Roulette Computer Comparison Chart

Miro Zirdum (Forester) IQE6 FF

Choice of the following:

1. Virtually any late model cellular phone: modified to ensure suitability of hardware. Practical, functional and includes the required features to beat any modern roulette wheel, including those without physical imperfections.

2. Any late model PDA: Not as discrete

3. PIC Microcontroller: not recommended though as this hardware has too many limitations that ultimately reduce accuracy. It is only suitable for physically flawed wheels. We have two different PIC models. Contact us for details.

Psion 3a PDA: Hardware is suitable for required functionality, although PDAs are far too large. The vendor recently began offering mobile phones.

NOTE: The Jafco Pred7 and Johansen's NOK device are actually Mark Howe attempting to sell his device under fabricated names. Mr. Howe is extremely dishonest and manipulative. See further information about Mark Howe:

Mark Howe's main identity | Johansen (fabricated) | Jafco Pred7 (fabricated)

This device has been repeatedly publicly tested on a level and unbiased wheel. Each time, the results were no better than random. Shown below is a photo one of the demonstrations of this device.

PIC Microcontroller: very basic functionality. In some respects, it is similar to our PIC models. This hardware cannot support a design that is sufficiently sophisticated to beat modern roulette wheels.

This device has been repeatedly publicly tested. Participants unanimously agreed the device was simply not practical or possible to use in the real casino environment. Shown below is a photo one of the demonstrations of this device.

Image recognition hardware & software (Hybrid Roulette Computer): simply point a video camera at the wheel for predictions. This method is not subject to human error. The technology is patent pending and not available elsewhere. NOTE: hit rates stated below are relevant for the standard computer only. Hit rates are higher for the Hybrid.

1 in 28

NOTE: This is under "ideal" conditions where video footage is slowed to obtain the prediction. In real casino conditions, application is almost impossible due to the method of prediction, so not even this accuracy rate is realistically achievable.

1 in 12

1 in 16

NOTE: This is under "ideal" conditions where video footage is slowed to obtain the prediction. In real casino conditions, application is almost impossible due to the method of prediction, so not even this accuracy rate is realistically achievable.

The green area shows the area for 95% of wheels. Accuracy increases as wheel tilt increases. The computer deals with level wheels, heavily tilted wheels, and semi-tilted wheels. Approximately 95% of wheels are semi-tilted

The green area indicates 95% of modern wheels, where accuracy is minimal. This is due to a fatal design flaw, where the computer incorrectly assumes the wheel is either:

1. Physically perfect (which it never is), or

2. Heavily flawed (which it very rarely is).

In reality, 95% of modern wheels have slight imperfections, but these subtle flaws make an enormous difference to where the ball will actually fall.

The green area indicates 95% of modern wheels, where accuracy is minimal. This is due to a fatal design flaw, where the computer incorrectly assumes the wheel is either:

1. Physically perfect (which it never is), or

2. Heavily flawed (which it very rarely is).

In reality, 95% of modern wheels have slight imperfections, but these subtle flaws make an enormous difference to where the ball will actually fall.

YES, it takes 3 spins to set up fully once you become competent.

Additionally, you can use the optional 60 FPS video recorder to setup fully in just one spin.

No 60 FPS option for more accurate samples.

No 60 FPS option for more accurate samples

NO. It does part of this process correctly, but fails to do other essential components. Additionally, it is at least has a feature that informs you when deceleration rates have changed so you know when to take new samples. However, you then need to repeat the whole setup process.

YES. The feature can be toggled ON/OFF. When it is ON, accuracy can be maximized. When it is OFF, predictions can be obtained at any point in the spin to ensure you receive a prediction at the latest point in the spin possible.

Speakerphone (audio): excellent for practicing, OR

Vibration mode (covert): Vibrations can be used many different ways defined by the user.

The user can select the desired option and switch between them instantly

Speakerphone (audio): excellent for practicing

Click HERE to download video demo of this device to understand why it is impractical

First two wheel clicks (either full, half revolution, or two revolutions), then either 2,3,4,5 or 6 ball clicks.

