I don't know, is it my imagination, or is he really clocking the ball so badly - every rotation by few pockets. I am wondering what this kind of video can prove. Title on the screen tells us that he plays tilted wheel. He clocked all the time at same diamond different rotations and showed us predicted number on the screen. I wouldn’t even question if video is genuine or not. I simply do not get what is the point of such video, to show how he can clock at any time and get result within 9 numbers, or what. With any time I mean 1 rotation

or 0.95% of rotation or 0.90 etc. It just doesn’t make sense to me. Can someone watch the video and tell me is it really bad clocking or I made a mistake. What is the most important he still refuses to do. t is same as on his first video he published few months ago. Well, there is some improvement at least he is trying to do similar test as ABC did with Mark's computer.

At the start of his video he says that we're not going to care about final result where the ball will stop. Fine, I agree with that. The problem comes when he starts talking how every roulette wheel is slightly tilted. That is ok as well. But when we are testing how computer will react on different ball speeds we do not really care much is wheel slightly tilted or not. (Maybe if it is very strong tilt it would matter.)

Tilted wheel effects only last revolution where the ball with different speed stops at same dominant diamond because of tilt, other effects are really minimal.

We want to test a system as if a roulette wheel is 100% leveled. We do not care for result same as he explained at start of his video. We do not care how after prediction the ball will be affected.
I will use very simple explanation and round numbers for better understanding.
Let’s say this is data from perfectly leveled wheel,


The ball at 12 o’clock has a speed of 1 rotation per 1.000sec.

The ball at 3 o’clock has a speed of 1 rotation per 1.050 sec.

The ball at 6 o’clock has a speed of 1 rotation per sec 1.100sec.

The ball at 9 o’clock has a speed of 1 rotation per sec. 1.150sec

And again at 12 it is 1 rotation per 1.200sec.

So it is slowing down, not exactly by these figures but close to it.


I explained clearly at http://www.myrulet.com/news-from-myrulet/roulette-computer-test-2-3.html why we can do clocking at different diamonds and what we achieve with that. That should be clear and undeniable. However Mr. Hourmouzis still denies it. This time it isn’t ridicules as on first version of his page, where he was explaining FF’s accuracy as a result of linear calculation. It didn’t have any logic, simply because test is based on real spin and on real wheel deceleration is curved. Whoever had opportunity to test FF would know that FF takes few spins to adjust.

This time Stefano's excuse is that ball doesn’t decelerate equally during the spin. And he is 100% right. But he forgetting very important fact. He set his computer on full rotations; his computer can not have idea of what is in between. If different spin comes he can only calculate by curve that his computer may develop from clocked ball times, as he demonstrted on his graph. However he can apply only one formula, which is constant, and if wheel isn't perfect there is no way that he can know how much is that imperfection, so his explanation is nonsense.

The FF works completely differently. It does not do setting as his computer, but it does it with every spin gradually. First few spins it observes spin very widely, next few spins it is narrower, after that it narrows even more but then starts learning what is going on in between full rotations. It is a must if we want accurate prediction, because ball deceleration is not only different in between rotations but it changes during single rotation and it is't constant all the time.

Therefore FF all the time is monitoring what is going on with the wheel. We simply can not base system setting on single spin or as he is doing few samples from spin and estimate remaining parameters. Mark Howe and Stefano are predicting on the same way. They will never succeed to make anything useful until they change it. Stefano’s computer doesn’t have any prediction.

About Mark's computer, I do not know enough that I can publicly make a statement. With all respect to ABC and his description of Mark's computer where he is comparing it to my FF, please search forum for
FF versus Mark Howe computer. Older Mark's computers were not really good that is for sure but did they have any prediction I do not know. I have had so many opportunities to get one, but I already have a door stopper. Will Mark fix ABC’s computer we should know soon. Anyway I will get more information from another source very soon.

Due to human errors during first spin clocking when setting the system, Stefano recommends to buyers to buy camera from him. The cheapest one is $800 and slightly better one is $2000.

It is really nothing more then a basic camera valued at $100. Where you record a spin, analyse it at home in slow motion, take timings and enter it manually in to the computer. (Until you do it who knows what can happen to the wheel). Funny is that seller claims how computer follows everything, even temperature or humidity changes, but I did not see any sensors on his device to be capable of detecting such changes. For humidity, barometer is needed and for temperature of course, temperature meter. If it is true, then why system does need timings from camera. It is only marketing strategy developed by previously abovenamed persons. They are competing who has a bigger head, promising everything and delivering nothing or very little.

The FF doesn’t need camera or anything. Even camera will not produce result as FF, because recorded video frames of his cheaper camera are more then 50 ms spaced. That is actually worst then average human clocking which ranges up to 30 ms. FF does not make decision on single spin and single sample of users clocking. It monitors it all the time, analyzes it and stores a lot of data.

That may be different subject to discuss so let’s go back to the point. If a wheel has some degree of tilt, our timing may be different. So it may look like this:

The ball at 12 o’clock has a speed of 1 rotation per 1.000 sec.

The ball at 3 o’clock has a speed of 1 rotation per 1.045 sec. ****

The ball at 6 o’clock has a speed of 1 rotation per sec 1.100sec.

The ball at 9 o’clock has a speed of 1 rotation per sec. 1.155sec ****

And again at 12 it is 1 rotation per 1.200sec.

Please note change in time next to ****

First one is because the ball is traveling down the hill so it decelerates slower.

Next one is when it decelerates up the hill. If we measure time with laser we would have that difference, because laser detects speed at particular spot, but when we do clocking we always do full rotation, so what ball is gaining when is going down the hill of tilted wheel it loses when it goes up the hill, (important) clocked time really stays close to same because one rotation includes everything therefore time difference from diamond to diamond would be same. Even if it doesn’t, how much it can be different?

5 ms difference would produce error of less then 1 number. Who cares for one number? I am very happy when FF predicts within 3 numbers.
Stefano on his scary movie demonstrated prediction with 9 numbers of errors. He looks proud with that, even it is only at one diamond and prediction on only learned ball speeds. At same time he is denying my multiple diamond tests because it may produce error of one number. Ouch.

That definitely isn’t real reason. The only reason is that for that test great system accuracy is needed. That would include accuracy in timing, error correction and algorithms which could properly calculate ball position at any moment in relationship to position of numbers on the rotor and rotor speed at any moment.

If changes are because of deformations or a slight tilt, short ball time differences are so great, then how FF can produce such accuracy. Results would be all over the wheel. Furthermore, if we play leveled wheel with some degree of tilt we do not know which diamond is slightly more dominant and by exactly how much. haven’t seen in his instructions for play on leveled wheel that we have to look for dominant diamond. Without knowing it there is no point of saying computer makes adjustment.

Due to slight tilt changes of ball speed per rotation are close to none, therefore attempt to use few milliseconds to adjust for possible effect of tilt would be disaster even if we define where on the wheel is tilt. For this problem even most sopshicated instruments wouldn’t help simply because with roulette on 2 different spins after ball is exactly let’s say 1.0 sec per rotation, next rotation can be 1.2s but on the other spin it could be different as 1.3s. That is (100ms) difference and it is huge if compared to possible few milliseconds created because of tilt.
Adjustment for tilt effect would require changing prediction by almost full rotation based on only few milliseconds difference in clocked data.

Nobody can have such accuracy, and even if he does because that few milliseconds are floating on top of already explained much higher possible time difference of (100ms) so it would be suicide if we try to adjust it. Does FF uses many clocking for accuracy as he stated, definitely not, I need at least 2 rotations. But not every rotation has same importance; FF decides which clocked rotations are more accurate based on all clocked data and previously stored parameters. FF uses multiple rotations to define parameters on the wheel, not only to reduce clocking errors.

Interesting point here is that only few months ago Stefano described FF as not workable system, now he is talking about system with high accuracy but as unpractical because it requires a lot of wheel watching. “Player must have clear view of the wheel”. What I should say on this: "maybe no it is not true, player can go and watch nice ladies, all he needs to do is to show FF to casino staff and tell them how long he was planning to play and they will transfer money to his bank account". There is so much that can be commented from his page but I think this would be more then enough. Even some people like to call me a competitor. I surely do not feel that way. I do not compete with anybody. If so, I would never provide so much information. Same as this procedure is valuable tool for someone who wants to test computer, it is also most needed tool for anybody trying to design workable roulette computer.
If you manage to get good results after a test, you are probably close to be successful.

Excuses as imperfections and deformations on the wheel are not good enough. Sure they exist and final result may be affected but effects on a test is very minimal because we do not look at final result. Especially if multiple diamonds test is used where there is not much time difference in between clocked ball speeds. Understanding importance of such testing and accepting it as a tool during design, half of work of creating workable roulette computer is done. By my opinion even someone who classifies himself as a competitor should be thankful for such test procedure. Maybe by publicly denying it, I am positive that they may start using it to try to solve problems with their product and prediction.Yes, it did open many questions and pressure from customers but all of them will be much happier once the product is brought to a level where it can pass this test.

Stefano’s Hourmouzis roulette challenge is a joke.

On some of his pages he was offering additional $2 million in assets.