Author Topic: Beware device is deadly accurate (Read 3553 times)

arnold · « **on:** May 12, 2009, 07:54:49 PM »

Forester.Do you know Barnett has your latest device?

forester · « **Reply #1 on:** May 12, 2009, 08:01:05 PM »

Yes, i supply devices to casino so they can educate how to prevent scam.

As if i have a choice. $:-\$

I stayed puzzled how could you know that?

arnold · « **Reply #2 on:** May 12, 2009, 08:05:10 PM »

Last year I purchased a roulette prediction computer from MZ Electronics with a view to testing and reporting on it's effectiveness.

I carried out some tests on a wheel with a very good drop-zone; the results were excellent.

I then handed the device over to a client casino for further testing on a new wheel, which had not yet been commissioned.

A synopsis of the testers findings can be found here: -

http://www.survtech.com.au/discus/messages/1/173.html?1242113945

Last week I purchased another device from MZ Electronics. This device is far more sophisticated than the first device in its operation and operator feedback.

This device has a synthesized voice output, comprehensive menu system and Bluetooth communication.

The device was tested on a modern Huxley wheel, which was displaying a solid drop-zone.

The device was set to play a drop-zone wheel and calibrated for time-to-drop.

The device provided extremely accurate predictions.

The device output only one error (would not produce a prediction) over several dozen trials. This is vastly better than the previous tests.

This device would provide a very significant advantage to its user against a wheel with a drop-zone and manageable scatter.

We then adjusted the level of the wheel in an attempt to remove the drop-zone and create a random ball fall-off point.

The device was then set to play a so-called “level” wheel and the time-to-drop was set.

The device provided predictions on every spin without error.

We observed that when the device said “now” (this is the point at which the computer predicts the ball will fall from the rim) the predicted number was directly under the ball.

On some occasions the ball travelled one more revolution after the device said “now”. Had the ball not travelled one further revolution the prediction would have been accurate.

The device was providing predictions nearly twelve seconds from the end of the spin.

We will carry out further tests but I strongly suspect that the drop-off revolution will be predicted with greater accuracy if the device is set to perform calculations one or two revolutions later.

It should be noted that we were only interested in the predictive accuracy of the device (which was very, very good) not the end result, which is influenced by the behavior of the ball after it has entered the rotor.

This is a well-made professional device. I understand from its manufacturer that it has sophisticated error correction algorithms designed to smooth out operator clocking errors and prevent the unit from providing a prediction if the parameters are out of specification.

This device is capable of providing its operator with a significant advantage under varying conditions unless consideration is given to the ball behavior after it enters the rotor.

arnold · « **Reply #3 on:** May 12, 2009, 08:06:00 PM »

You may want to check where your most recent sales went!

forester · « **Reply #4 on:** May 12, 2009, 09:04:55 PM »

Well I did know by your IP that you are from WA, but thought it might be someone else who somehow is in contact with MB.

Are you trying to make me to sell more devices so you get more work for yourself?

Quote

The device was providing predictions nearly twelve seconds from the end of the spin.

Set it one step down, to predict about 8-10 sec.

With dominant drop you wouldn't be much wrong even if you use 15 sec.

Can you tell me what did system say for ACC. probobly 14.0-15.0

You see FF can also can be used to measure surface smoothness on roulette wheels.
Maybe Huxley should buy as a quality control device.

arnold · « **Reply #5 on:** May 12, 2009, 09:21:13 PM »

ha haaa im not the enemy.

I also get the impression his work is drying up so what better way, give a good report, maybe show casinos how to detect it with his latest gizmo, and bingo! some more money comes rolling in.

forester · « **Reply #6 on:** May 12, 2009, 09:27:54 PM »

Arn't you MB?

How did oyu get that info?

arnold · « **Reply #7 on:** May 12, 2009, 09:40:37 PM »

Cmon Forester, go to his site

It was only last week I was chasing Jafco etc.

Dont think MB would be too fussed.

