Testing Comparison with FFA
The following is part of a public test and forum posts for the comparison of our device to Forester's FFA roulette computer. They prove various points - the main one being that my roulette computer is literally twice as accurate and effective the FFA device for dealing with human timing errors. This exposes blatant lies (and inexperience) from another device developer (Forester):
I've uploaded two videos as below. In one video I show the FFA doing the different diamond test. In the other I show my computer doing the same test, plus extra aspects. Clearly results from my computer are better, even when FFA gives ERROR 4 instead of a prediction on pretty much half of spins which is supposed to maximize accuracy.
Video 1: FFA demo
Click here to see video of Forester's FFA device applied on a single spin
This is doing the different diamond test described on forester's site (the test he claims is the most important test to determine a roulette computer's effectiveness). The results he publishes about his computer's performance are deceptive. You will only get the kind of results he states if you use FFZ and a slow motion video player (not like real life), because FFA takes into account rotor deceleration which leads to inevitable errors. FFZ takes no such rotor deceleration into account. Can you get much more accurately with FFZ in the real casino environment? No way - it's near impossible to see the number under the ball when zap occurs, and that's even IF you can see the ball when zap occurs. That's not even counting the manual adjustment you must make, or the fact that rotor speed varies. Forester simply distorts the truth to make his devices appear better than they actually are.
The grey circles represent when ERROR 4 is announced and no prediction given. Nowhere near practical - it's very poor.
The predictions are as below:
See how the predictions are spread out over a larger area? This is reasonable if the wheel is very easy to beat, but compare it to the smaller spread with my computer as below. I even show my hand making the clicks so he can't claim I must have made deliberately inaccurate clicks. See that the results are just not quite like he advertises.
NOTE: In the video, sometimes I stated right and left incorrectly because I was switching between a reversed image from the camera lcd and the TV screen (my mistake) but it does not affect results.
Video 2: My computer applied on the same spin
Click here to see video of my roulette computer doing exactly the same test - see for yourself my computer produces results twice as accurate.
Not everyone will understand the relevance of the results. Basically I held the phone in-view the whole time, and did the same different diamond test. Results are below - NOTICE HOW THE OVERALL SPREAD IS ABOUT HALF WHAT WE GOT WITH FORESTER'S FFA. THIS MEANS WHEN CONSIDERING ONLY HOW WELL EACH DEVICES DEAL WITH TIMING ERRORS, MY DEVICE IS TWICE AS ACCURATE:
Clearly the predictions are in a smaller arc than with Forester's FFA. With Forester's FFA, almost all predictions are within 1/2 a wheel. With my computer, all predictions are within 1/4 a wheel. That means just considering this test, my computer is TWICE as accurate as FFA. So much for Forester's rubbish claims that mobile phones being incapable of accurate prediction! But now take into account the other differences between computers like those explained at http://www.roulettecomputers.com/comparison.htm and you get a better idea of why FFA is comparatively simplistic rubbish - sincerely it is nothing more than the most basic computer possible at its barely acceptable level. Nevertheless, Forester says it's "best" because it's his product and overwhelmingly large ego - but it's not best, by a longshot.
Also note that these results for my computer are with single player version only. With the two player version, results are twice as good because two people clock the wheel at the same time. Yes there are a lot of things that my computers can do, like one version is completely automated. I've spent enormous sums of time and money to develop my computers for use of my teams for profit split (www.roulettecomputers.com/partners.html) so you can understand why I have something to say when a liar like Forester with very simplistic devices claims that his computers are best and the rest are scams. Forester has mislead so many people, but fortunately truth is easy to establish, and lies easily exposed when people are willing to actually investigate, rather than believe whatever they read from a liar.
Now to prove it is not the result of video manipulation, in my video I even changed the diamonds being used for both rotor and ball timings. So for instance I sometimes used the right diamond for rotor timings, and the top diamond for ball timings. So this would be feeding the computer data and the computer incorrectly assumes the ball and rotor timings are taken from the SAME point. This means we can't include the below results with the other results - the below testing is purely to prove the results are legitimate. When we use particular combinations, we expect the predictions to be close together for that particular combination of reference points. The results are:
Then I used reference points for the rotor and ball that were OPPOSITE, this is to show the predictions are opposite to normal (at around #23). So for example, I would take something like rotor timings at the top diamond, and ball timings directly opposite (bottom diamond). The results are below:
With just this test alone, this proves my computers are literally twice as effective as FFA when considering only how well a device deals with human timing errors (clicking of a button to establish wheel and ball timings). This is not even taking into account the countless other differences that have an enormous impact on overall accuracy.