Very flexible - you can set to use more clicks for better accuracy.

First 3 clicks for the wheel (no option for less), which leaves you with little time for ball clicks on the best wheels to play (slow). You then constantly click the button for the ball until it reaches a speed the computer can deal with.

NO, you need a top view of the wheel for this device to be possibly viable. This is because you aren't actually told where to bet - you only get an electric zap. At the time of the zap, you observe the number under the ball. This alone is nearly impossible, but then you need to mentally add/subtract angles to determine the final predicted number. This is simply not a viable or realistic process.

It is no different to using linear (straight-line graphs).

This mathematics can only work for heavily tilted wheels - NOT for level wheels. This is because the maths determines only ball drop time, but it does not tell you accurately WHERE the ball will drop.

The developer has done well with limited resources, but limited resources means cutting corners.

5

This is 5 times easier to detect than a single burst.

YES. Important points for consideration:

• The 100 spins are divided into two segments of 50 spins to validate the results. The results are:

i. First 50 Spins: 1 in 16 exact number hit rate

ii. Second 50 Spins: 1 in 16 exact number hit rate

• Actual tuned predictions are shown, not misleading "raw predictions".

• The footage is continuous and uncut which can be verified by the continuous movement of the lava lamp in the background.

• The computer's screen is shown displaying the prediction so you know predictions are authentic, and not merely audio added later.

• The computer's scatter chart is displayed so you can confirm groupings of high bars are in the predicted area.

• The wheel does not have any significant common ball drop point. It is neither perfectly level or heavily tilted - such a condition is most difficult to predict. This is because the computer can neither assume the wheel is mechanically perfect, or heavily flawed.

• Virtually none of the computer's additional features that increase accuracy are used. Such features include but are not limited to:

i. Automatic adjustment of predictions based on wheel rotor speed for each spin.

ii. Risk announcement so the player knows when a particular prediction is likely to be less accurate than others.

iii. Only 5 clicks are used to establish the ball timings. Up to 6 ball clicks can be used to increase accuracy.

• Predictions are made 4 - 7 seconds before the ball falls. The computer is capable of accurate predictions with 10+ seconds remaining until the ball falls, depending on ball track deformations that contribute to erratic ball behavior.

• The wheel is not stopped. There is no common release point of the ball. Even if there was, it wouldn't matter because different diamonds are used as timing reference points between spins.

• Teflon 3/4" ball is used. This ball produces a more random scatter than heavier ivorine balls.

• The wheel is disassembled with photos at genuinewinner.com to confirm no magnets or tricks are used, although such trickery would actually be more complicated than the development of a genuinely effective roulette computer.

If all features are enabled, accuracy is greatly increased. However, to prevent trade secrets from leaking to casinos, most features in this video demo were disabled.

NO. The only video provided has the following credibility issues:

• The demo is conducted over only 60 spins which is insufficient, especially when the footage ends abruptly with no comment. The vendor could have easily taken the best 60 spins and cut the footage short where the results were still favorable, instead of doing the demo over a set number of spins.

• The footage is badly corrupted and the wheel becomes invisible about half way through the footage. This is extremely suspicious, and would make it extremely easy to cut and join two favorable sets of 30 spins.

• A heavy ball is used with minimal bounce.

• There is absolutely no continuous movement in the footage's background. This would make cutting and editing footage much easier.

• Most notably, at the end of the video, a scatter chart is shown which is extremely misleading. This is because after any amount of spins, a "peak" will inevitably form because there will never be a perfect spread of values. It is much like how after 100 spins, there will almost never be exactly 50 red and 50 black numbers. the vendor claims that his computer's edge is where the peak has appeared. The problem with this is especially over a low number of spins, because there is never a perfect spread of values, a peak will inevitably form. What the vendor appears to have done is merely claim this inevitable peak is where his computer has the advantage. To an amateur, this video may be convincing proof. To someone that knows better, the video shows many signs of manipulation.

