Procedure to design and to test E2 system

We can design and even test E2 system without device. For that we would need video recording of spin, and kind of video editing program that can move picture in steps.
I use (Life View Suite)(“avidemux” is also good)
The best would be if we have spin of about 3 sec per rev. of wheel that we will play on. If system is defined based on video of some old wheels with fast deceleration of the ball would not be good to apply it on wheels that are used in most casinos. Design is very simple.

Find position of the spin about 18 sec before then ball drops down. Notice number under the ball and in steps go forward until ball makes full 3 rotations and comes again to same number. In same time you need to record how long it takes to do it. In usual program moves in steps of 40 ms. (25 frame pictures in sec, standard TV video recording or if it is in US it would be slightly different, they use 30 pictures / sec.).It should take somewhere about 2 sec in total.

Now we move about 4 sec. in front from 18 sec. So somewhere about 14 sec before then ball drops. And we do same. But this time we apply same time that took ball to cross all numbers 3 times. Now the ball in same time needs to cross all numbers 2 times. It means that ball is at 2/3 speed then when we did it first time. If ball crossed more than 2 wheel numbers, try to start it later. Maybe 13.8 or 13.5. You must adjust it that ball crosses exactly 2 times all numbers. If that happens at 13.5 sec then 18-13.5 = 4.5 sec. So we need 4.5 sec that ball slows down to 2/3 of speed when we started. There is fine adjustment to that but that can be done by experiment when we do testing. Why do we need it? The answer is simple. 1/3 of speed is missing or if we look it in numbers it means 1/3 of numbers is missing. So when we multiply it by 3 (as explained with my system) result will tell us when in time we started, but in numbers not in time. That is what we really want.

Lets look simple example. One spin in different time moments. If we start at 16 sec. Zero is under the ball. We finish at 11.5 and again zero is under the ball so the angle that we monitor is zero. Multiplied by 3 is again zero. If offset is excluded it tell us that ball will hit zero. Now what will happened if we start later then 16 sec. Let’s say 16 plus that ball makes another 12 numbers. In that case number 13 would be under the ball when we start. After 4.5 sec it would not be again 13, because ball is going slightly slower. It would be 2/3 of those 12 numbers so it would be on number 17. Now we do have angle in between starting number 13 and ending number 17, it is 4 numbers. We can now apply process as explained in E2 system. Add that angle 2 times on top. So after adding it ones we are on number 4 and ones more we come to zero. Here we go; the system put us back to same reference point. And this law applies all the way from 19 sec to 9 sec before the end. But because we need 4.5 sec to predict we must exit at 9+4.5=13.5. We can take it as 14. So 19 - 14 = 5 sec. That is time frame that we must start. We need to have feeling for that. It is not small it is about 7 -8 ball rotations, and after some practicing it should not be a problem to recognize spin within that time. Other answers are logical. If ball did not stop on zero but on 12. Than from zero to 12 would be our offset.

How wheel change is includes in all of that?
Because we are monitoring the ball but over the wheel numbers, it is included. It is not 100% included that is why with more constant wheel system is more accurate. How much it is explained at my page If everything is same with spin as in previous example. But wheel in our time frame is faster by 2 numbers. Then angle that we monitor would be also different by 2 numbers. So when we multiply it by 3 it would show total difference of 6 numbers to the end of spin. If ones we started at 14 s and another time at 18.5 we would have error in prediction slightly smaller than 2 numbers. That is why I come with E3 where I managed to reduce it by adding one extra switch click. For the end, I do not clock the ball by manually clicking switch, by my opinion it is imposable. So I observe it visually. I do clock the wheel it is much slower and it is possible because even if I make error by clocking the wheel, the system is not so much affected because it is only adjustment. Main part is done with visual observation.

Testing, use came video recording and apply the system. Use time as you defined. It should be somewhere in between 4-4.5 sec. Try to start in different times of the spin. It should always point to ref point- offset. If slightly losing accuracy readjust your time by 0.04 sec. steps. Then try on another spin with slightly different wheel speed. It should work same good. So you can perfectly test it at home but to be able to play it you would need some kind of device as I make. You can try to make similar and it should be reasonable good. I would recommend my device because there are few more small things that makes it perfect. I did a lot of testing and playing, so I can confidently say that I know how I build them and why it is that way. Wish you best luck in development.



How do you determine the drop point?

It is very different way.
I do not determinate failing point on the end of the spin.
You should look explanation of my ref. points.
So if you look spin backwards from failing point you have points when the ball passes same point again and again.
So i define in any time 19-9 sec how far i am from any of that points because wheel is rounded. That is why i do not calculate or trying to define function i copy it as it is. If you look from back , exclude ball bouncing every spin is same up to some point where one spin started but the other one started earlier. It does not have to be every time 100% but it is most of the time. More perfect wheel and leveled is better for system. So system aligns ref points of one spin in relationship to rotor with ref. points from another spin and tell us in numbers how far we are from that point when we did measurement in particular time frame.

From email:

Forester, so the equation which determines how much earlier we started is this :


Y= numbers we started earlier(difference at beginning)
M= multiplying factor
X= numbers difference at the end of timing

this is a linear function…

So if we know now how many pockets earlier or later we started in time, how
does this relate to the outcome? can we in this case subtract (Y) 30 numbers
from the outcome? because ball travel should be the same as in the last spin
only that we started 30 numbers earlier… so outcome number minus 300
degrees should give us the outcome for the second spin or not???

Regards xxxx

every spin is same the way we want to look. it has beginning and end and we
measure somewhere in between. We do not need to know after measurement how
much longer ball will go.
with this system we always position ourselves in same position compared to
the end.
So to the end we have 5, 6, 7, 8, etc crossing points of winning number.
if system points to any of them it does not matter. they all are same
look spin from back
number…offset…ref1…ref2…ref16…ref17…ref18 …etc
so if we exit close to ref 16 or 7 it does not matter.
If one spin you start somewhere and next spin 6 spins and 6 numbers later
that would be 2 full spins and 2 numbers difference in our time frame.
2 spins and 2 numb. x 3 = 6 spins and 6 numbers. But we do not do that way
we notice only angle of 2 numbers we do not care for full spins. so it will
show only as 6 numbers. if first time we were at ref point 20 now we are 6
numbers from ref point on ref point 14. Full spins we cancel.
Very simple :slight_smile:
Now you can understand what i mean when i say i do not calculate function i
copy it.
When you get device you will see how it is hard to press switch accurate.
That is why my system is as it is. If you miss you just use that number.
But if you try to calculate function by clocking ball or wheel every time
you would have error due to incorrect pressing.
If you input incorrect speed that gets multiplied about 20 times to the end.
I do not have that errors.
Why we have only 9.5 - 19 sec time to work with.
Because that part is linear for what we want to do.hyperbolic curve is
pushed by the wheel . But if ball slows down to much we lose that linearity
. see the graph with working area at my web page.

Some people still enquiring about E2 system. It makes me nostalgic, that is how all started.

Hello forester, i saw your e2 roulette system but i have some questions.I hope to give an answer. 1. When you say tha this wheel spins with 3.2 seconds you mean tha the wheel performs a full cirlce in 3.2 secons right? 2. Why do i need to know the speed of the wheel and how can i calculate it?

The rotor doesn’t have to be 3.2s it cam be around that speed.

I use to use timer set to 4.2 seconds.
I observe how many pockets the rotor makes in that time.

If I have predictions when the ball is about 12 sec before then it drops there is no need for any additional rotor adjustments.

Because we observing change on the wheel that is happening in that reference time.
If rotor makes extra 5 pockets in 4.2 sec time it means that in 12 sec it will make ~15 pockets. Because created difference of 5 pockets we multiply by 3 (3x5=15) we do not need any extra adjustments for rotor.
Question you may ask could be; but what if remaining time is not 12 sec.
Well then because rotor is moving in 4.2 sec 5 pockets different it is 5.4.2 =1.2 pockets per sec difference. Because we observe only changes in time fro 2 sec difference it would give us 2 x 1.2pockets =2.4 pockets error.

E2 needs a lot of practicing and experience.

It is not very accurate system because and errors are multiplied by 3.
But if you do everything correct you may expect ball drop to rotor with 1:20 accuracy.
Is not much, but do not forget it is the only VB system ever designed for leveled wheel play. On leveled wheel even IQE6 computer wouldn’t produce much better result. Something like 1:12 hits on rotor.

It works and it worked for me for years because at that time ball scatter was much better. I did not use the system for years. Almost from start time of

You would be better of with VB2 and tilted wheel if you can find any.

VB2 is based on similar principles but because of same dominant drop point the changes on the wheel are smaller (only how much the rotor makes from rotation to rotation) there is no need for multiplication and reference time is also reduced, in usual 1.5 to 2 sec.

Auuuu, who deleted E2 system explanations? :’(

no wonder many people told ne that cant find it at forum
First postis recovered ;D