Testing of Forester's roulette computer / device

The unit is supplied in a 4XAA battery box with two of the battery connections removed; the space thus created houses the PC board.

The PC board is professionally made and screen printed.

The chip used is a Microchip 16F628. This is a nice little chip with ample flash memory and three timers.

The code in the chip is protected so I was not able to examine the Hex file.

Output is via a high frequency oscillator to two metal buttons which are held against the skin. After two or three weeks using this at max output (thankfully it is adjustable) you should expect a reduced sperm count and a will develop a rather dashing Afro hairstyle.

The device is designed to be worn on the ankle with the supplied strap with data input by means of a toe switch. I am not sure about toe switch activation; my toe-to-brain co-ordination is about a week-and-a-half. For testing purposes I connected a piezo sounder to the output and used the toe switch with my fingers.

The program has several setup options including selection of wheel type (non-random stator exit (drop-zone) or semi-random stator exit (indiscernible drop-zone), multiple zap strength settings and accuracy tolerance settings.

These options are selected by pressing the clock key as the program cycles through the options which are transmitted by zap codes.

I found the setup instructions, which are supplied in the form of a PowerPoint presentation, easy to follow and instinctive.

Everyone with access to this section of the site knows that a professional just wants to know where the ball will hit the rotor, he doesn’t want fancy offset or scatter algorithms or “fuzzy logic” to tell him where the ball will ultimately end up. As a general rule, if you try to build in scatter prediction you will end up peak chasing; so… as long as you know where the ball will enter the rotor you are better off assessing scatter/roll forward by eye. The important thing is to know where and when the ball will initially hit the rotor; if you need more than that, you should stay home postulating at the kitchen table.

For this reason, when I initially test any device I use a reference spin(s) which results in the ball “dead-dropping” into the slot. This tells me if the device is capable of accurate prediction.

The Forester’s device does not “speak” the predicted number; it gives you a zap at the point where you are to look at the position of the ball and the number which is directly under it as you receive the zap, this requires that you hone your peripheral vision skills; if you try to focus too hard you will probably be looking in the wrong place when you get the zap. In practice you will actually reference the number under the ball by it’s (the balls) relative position to zero. (Does this make sense, or does it require clarification?).

If we define a roulette computer as a device to predict the outcome of a game of roulette then FF is not a roulette computer. It is a timing device; it is more of an aid to roulette prediction than a prediction device per-se.

FF is designed to give you a reference point at some stage prior to the end of the spin. This reference point comes in the form of a small electric shock (zap). At the precise moment of this “zap”, the operator must observe the number that is directly under the ball. Given that the ball is traveling in one direction at the rate of around 2.5 meters per second and the rotor is traveling in the other direction at about half that speed, this is no mean feat, particularly in view of the fact that you don’t know when or where this zap will happen. If you are to have any hope in identifying the number under the ball at zap time you’d better hone your peripheral vision skills.

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, don’t forget; this reference point changes for each of the four accuracy settings.

Putting some of this together; FF will give you a zap at some point during the spin, you are to identify the number under the ball at this time, wait for the ball to enter the rotor, identify this number, determine how far the ball scatters, add the number of slots from “zap” to “drop” with the number of slots from “drop” to “final stop” place and that’s your “offset”.

It sounds complicated and it is, but nobody ever said roulette prediction was easy.

FF does a good job of giving you a consistent reference pointon wheels that exhibit stator bias (drop_zone) but there are several others that do this relatively trivial task (for a computer) equally well and don’t require you to have the visual acuity of a Nighthawk.

A device such as this is an enormously powerful tool in the hands of a professional, it is basically an accurate measuring instrument, with, I assume (because I don’t have the code), some smoothing of timings in an attempt to correct clocking errors.

Devices which use a lookup table and voice chip to output the number to an earpiece are more elegant but I like this approach; it is simple, will run forever off a couple of AA batteries and is far more covert. You will also end up with a much better understanding of roulette prediction techniques with a device like this as opposed to an all-talking, all-doing, Bluetooth equipped, histogram creating device.

Does it work?

Yes, it does, it worked extremely well on my reference spins straight out of the box. These reference spins are from wheels with a drop zone, or as Forester (incorrectly) refers to them, tilted wheels.

I have much more testing to do on different setups and will comment when more data is at hand.

Forester also claims that his device can effectively predict (give a fixed reference point) on wheels which do not exhibit stator bias. How well does it do this?

We have conducted tests on several wheels, ranging from old wheels in a training room, well-used wheels on the casino floor and a brand new Saturn wheel.

The device can be very frustrating; one day we were lucky to get one prediction per five or six spins, the next day we were getting seven or eight out of ten and the third day same as the first.

When the unit predicts it appears to be accurate but we have not obtained sufficient data to call it one way or another.

We are going to fit an LED such that we get a flash at the same time as a “zap”.

This way we can video the tests and replay the footage to determine the exact number under the ball at zap time.

The device certainly shows promise but the jury’s still out 'till:-

a. We get more data.
b. The device gives enough predictions to warrant the time and effort expended.

Sorry to orphan the below posts, there was a misunderstanding.

Cheers

survtech

@forester

If you have a copy please feel free to publish it. I took it off my site for the time being because some of the other vendors are giving me the shits with their nonsense.

Cheers

survtech

I didn’t see the removed post but I would congratulate Mike Barnett for his review of the FF.

His work appears to be thorough and accurate and mirrors all of my experiences with Foresters device during the development and testing stages of the last couple of years.

Of course Forester will continue to make minor refinements and of course as Mike says you do need to develop your peripheral vision and some of us will always have problems with blinking when the zap occurs and of course none of us will be able to use the FF when our pacemakers are fitted.