YES, you can see EXACT output including predicted rotations. This helps you confirm you are getting what you paid for.

You can also use the 4 diamond test (as shown in video 2 on the videos page), although this particular feature is more for the player to verify the accuracy of the mathematics.

Visual: This is where you look at the wheel each spin and "visually" determine the number of pockets from the "raw" prediction to the "tuned" prediction. This is only recommended for experienced players.

Manual: You see the scatter chart and rotate predictions to tune manually. The tuned predictions are rotated a set number of pockets. If the wheel is outside a speed range you set, the computer notifies you.

Advance Automatic Tuning: using chi-squared and standard deviation statistical analysis, the computer will automatically tune the computer for you as you play. If the wheel is outside a speed range you set, the computer notifies you.

Dynamic Tuning: The greater the wheel speed, the further the ball will come to rest from the point of "raw prediction". The "dynamic" feature will automatically tune for each spin based on the speed of the wheel when the ball is predicted to fall. For example, if the wheel timing is 4000MS, then the ball may come to rest +10 pockets from the "raw prediction". If the wheel speed is 3000MS (faster), the ball may come to rest at +15 pockets from the raw prediction. This is a 5 pocket difference! Without this feature, ordinary computers would give predictions as if the wheel speed were the same every time, which it's not. Without this feature, even if a computer perfectly predicted where the ball will actually begin to fall, the difference in wheel speed between spins may make other computers almost completely ineffective.

Manual: you have to check the scatter graph then manually tune based on your own analysis. If the wheel speed varies during play, you receive the prediction anyway whether it will be accurate or not.

If the wheel speed varies, you receive the prediction regardless. You cannot restrict acceptable wheel speeds, and it does not have anything close to "dynamic" tuning (adjusting predictions based on wheel speed). This contributes to enormous inaccuracies when wheel speeds vary between spins, which they inevitably do.

If the wheel speed varies, you receive the prediction regardless. You cannot restrict acceptable wheel speeds, and it does not have anything close to "dynamic" tuning (adjusting predictions based on wheel speed). This contributes to enormous inaccuracies when wheel speeds vary between spins, which they inevitably do.

NO, there is no scatter graph of any kind. All elements of dealing with ball scatter must be mental "estimations".

Even if you make calculations on paper, this is highly suspicious at the roulette wheel, and there is no guarantee your calculations will be accurate. This is because the method of prediction (zap) is extremely impractical, and almost impossible to implement.

NO. But provided the ball track is not too deformed, in theory this device can do it, but not in real casino conditions because you have to see the number under the ball at the time of the electric zap. And for numbers to be seen at this time, the ball is moving far too quickly. Bare in mind this is all assuming you can actually see the ball when the zap occurs because in real casino conditions, you cannot see the entire wheel.

2,3,4,5 or 6 (user choice), OR

4 - 15 or so. There is no defined number of clicks as you keep clicking until the ball reaches the desired speed.

NOTE: You can set which option you prefer in the user settings.

Maximum of 1KB code and 68 bytes memory (not KB, just Bytes). This is extremely small with very simplistic algorithms that are incapable of beating modern roulette wheels. To give you an idea of how small 1KB is, the below image is just over 1.2KB:

YES, although some of our current players have witnessed failed demonstrations of this device.

Yes, and the tester (Michael Barnett) came to the same conclusions we did.

Regarding Barnett's tests on a physically flawed (tilted) wheel, he stated:

"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."

He also stated:

"FF does a good job of giving you a consistent reference point on 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."

In other words, it's basic algorithms can beat raw heavily flawed wheels, but for the trivial task of beating such flawed wheels, the design is very poor.

Regarding his tests on a roulette wheel that is not physically flawed (level), he stated the following:

When the device did produce predictions the results were close to random. The testers were unable to obtain a statistically significant advantage on any of the test sessions.

We agree with his findings, although he neglected to state prediction with this device is only "possible" if you can see the ball when the zap occurs. This is likely because his testing was done with slow motion video to ensure the correct predicted number was obtained.