Recently I have received an email from a friend of mine. In his email, he referred to Steven Stefano Hourmouzis new approach of discrediting the FF roulette computer. It isn’t much new; it is only for who knows how many times edited version of the same page created earlier.
I better use it and explain what the roulette prediction is.
For a start I will quote Stefano’s words where he is referring to “Forester’s roulette computer test” which is essential indicator will computer work or not.
His test sounds good in theory, and it would be a good test if a wheel were “perfectly” level, but such wheels just don’t exist.
Stefano is saying that my test isn’t real. For him taking a video spin from the actual wheel, clocking it and getting results which can be compared isn’t real. Then repeat it and still getting the same result. Clocking the ball at the other position (it is still the same wheel which may be slightly tilted) and guess what, the computer took different speed in calculation combined with different rotor position, it made all clocking errors and still produced an accurate result that belongs to that spin.
For some reason, this test isn’t good for Stefano. Furthermore, the same test applied to his wheel that he calls semi tilted produces the same accuracy. In his video, he claimed that he couldn’t see the ball at the moment of zap, but all 21 spins were predicted with high precision regardless his wheel has had a slight tilt.
Instead of my test where the ball and rotor are spinning, he suggests that in his mobile phone you type in for example 1000ms and you will get a result. Woooo that’s interesting. Only he doesn’t point to what you are going to compare that result. And he doesn’t tell you; when you type in 1000ms, it doesn’t have to be 1000ms when you are trying to clock the ball of 1000ms per rotation.
It’s hard to understand how someone can claim that typing in something where you don’t have anything to compare, or where you even do not know will the “phone” measure time accurately, can be as good as real time test where you have a result to compare.
But Stefano has to do it that way. The reason for that is that mobile phone most likely will measure time in ~25ms intervals, and even that may be worst since the mobile phone is running additional applications in the background. Which of course will have higher priority than his measurement?
In an attempt to transfer my computer’s software to the mobile phone, all five professional developers told me, it is imposable to get even close accurate timing with mobile phones or PDA’s.
What happens, if time is measured under OS as it is the case with mobile phones or PDA’s?
The phone may display time in ms, but since refreshment of the processor may be 25 ms intervals we just can’t get accurate measurements. It means that measured result of time can deviate by 0 to 50ms and it will average to about 25ms.
That isn’t good enough for roulette levelled wheel prediction, and hard it may be suitable for the tilted wheel. The FF measures time in 0.001 ms, and it doesn’t run any other applications, all hardware is working only to get an accurate prediction as much as possible.
What surprises me more is why Stefano says that slight tilt will make prediction worst only for the FF. When at his video which comes together with his mobile phone roulette computer he states that even when roulette prediction is made on semi tilted wheel, his computer assumes that the wheel is perfectly levelled.
Stefano only follows what I write at my forum as potential problems with roulette prediction and then claims his computer does everything (as in usual).
When we are clocking the ball, we are doing it at one spot, and we can’t have an idea how the ball behaved in between clicks ¼ (or ½ or ¾ ..etc.) rotations from there.
Even in such case, the FFZ is better, since clocking can be done at any place and completely independent from the rotor. Therefore the system can learn from any position on the wheel. In general, we are taking timings of full rotations we do not know where is slight tilt, therefore, the computer definitely can’t do anything in regards to that. If we know where the tilt is then, we can use tilt system prediction.
Stefano’s scattergram can’t help, since things on the wheel change and results are combined with ball jumping across the rotor. We all know that the ball jumping with a high percentage is random, so it is pointless to use it to define something that requires few milliseconds precision.
If at one particular spot the ball speed is 1000 ms and nine pockets from there if it is 1050ms, the tilt may cause it to be 1048ms. We can’t use 2 ms difference to shift final prediction by the number of pockets that tilt would cause in last rotation when the ball is due to drop. Especially not if time measurement is done with mobile phone or PDA as Mark, Stefano or Barnett are using. It is same as taking schools ruler to measure the thickness of human hair in microns.
At his page Stefano grouped wheels in this order;
I. Heavily Tilted (Less than 4% of wheels):
ii. Semi-tilted (About 95% of wheels):
iii. Perfectly level (less than 1% of wheels):
I would say perfect wheel doesn’t exist; same as he did but I wouldn’t say perfectly tilted wheel but heavily tilted. Maybe we should use term reasonably levelled roulette wheel.
Expert visual players can take advantage if the wheel is only slightly tilted. For example, if one area instead of 25% of hits gets 35-40%. Therefore the VB player would play semi tilted wheel. Such wheel is also possible to predict successfully with IQE6. If hits are 50% plus I would probably use tilt system because it will produce a higher advantage.
However, properly adjusted tilt system can be applied and on the wheel with only 40% tilt.
It isn’t rocket science that if we have more tilt that we may get a better result.
So really we can apply levelled wheel prediction to at least 70% of wheels where remaining would be heavy tilted or with significant tilt where we may be better off utilising tilt system.
It isn’t secret anymore that Stefano is selling levelled wheel prediction computer where he is trying to get the advantage of slight tilt expecting that it would still give some advantage. Same as he believes in his Genuine Winner system. His computer doesn’t have needed accuracy even for that nor will his GW system provide enough so the advantage can be recognised and used to win. Stefano’s computer can’t also handle rotor speed change, for any significant change his computer says risk and doesn’t predict. How then his computer would handle the ball measurements and calculation properly?
The FF has high precision so it can learn from spins while with Stefano’s computer you first need to visit the casino with a small camera that he sells for $800 (only 30 frames per sec) then go home use video editing software to read timings in 40 ms intervals. (yes that is how video is recorded 40ms is accuracy, but we can slightly approximate values in between) Enter details about that in the computer then go and play. And he calls it “high technology”, and “hybrid computer”.
Did you ever see him writing all of this? Why not? Instead of that, he is writing about me and my computer problems. Stefano dedicates complete web pages talking about me, and there is no need for that since if you read my forum, you will find out that I write much more about problems then anybody else. All people who own my system are welcome to do same and most of them helping me to make it even better and doing their experiments. More confidential subject are kept inside support forum, but there is and plenty for visitors.
Furthermore, at his page, Stefano writes:
“A strong tilt makes a wheel very easy to beat, and a perfectly level wheel would still be relatively easy to beat with the right technology. But the problem is about every wheel is somewhere between level and tilted. That is for most roulette computers to produce predictions that are accurate enough to overcome the house edge (and be profitable), most wheels are not tilted enough to be treated as a “tilted” wheel, and not level enough to be treated as a “level” wheel. Most wheels are “semi-tilted”.”
With this part, I may agree, but he is saying something that he doesn’t want to say.
The FF roulette computer has the right hardware to produce an advantage, and the mobile phone doesn’t. The FF measures time with a tolerance of 0.000001 seconds and mobile phone in ~0.02 s. So about which technology and accuracy he is talking about? The only way to use a mobile phone is to remove all software remove firmware and to program it as the FF is done to be able to do accurate time measurements.
Next from Stefano;
Another problem is many wheels have ball track deformations, which are likely to affect results.
I think he should bring this up when he was selling his phone instead of promising people to win at any roulette wheel. It must be that he didn’t know about such effect since he was advertising win at any wheel.
On some wheels, deformations may be so intense that prediction is imposable. It doesn’t matter how accurate we measure speed if once a ball of 1000ms per rotation travels five rotations and next time the ball with same speed goes 6.5 rotations or anything in between. Such scenarios are real, and I was talking about it from the start. But that doesn’t affect only my roulette computer, but every. At least with the FF time of prediction can be shifted, so the explained problem in some situations can be reduced.
Once when we measure the ball speed and get a prediction, there is no way that anybody can know how that ball will be affected by deformations on ball track, by every particle of dust, by table vibrations etc. We can predict particular wheel only if for example measured ball of 1000ms most of the time ends up at the same place with reasonable tolerance. The higher percentage of grouped results we have, the highest advantage we will have. But same spins doesn’t have to take the ball to the same spot every time (according to measured ball speed), and there is nothing that anybody can do about it.
Anyway, even in that field, the FF is better designed. With Stefano’s computer, the player estimates when he will have prediction so it can be once at 5 sec to the end next time at 10 sec.
What if the wheel has deformations and if the only possible accurate prediction is when the ball is under 8 sec to the end.
With the FF player can specify it, and the system will predict at that time. What Stefano still doesn’t know is that there is a sudden change in ball deceleration at some point during the spin. Some people who analysed it (much earlier than me) call it “the knee point”. Prediction is always more accurate if it is done right after that point. FF can do it, but the user of Stefano’s computer can only guess where it is, and estimated time when to clock the ball.
Recently I come across part of “Mathematics of Gambling” By E.Thorp
I found his work fascinating. His research is similar to mine, and he confirms that ball with particular speed will most likely end up at the same place. However, Thorp never finished the project. His missing part was a practical application. He never solved the problem how to measure accurately ball time to be applicable in real play. It was the first thing that I have done. Without that, I wouldn’t work on the project. Whoever used the FFZ would know that the system instead of pronouncing number gives the signal to the player when the ball is above predicted number. Imagine which kind of calculation and which precision is required just for that.It means, if the FFZ can calculate the time of two different speeds decelerating objects when they will meet to display the result, it must have accurate error correction and calculation to do it, or when the test is applied results would be all over the place. If such precision and accuracy aren’t enough to predict roulette, then nothing else would do it.
Some people believe in magic voodoo or some similar orthodox approaches
A year ago someone gave me access to see what Stefano’s genuine system users need to deliver to Stefano so he can respond back to them with how to play particular wheel.
Stefano claimed that he discovered some magic and natural numbers in nature. So he asked them to collect only particular numbers of spins in amounts of 333, 666 or 999. I do not know if he still has it, but it was something that shocked me. I can’t comment magic but I definitely can say his computer by physics, Newton’s law, a software solution is a rubbish. And it was rubbish to all people I know who bought it.
If he wants to claim that his computer can find out by nature numbers or some orthodox parameters why once ball of 1 sec will travel six rotations and another time 6.5 I can’t argue with it since I do not understand dark forces of magic.
For someone who already spent time on the net, this is nothing new. But if you are new to this, then do your research, talk with people, and you’ll find a lot.
Later on, when I found the truth about Stefano that from education he only finished high school and that he is not scientist developing electronic kidney; as he was writing at his websites, I stopped commenting his stupidities.
Essential articles to read: