Do not buy any roulette computer until you read this

Since I am not really actively promoting this site or creating additional sites to get more links and search engine popularity, you have probably come here from the sites which could have advertisements similar to this.

Interesting enough is how much time they spend creating and writing on all of those web pages to promote their computers and then finding excuses why they are selling them if their computers are so good. Scamming sites are just that. Anyone with solid knowledge of roulette systems will notice that every time I or someone else makes comments to what was strange written on their web sites, these sites get updated. They'll never improve a product but instead upgrade the advertisement to become a better scam.

Since I have spent years in roulette research and have connection with people who have same interests and who achieved the most of this game, I think writing article about roulette computers that average Joe can understand is more useful then empty promises found at some sites.

It's been six months since I've started new project of converting current FFZ roulette computer to make it a talking one, with the new name "the FFA".

Adding audio and making it talk took me less then a day but remaining time I have spent in rebuilding close to 3,000 lines of program to optimize it for the best performance.

The new unit is programmed in machine language, the fastest, the best and probably the only one suitable for such application.

I still consider the FFZ as a very smart and unique design most suitable for a skilful single player. There are few reasons which pushed me towards FFA's direction.

One reason is a players who already own the FFZ and has requested of me to build it.

Some were telling me "the FFZ is great, extremely accurate device but I want to play more and I need it to be made for team play".

Some found "zap" stressful, therefore they prefer audio numbers. The others were saying, "keep the zap" because they already tried roulette computers which use audio and hearing aid earpieces from some other sellers and found it totally useless. The question was can I make my system to talk and still have the same accuracy as the FFZ has.

I have two diplomas, telecommunications and electronics and roulette is my hobby which sometimes becomes an obsession. It took me many hours but the answer is €˜yes' and it is done on time as it was scheduled for completion for middle of June 2008. Not only that system is converted to use audio instead of zap but the software is completely rewritten.

To make everybody happy I decided to make it both, new updated FFZ with the new software and the FFA as new system.

The reason for reconstruction of all programs is to improve systems flexibility, accuracy, additional options etc. other words to make the system unlimited.

If you have been following this site you could find that Michael Barnett ("Casino Consultant") has purchased one of my FFZ units for his testing. Regardless what some competitors are saying about his test, the fact is that he was never interested in buying and testing their units but only mine. It is because anybody with some roulette understanding clearly knows that others are running sites to scam people and that definitely isn't a threat to casinos. I did write more at my forum site about this case and here I will give just a brief overview.

Basically his findings were that FFZ predicts perfectly on wheels with common drop point but on levelled wheel he couldn't get enough predictions. There is a gossip that I deliberately supplied him with a faulty roulette computer but that's not the truth. I supplied him with a good working unit as I would supply to any other purchaser. His testing ended with a dispute, he refused to return the unit for checking because he did some modifications on it. Also he did not want to provide any additional information about the test so I could analyse why he couldn't get enough predictions. Every single person who owns the FFZ told him that they are getting about 80% predicted spins but the casino consultant insisted on his 20%.

As the only logical answer I could think off without having data analysed, is that the FFZ was tested on single wheel which is out of FFA's specified parameters. Casino Consultant wants to purchase latest FFA system as well, for his research. However I refuse to sell new system except to people that I know and can trust. What really happened is that during redesign I also revolutionized prediction on common drop point wheels. Just during testing period I managed to profit more then the total system sales so my decision is very justifiable. Of course there are other reasons for such a decision.

Anyway some of the Casino Consultant's comments were another reason why I decided to rebuild all programs. Since from his test I didn't get anything I expected, I don't have any interest for FFA to be further tested by him.

I believe my expectation from the test outcome was just normal and that would include results from different wheels where different kind of ball was used. But I received nothing of that. I definitely didn't make changes for the Casino Consultant but to make the system most accurate most practical and the most flexible for any situation. Since his alternative option was to purchase it under different name all I could do is stop selling it. My decision was highly welcomed by other FF system users.