Yous · « **Reply #8 on:** May 12, 2009, 09:48:38 PM »

Arnold if you know so much about roulette computer, do you know where i can find the scanner that the ritz team used?

arnold · « **Reply #9 on:** May 12, 2009, 09:58:17 PM »

Yous read my previous post.
go to Mb site and get the same info

forester · « **Reply #10 on:** May 13, 2009, 11:03:35 AM »

Ok,

So he published some info.
First I thought that you were MB.

No, it is not a big secret and we already know that he bought it..
At my ww.myrulet.com last article I explained it.
Earlier he also was recommending FF to his colleagues.

Also members do have more information than that.

I only did not expect him to be so positive and so excited, much more then for FFZ.

“The device was deadly accurate, uncanny, really!”

I do not know how much you are aware but, if you've been around long you would know that FFA wasn't for sale to public until 2009.

Once when it I available there is no control who will purchase it and with which objective.

One is for sure, what I write, and talk does have meaning to people with understanding, and makes then interesting in to product, also interest can be triggered by what other members write.

Anyway it isn't a big a deal since casinos already know more then we do.

I do get personal satisfaction, because MB expanded to me what really happened last time.
First time he tested FF only on wheel with dominant drop point and result was ok,
For leveled wheel she shifts FF overseas.
It was tested on brand new wheel which have never been used.

It explains why system couldn't predict many spins. That program was limited to narrower parameters then FF, it couldn't handle wheel where the ball decelerates to slow.

Also, who knows, he got first version of program which I converted to new chip. It could be some mistakes.
He offered me to send old chip if I want to investigate what really happen but there is no point since program is protected and I do not have source file any more.

I can understand his behavior at that time, on one side he was expecting negative results on level test and believe everything was just empty talk, on the other side he was confused, because I did talk to him a lot and he could find logic in everything I told him.

Especially when I gave him more explanation, but that was after he already published test results. I assume that was what made him to want purchase FFA instantly when it was finished, a year ago, but I refused to supply it.

arnold · « **Reply #11 on:** May 13, 2009, 11:31:34 AM »

Quote.No, it is not a big secret and we already know that he bought it..

I've not read everything that is on this site and just thought that you had banned him and refused to give him knowledge of your latest developments.

So you knew he was purchasing your latest. Don't you think that is a very bad idea for people who already have it?
He can now go away and set up methods/devices for casinos to catch your players using it.

Its like Israel selling atomic bombs to Iran.

arnold · « **Reply #12 on:** May 13, 2009, 01:44:32 PM »

I didnt know it was on open sale. Thought it was only available to people he has confidence in.

PJ · « **Reply #13 on:** May 13, 2009, 02:10:24 PM »

Forester does his very best for all of us.. but he's not the CIA.. he can only make assessments of the people he deals with via their few written words on his forum and in their emails.. it wouldn't be difficult for casino security or the various self-proclaimed gaming experts (Barnett) to establish a rapore then gain access to his products using concocted identities. Casino's are not stupid and they know there are wiz-kids out there constantly looking for ways to undermine their profits (by fair or foul).

Cheers
PJ

forester · « **Reply #14 on:** May 26, 2009, 07:34:44 PM »

I received some update,

Today they tested FF in various casino conditions, even guy who first time was testing FFZ come, since Mike showed him on video effectives of device.

Tilt was perfect , IQE6 was perfect in late prediction, changed to early, still very good predictions but some of accuracy was lost.

And then,

“one of testers pressed the switch too hard and we lost that firm "click" that you get with membrane switches so I called the tests off for today”

Nothing new !

Myrulet-admin · « **Reply #15 on:** August 04, 2009, 08:10:02 PM »

This will probably be the longest and most detailed test ever done.

I got some data (for my eyes) everything is analyzed, in normal play then in slow motion.
What did system predict, where did ball hit rotor, when did system say NOW, where did ball stop, which diamond it hits, how much it jumps…etc.
Then repeat each group of test test 10 times to check for consistency of prediction

Here is a screenshot but it goes forever long.

mikemcbain · « **Reply #16 on:** August 04, 2009, 11:00:07 PM »

...and as soon as the tests are finished MB will sell the results to all the Casino's in the world and offer his services to prevent the FFZ and FFA destroying them.

Hey Forester do you reckon the FFA is good enough to predict what number the ball in my avatar will drop into?