What does all this mean?
In the above testing, the closer the predictions are to each other, the better a device deals with human timing errors (from manual clicking of the timing button). The videos and testing prove the creator of the competing FFA device is a liar. For years he (Forester) has been spreading false claims that when my device is tested this way, that near random predictions are produced. He calls my roulette computer a scam because he claims he's a skilled technician and doesn't believe mobile phones are capable of processing accurate timings - specifically he claims they cannot deal with human timing errors.
However, as the videos clearly show, not only are the predictions from my computer very close together, they are TWICE AS ACCURATE AS FORESTER'S FFA. See it for yourself - download the videos:
Forester's FFA: http://www.roulettecomputers.com/ffa.wmv
My computer: http://www.roulettecomputers.com/rc.wmv
Also see the charts above. To verify the results from my computer aren't cheating, I even randomized the reference points for the rotor and the ball. However, the most important results are when I use the same reference point for the ball and rotor on the same trial.
Importantly, all this test does is verify a roulette computer's capability to deal with human timing errors - it is NOT an overall gauge of how effective the device is. Testing of overall effectiveness shows an even more dramatic difference in effectiveness. See the comparison page for further details of overall effectiveness differences.
If you've ever heard from malicious and blatant liars that my roulette computer is a scam and mobile phones cannot possibly produce accurate predictions, now you know better - now you know that even my simplest device deals with errors TWICE as well as Forester's FFA device. Remember this is considering ONLY how well the device deals with timing errors, not the end accuracy. When we consider "end accuracy", my devices achieve far more than just twice the accuracy. To understand why, see the comparison page.
Forester's Excuses Exposed
To discredit the above videos, the developer of the FFA device (Forester) claims that the only reason why my computer is more accurate is because I must have deliberately made inaccurate timings on his device. This is despite the fact I clearly show clicking for both my computer and the FFA.
To again expose more of Forester's lies, I created a new video, but this time I hooked up both devices to the same switch arrangement. This ensured that any inaccurate timings would affect both devices. Now he has no excuse.
Click Here to Download the Video
The results are below:
IMPORTANT NOTES:
1. You can see the entire setup from the beginning for both computers.
2. You can see I have setup FFA correctly, with IQE6 (so Forester can't claim I used the wrong settings)
3. You can see the clicks are made with the same switch arrangement - there are only very, very minor differences in timings. So much for forester's excuse that I must have deliberately screwed up timings with FFA.
Now, Forester has no leg to stand on. Testing on the same spin, same clicks, same time of prediction. There is a slight delay for that phone to give prediction but it's insignificant when considering the additional accuracy, and that the two player version can get predictions as early as 2 seconds after ball release because one player can clock the rotor, and the other the ball AT THE SAME TIME. There are enormous differences in our technologies. I've even developed automated computers such as hybridroulettecomputer.com.
FFA has most predictions within around an 11 pocket arc.
My computer has most predictions within around a 9 pocket arc.
The only spin of mine that was significantly off was #21, and that was the FIRST prediction I got when the computer had not yet calibrated.
Now of course Forester will say I must have used a faulty version, but again I'll state I have the source code for several versions of FFA, which all get the same result. Now in ALL of the 4 such tests I've done, results from my computer are significantly better. In most tests, my results are roughly twice as accurate.
REMEMBER, THIS TEST IS ONLY LOOKING AT HOW WELL THE COMPUTER DEALS WITH TIMING ERRORS - NOT OVERALL ACCURACY. WHAT HAPPENS IF WE CONSIDER ALL THE OTHER FACTORS AT http://www.roulettecomputers.com/comparison.htm? WE FIND THAT FFA IS EXTREMELY SIMPLISTIC, AND SIMPLY NOT CAPABLE OF BEATING MODERN WHEELS IN GOOD CONDITION. THE PROPAGANDA OF MY COMPUTER BEING A SCAM AND HIS CLAIMS THAT HIS COMPUTER ARE SUPERIOR ARE BLATANT LIES FROM AN INCREDIBLY ARROGANT MAN.