The FFZ would predict where the difference in between ball rotations at the time of prediction is in between 120-255ms and the most of casino wheels are within that range.

New changes make it wider and for the FFA system it is from 70-392ms. Such wide range allows the system to predict any wheel. (Here I didn't say that and advantage is possible at any roulette wheel). Recently I have tested it on one of latest new wheels with very low ball deceleration and the FFA was predicting without any problems. How the system will perform on all types of wheels, I simply don't know until I get more feedback from people who will use it.

With this article I will avoid writing about other roulette computers scam especially the ones built inside mobile phones which are completely incapable for timing applications. In addition, mobile phone uses audio player which takes 1.2 to 1.5 seconds to activate. Such time losses aren't affordable for serious roulette prediction. You can confirm this with any skilful software developer and more information is available at my forum.

Therefore instead of talking about something that doesn't work I will try to explain what the roulette computer really is.

Since there is nothing to compare the FFA to, I decided to compare it with old FFZ and to explain what can be expected from roulette computer, what is important, how much it is important and why it is important.

For roulette prediction this is definitely the most important requirement. Without this anything else is irrelevant. For roulette computer to have needed accuracy few factors are needed.

Both systems FFZ and the FFA are using same microcontroller programmed in machine language. Hardware is set to measure time with 0.000001 seconds accuracy, it's far more then enough. So there is no really difference here. The software is capable of making more then 100 needed mathematical calculations during single spin in less then 10 ms.

Both systems are built based on same procedure, both use right hardware as it is required therefore if I mark it from 1 to 10 I would give 10 for both systems. On this scale if mobile phone is used it would be 1 and PDA would be 2.

This is first thing I have done right, without that there wouldn't be much progress in any further development.

Both systems use similar methods. FFZ is slightly more accurate in ball timing and rotor calculation. Smart system design can avoid some parts for the rotor calculation which FFA simply must have and it gives greater flexibility. With FFZ we can clock the ball completely at different position then rotor. However, since the FFZ displays a result, additional calculation is required, therefore system can create some errors. Also during the play the user is dependant on his observation which can produce additional small mistakes.

Time from last switch click until we get information is in average 0.5 sec.

On the other side the FFA pronounces number which takes about 0.7 sec but it is easier and more accurate information then observation. Because it doesn't use visual indication it is more accurate. However the FFA must calculate rotor position from the time we clock it which can inject more errors if compared to FFZ. It is logical, for more time we calculate the error may increase.

When I put it all together on same scale I would mark FFZ with 7 and FFA with 8.

Mobile phones and PDA's, because of the already wrong measured time simply can not perform any of these tasks, also they take too long to get information out. In usual, sellers of such devices would suggest to do ball clocking earlier which really makes things worst. Timing the ball when it is only 0.5-0.6 sec per rotation and where the difference in between rotations is only 40 ms to get prediction when he ball is one second per rotation is totally wrong and hardly that any accurate prediction is possible even if right hardware as FF is used.

Some computers use camera to record a casino wheel, then player needs to go home, play video in slow motion read ball timing, approximate it because video frames are distanced 40 ms and enter data in to the computer. While they complete all of that and come back, probably the next day, all they can see is that everything has changed (if they see it, that is).

When I come up with IQ solution where system is capable to learn ball deceleration curve within few milliseconds accuracy, all they could do is to start claiming the same. It jus doesn't make sense, if computer can learn to point of few ms accuracy then why to use camera to get basic parameters with 40 ms jumps. If such data has to be manually added then it is obvious that computer doesn't use any complicated algorithms to define ball parameters.

First of all roulette prediction is dynamic - taking timings as explained or building graphs is pointless. What is valid now after only one hour may be completely different or the next time you go to play. Spins next to each other may be different as well. It is such a naive way of thinking. But who cares if a designers main objective is to sell the computer. If someone is so uninformed to buy it, after investment and failure he will probably buy and a camera, which is really basic camera valued $100 but he will pay for that from the seller for about $800 - $2000.

Both of my systems automatically learn the wheel while we play.

Learned information is very important for proper calculation. It needs to be current because wheel parameters may change in short time.

The FFA learns wheel information for both ball direction independently therefore calculation for ball clock way and antilock way is completely independent.

Few weeks ago I monitored the FFA's data during casino play in both directions for 2 days. Yes there was a difference in between ball directions, the wheel wasn't symmetrical and parameters have changed from day one and day two. With that particular scenario if I used the FFZ in both ball directions after some calculation I found out that possible errors may reach up to 5 pockets while for the FFA it wasn't the problem.

The difference in between day one and day two in ball deceleration was 20 ms. It doesn't sound as much but it caused the ball to travel shorter by 2 seconds. That is a difference by close to 50 pockets. Now, imagine if someone used camera to set the system then came next day to play.

I better cut to the point so we don't end up with a very lengthy article.

Simply the FFA is better, here it gets 9 out of 10 and the FFZ gets 6. Both systems handle some things well but the FFA is definitely better.

Some wheels may not be predictable at 12 seconds to the end but prediction about 8 sec may be very accurate. The main reason for this is phenomena of knee point where the ball suddenly may change deceleration. FF systems due to specific design can target particular time of prediction to take advantage of such wheel and to keep constant advantage for all spins. All demos that I have seen from other people trying to predict roulette is based that player decides when he will clock the ball. Those results that time of prediction once can be 12 sec to the end next time 5 or 8 or 11 etc. They explain it as good thing since player may be suspicious placing bets always at the same time. It may be correct but what is the point if prediction is not accurate. If you continue reading you will soon understand how hard roulette wheel prediction is and why every single point is so important. Neither the FF system will have every spin predicted at 100% every time but it will be at least in targeted zone where an advantage is possible.

This scale is from 1-5 and both systems can be marked as 5.

In this group comes offset adjustment and possibility of saving data.

The FFA can do it better, it can save few games at one time and it can adjust offset independently for each ball direction. How much that is important?

For me personally not much I really need to adjust it. If I know that the offset is +9 pockets and if system predicts number 34 I simply know where to pace bets with added offset in my head. However after some time and few hours of play it may be better to adjust it. Or perhaps if two or more players are using the system it may be easier.

Saving played game for next time. Well I thought this is more important then what really is. After serious research I found out that it is not really useful function since it is always better to let system learn the wheel from the start. Conditions on wheel may change and in usual learnt data is useless. Since it may be significant change the system may have problem retuning to now parameters. While if we start from the start it will take only 2-3 spins and we can have good predictions. Therefore saving data feature is useful for research or practicing. From 1-5 FFA gets 5 and he FFZ gets 3

The good side for FF systems it that they do not use display for settings. All settings, retuning and adjustments can be done at the table while we play.

Hardware set up for FFA is more complicated because it needs more. Software setting is easier because it talks while with FFZ we need to count pulses. Information about system play and errors is better. For example the FFA while we play can tell us everything about wheel that we need to know. FFZ is more practical when we do ball clocking because it can be at any position and completely independent from rotor clocking. However all of this isn't so important.

FFA=4 FFZ=4

There is no system that can be secure enough. By my opinion the best is to not get noticed. Both systems can be locked in the case of emergency without even touching them. I fell more secure with FFZ, it doesn't use radio communication.

FFZ=4 FFA=3

The FFZ is not really designed for team play, it can easily be modified if needed but the player would still need to see the wheel.

FFA uses radio communication and spy earpieces inserted in to player's ear channel.

Amount of players with right set up is unlimited with option that player can have nothing more then special spy earpiece totally invisible. It means the player doesn't need to have Bluetooth receiver or induction loop around his neck.

FFZ=2 FFA=5

If we add it all together and make a table we would get something as this: