my best shot.

Good luck to you all, I hope some of you get obscenely rich of the FF device and prove that I really don’t know what I’m talking about.

Thanks Mike … much appreciated … bye bye … :

Cheers
PJ

@ Kelly

Kelly even VB player on tilted wheel after defining correct ball revolution doesn't know where the ball will hit until he finds it out.

Really…? How would he then expect to predict anything ?

If i can`t handle the predictive part of the spin, then there is no need to place any bets. The first few spins are learning spins, but after that a known wheel speed also produces a predictable drop zone in the area of 5 - 7 numbers.

and it is exactly how the FF works, with difference that drop zone isn’t constant to particular point on wheel frame but to particular point on rotor.

Take a look at Mikes board......oh oh .... Shortly Strip Crusher and other nicks will turn up on the GG, shooting at forester.

Suggestion for forester: To eliminate all misunderstandings, why not do a personal demo in company with Mike and team, and explain exactly when the zap is and what is looked at and what the strike number will be. Do 500 spins CC and post whatever came out of it.

Otherwise you will have a flaming war against not only Mike but also all the “pop ups” on GG.

I will not have a war with anybody more then I already have. Strip Crusher is Stefano or perhaps Mark same as many other names created to discredit my work and to promote their scam. They do not make damage to me, since I do not care at all about FF’s sale they creating damage to readers if someone fails for their story.

Anyway, conflict I always look positively, it makes me think and in usual it leads to progress.

@PJ

YES.. that was a wheel with deep pockets.. the good old fashioned type.. my personal favourite

I must say that the “expert analysis” being undertaken at the moment is falling way short of CREDIBLE…

Even “DUMB and DUMBER” could have made a better go of it…

Yes that kind of wheel can be money printing machine. Maybe you should tell Survtech where he can have advantage and where he will get close to 100% predictions. ;D

What can I say about Survtechs review?

Maybe it is better if I first explain what I was expecting from him.

I expected that he will do the test on various wheels and conditions.
Due to wide spectrum of wheels and balls used in the test I would expect results such as
FF under this conditions can produce this, under this that and under this it couldn’t produce any advantage or it couldn’t give enough predictions.

And what do we get?

First we get his frustration. I can understand that as it looks that he does have a problem compared to people who talked with him and who told him that they do not have problems at all. So I take it as good sign that he doesn’t feel well writing negative report. But there is something that bothers me.
On question will he publish results of test Mike answered “only if Forester wants it”

Well I was never asked, but regardless what is his review I wouldn’t mind.

What puzzles me is that he runs in to writing report and publishing it but at same time having problems during the test for which he completely ignored my suggestions. When he was claiming 30% predictions and when few members told him own results, Survtech posted that in settings 3 prediction improved. I thought he will be ok. But then he sent me an email claiming that it went up from 30 to 40% in setting 2 but (then next day back to 30%), in setting 3 it is only 20%. I still did not get from him any other feedback that I asked about, so I can identify cause of the problem.

Anyway it is as it is and I can only make few comments on his review.

"Stage 1: Test on wheel with drop-zone

I carried out this test personally.

The device performed well. When used against a wheel with a drop-zone and manageable scatter this device presents a significant threat in the hands of an experienced operator. "

The difference in between IQE 6 and Tilt 2 system is calculation.
Ball clocking, error correction, timing control is same. The question is€¦
How he could get enough predictions with tilt wheel system and not with IQE6?

"While the device produces a satisfactory percentage of predictions when applied against digital video footage of wheels which have been retired from casino service, the percentage of predictions against live wheels was consistently disappointing."

I would say the device predicts wheels which are within systems specification. What he calls “retired from casino service” is not right because majority of wheels in casinos will come within system specification. Wheels out of that are not so important because prediction will not be so accurate or on very old wheels the ball is dropping to fast so remaining time from where the ball speed can be measured to the end is to short.

Why is that?