Myrulet-admin · « **Reply #17 on:** August 04, 2009, 11:32:37 PM »

Well I wouldn't say that he can sell results.
He would sell same as he always sells, knowledge about such devices.
FF is not the only one or something new. Maybe for leveled wheel, but who knows what else is around?

Also I do not believe that there is any casino which is not aware of such devices.

Quote

Hey Forester do you reckon the FFA is good enough to predict what number the ball in my avatar will drop into?

No it can't predict it, but I'll work on it as long as the avatar is here!

Bago · « **Reply #18 on:** August 06, 2009, 05:17:06 PM »

Hi Forester,

Can you send me your file so that i can analyze? And is it with unlimited device or FFA?

Regards.

forester · « **Reply #19 on:** August 06, 2009, 06:05:02 PM »

I can't send you someone elses work.

I got to look at it only because at one stage they had a problem so they asked me for opinion.

Dr.Spock · « **Reply #20 on:** October 15, 2010, 02:53:50 PM »

I see that this was over a year ago. So what ever happened to the rest of the study anyone? Forester?

lucky_strike · « **Reply #21 on:** October 15, 2010, 03:34:19 PM »

Quote

On some occasions the ball travelled one more revolution after the device said “now”. Had the ball not travelled one further revolution the prediction would have been accurate.

When i read this and then wondering the following - when some one with the help of a thumper and level wheel can predict the correct turnaround left to end with out travel one further revolution - wish only would happen around once out of ten times at most.
Make me wondering if some computers use basic visually ballistic knowledge based upon the wrong principals.

Is not just to use a static reference point wish would indicate with measuring if you have and will be a certan amount to end.
Wish is a false positive - as the moment when ball calibrate and divide at certan spot on the wheel with certan time interval - then if some one use this place or spot on the wheel where the moment occur and start to use it as reference point towards how many turnarounds is left - it wont go one extra revolution - wish only would happen at very rare moments.

One simple thing is that isolate the momentum of the ball speed force and measuring it from a static point of view is just wrong - because the momentum of the ball speeds force calibrate and divide at different spots as it is not by nature static where it will occur.
So i assume to use any kind of measuring software to use clicks and static reference point and map and categorise spindevelopment is based upon the wrong principals.

forester · « **Reply #22 on:** October 15, 2010, 03:45:30 PM »

It happened that Barnett got very upset with me for showing that picture.
Because sometimes I talk to much no more info.

@LS, extra amounts of ball traveling are always happening regardless how it is predicted and how accurate it is measured.
One spin 1000ms /rotation ball may travel 6 rotations, some other time it may be 6.5.
The ball doesn’t always hits every single bump on ball track on same way, also the ball is never 100% balanced in weight or shape.
Therefore whoever tells you he can get 1:3 real ball drop point on a levelled wheel is a scammer.
Ball traveling distance, by itself deviates more than that. For same reason it’s impossible to predict how ball will deflect form diamond.

Dr.Spock · « **Reply #23 on:** October 15, 2010, 03:48:36 PM »

lucky_strike

MB has got plenty of high tech toys. he is a paid casino consultant to keed casinos updated about people like us. he's certainly welcome to try...

http://www.survtech.co.uk/Site/Survtech_Devices.html

lucky_strike · « **Reply #24 on:** October 15, 2010, 04:00:55 PM »

Quote

The ball doesn’t always hits every single bump on ball track on same way, also the ball is never 100% balanced in weight or shape.
Therefore whoever tells you he can get 1:3 real ball drop point on a levelled wheel is a scammer.

@Forester u are the expert and my 2 cent is with out any futher comment - when A appers then the wheel is rounded from that spot and to get one full extra rev it has to hit or pass A to become one full extra - it is not difficult to test and observe it.

@ ?? yes i know who B is and that is not the issue - the post above that i made is about RC measuring and using static reference point wish the force of the ball speed has no knowledge of as it will by nature calibrate at different spots wish and should be A that indicate the amount of rev to end - not a static reference point wish would be a false positive to isolate that specific momentum that way.

Again Foresters is the expert i just have my own opinion.