But its nice to see an honest and competent review of a professionally produced device made public by a professional tester.

Mike McBain

Someone may like him or not but he has knowledge and most importantly he has experience in the industry.

Mike the problem was that with first report he published and details about me which of course irrelevantly to context of report wasn’t acceptable for me. His explanation was why not it may be good since casinos already know everything about you. I still did not like it.
On the other side I made mistake simply by misunderstanding some of his writing.

Do not worry about zap, to get audio instead of zap is peace of cake, to get ff to talk it needs a bit more.
I hope you do not want me to add FF to pacemaker :o.

@MikeMcB

Thanks Mike :slight_smile:

survtech

I hope you do not want me to add FF to pacemaker

Hey never thought of that - an implanted pacemaker with an inbuilt FF would be hard to detect?

Today I decided to look in to FF’s program.
I added survtech recommendation.
It works accurately and it looks really good.

I think it is really great benefit to the system.
I added it only to IQE6, and it didn’t take me long to change program.
However about 20% of spins will not have it, because that data is in completely different format and it is too much trouble to convert it. 80 % is just fine to have for what we need.
It gives good control, and clear feeling of systems accuracy.

Also it looks to me that offset is much easier to notice assuming that we already know scatter across rotor. It is because we can have clear view how ball behaves in relationship to system calculation.
I think survtech deserves new chip for present to check his idea implemented, and as my big thank you.

Then I went to search what could cause trouble at some conditions and not enough of predictions in some situations.
That, part is harder to fix, it looks that new changes at some level of inaccurate clocking and at some conditions do not follow well.
My luck was that in accuracy 3 I start experiencing problems with some spins.
That gave me idea where to look for problems.
I did find few better solutions and it looks better now but I have to do more testing.

The system had one extra control activated to early with limits, and that was restricting some other data analyses. It was causing problems especially if prediction is happening in time where is sharp change in ball deceleration. It may cause system to not adopt to change and as result the system wouldn’t predict because the clocked data wouldn’t match expected within limits.

It is hard to chase problems as described. I talked with few guys, they claim no problems at all with new chip but if it can be better why not to do it.

This is an amazing tool.

Yesterday was so humid here that zap even for me was to strong, in usual I use it always on maximum, but yesterday only on level 5.
Since I want to do more testing today I decided to connect little speaker to FF.

I found it very practical for testing purposes.

My objective today was to take Bob Gordon’s roulette spins and to do some testing’s.
His wheel is a mess. It progressively changes parameters in time.
In usual only reasonable accuracy I could get if I use FF in accuracy 4 or perhaps 3.

With new feature added to FF it was different story.
I was fascinated with which accuracy and how easy I could follow changes on the wheel.
His wheel for example at start makes the ball of 1 sec per revolution to travel 5 rotations, but after one hour, the ball with same measured speed travels 6.5 rotations. Parameters as ball decelerations almost don’t change so it is imposable to use anything for full adjustment.
Wheel as that is good for me for research to see how and what can be done to keep up with changes.

It doesn’t happen on every wheel and always. Due to experience I could notice changes by observing what is going on the wheel I play.
But I was never able to clearly see it and exactly know what is happening and by how much until I did this changes. Sometimes in real play even if I see it, in many occasions it was after some losses.

This modification really boosts FF to much higher level of practical play that of course will result in higher profitability.

FF is extremely accurate in measurements and calculation, but there is always question how much of that precision we can turn in to our advantage on real wheel.

Due to high accuracy FF could produce huge hit rate, but without this there was never way to know how long it will last. The only way to know it was when we start losing.
In my test not only that I could notice change but I was able to make appropriate adjustments and continue prediction with high hit rate.
Simply there were not more nasty surprises for me. Also it was interesting to observe changes with drastic rotor speed change, but about it some other time.

With some changes on the systems program I think problem with occasionally unpredicted spins is solved or significantly improved but I need to do some more testing.
Today on Bob’s wheel I tried accuracy setting 1 as well, it gives prediction about 12 sec before then the ball drops. Everything looked fine.

Further more I talked with friend of mine explaining him what has been done to the system, he replayed “but I told you that few months ago you were not listening”.
&@#(^()&[email protected]#^^*()baga

from
http://www.survtech.com.au/discus/messages/2/133.html?1193694102

Yes, histogram analyses is elegant window dressing but, for me, that part is best left to the operator.

Histograms are used by unscrupulous computer vendors to show how well their computer works; they don’t tell you that the peak floats on a badly behaved wheel and that the reality is that they’re always one step behind the peak.

I’m genuinely pleased that you found my suggestion useful; even though I’m on the “other side” there’s value all round in collaboration. I have found that as long as we all understand where we’re each coming from and that we all have our own agenda, the world’s big enough for all of us.

Cheers

survtech

Of course better FF more work for you. :slight_smile:

My objective is to get whatever is the best no matter how. An individual can’t know everything and this is something that is imposable to learn from any book.

First of all if there wasn’t www.myrulet.com and some people who joined it, I would probably never have enough will to come to level of IQ systems.

I will spend some more time looking in to the program then I will send you modified chip, so you can see with which precision FF is doing it. I am not sure if it would have so much importance on tilted wheel, but for the IQE6 it is necessity. I am really amazed with benefits.

For your future testing you can try to connect speaker as described in support.
It will be much easier because prediction will have different sound then the other pulses. For me it is easy but for someone studying FF it may be very beneficial. I took my speaker from kid’s gun, pulled chip out, slide 2 wires in socket then pushed the chip back.