The systems specification is that it will predict spins where the difference in between timed rotations is 100-255ms.
To get clear picture, for example most common wheel used in casinos is about 200ms. On that wheel ball of 1 sec per rotation may travel about 10 sec to the end.
On wheel with 100ms that traveling time may be 15+ sec, that is good but systems accuracy significantly drops because any error multiplies by double.
And on wheel for more then 255ms the ball may travel only 5 sec to the end. Which is not enough to take advantage of that. So we would need to clock the ball with higher speed and that brings additional problems.

So from all wheels I played I come across only one where system gives me about 40% prediction. After extracting data from system I found out that difference in between rotations is 130 ms. well that is within system limits and I am puzzled why I do not get more. I can think only about 2 things.

1. It increases my clocking errors.
2. Because previous system specification was 128-255, later on I change it to 100-255 but maybe there is somewhere in program still some control for 128, which I did missed to change because I never have had problem before.

128 may look as odd number but it was easy for me when programming because it requires only single bit check.

I would suggest to Survtech instead testing it on odd wheels that he calls modern, goes to Melbourne, Canberra, Gold coast, Brisbane and do the test. (There is no need to name places in other countries.) If in those casinos he can’t get enough predictions and positive results then he has issue.

I do not know of anyone, including the manufacturer, who claims to use this device to gain an advantage away from the kitchen table.
What's this suppose to mean? I claim to use device to gain advantage in real environment and he knows that. So I can only assume that he claims how he doesn't know anybody personally. But that then doesn't have any meaning. Why he should know any FF user personally.
Oh well, Forester at least we did try to warn you up front about dealing with Mike Barnett.
Mike I lose nothing, he could do it with me or without me. If you look all together I did benefit. He made me think about last zap.

All I thought was that Survtech would be able to test it under different conditions.
I still want to believe that his findings were done with good faith.

But how the report could be valid if he couldn’t find single wheel where he would get reasonable amount of predictions.

What would you do if your FF predicts only 20% of spins and everybody else tells you that he is getting ~80-100%.

Maybe he believes that whoever posts on this forum is me with improved English. So he ignores it. The forum is only a small part of feedback I am getting because most people do not care about public talk at all.

What I know is that I did my the best, I tried to find reasons for his problems, asked some particular questions so I can try to find out why he is having problem but he never answered. Because he modified the system I asked him to send it back so I can check if it works correctly, but straight after he come up with his review.

In one email he stated that he knows that FF works and telling me how he has casinos report about me. Now it doesn’t work. So why would he have report? Perhaps because I am always lucky to win.

Never mind, let’s turn new page.

So Mr. Barnett will be reporting back to the casinos that they have nothing to be concerned about regarding FF.

Well - – The other option was for him to report back to the casinos blabber mouthing away and blowing the cover on FF. Did we really want that option? ???

Personally, I could care less what Barnett THINKS, whether positive or negative, because I thought this guy was a big joke the day he decided to try and play both sides ( the players on 1 side and the casinos on the other side.) I SIMPLY DO NOT TRUST PEOPLE THAT LIKES TO PLAY BOTH SIDES OF ANYTHING.

WHY: BECAUSE THOSE TYPES OF PEOPLE WILL SELL THEIR SOULS AND EVEN THEIR OWN AS _ _ _ AWAY TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER. ;D

CHEERS

forester
Did i miss something somewhere ? Why the quote on your front page: “Do not underestimate visual ballistics because it works”
If you ever come to northern europe, i will give you a crash course on a 3 year old cammegh wheel under homely conditions, and after that apply it in a nearby casino. In return you can give me a zap course with your machine.

Dr Spock,
Thanks for support, we do not know what his real agenda is so let’s leave it as it is.

Kelly,
For me it was good enough when in some of yours previous posts you stated that scatter on cammegh is predictable. That encouraged me to play. It looks as predictable to me but I still do not know how to handle it properly in relationship to rotor speed.
I am not a guy who would sit there for hours and just observe it if I can do something else. As I said I was struggling with predictions and croupier when using IQE6. VB I used is very different. So I did not learn a lot about that wheel. It was different, if I could manage to play with IQE6 and if I have had consistency I would probably understand it more. But these wheels are here to stay. Am I always one step behind, only time will tell.

Do not underestimate visual ballistics because it works.

It’s only simple promotional information at front page of good site about roulette.