Comparison Testing

This page contains results of testing to compare one aspect of my computer and Forester’s FFA device. It is ONLY to establish how well each device deals with the inevitable errors of manually clicking a button to determine timings.

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.

Video 1: FFA demo

Video of Forester’s FFA device applied on a single spin:

Your browser does not support this video format

FFA Test 1
FFA Test 1

In the video, my hand is displayed while making clicks to address any concerns that I may have made deliberately inaccurate clicks. This is doing the different diamond test described on forester’s site.

FFA Results

The grey circles represent when an error is given instead of a prediction. The high error rate is the result of poor algorithms.

The predictions are spread out over a large area and are approximately 6 times less favorable than Forester’s claims.

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

Video of my roulette computer doing exactly the same test:

Your browser does not support this video format

Same spins FFA
Same spins FFA

I repeated the same test with my device. As you can see from the results, the overall spread is approximately half of what was obtained from Forester’s FFA.

My Roulette Computer Results:

With my computer, all predictions are within 1/4 a wheel. That indicates my device is much better able to correct manual clicking errors. Keep in mind this is only my simplistic version.

Forester has mislead many people about my devices, although it isn’t difficult to debunk his false claims.

Deeper Analysis of Results

FFA Validation
FFA Validation

To validate the authenticity of the results, in my video I varied the timing reference points for both rotor and ball. This deliberately feeds the computer incorrect data because it incorrectly assumes the ball and rotor timings are taken from the same point. The chart left shows results. Basically for my results to be authentic, the blue dots must be reasonably close to the green arrow.

What all this means

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 testing debunks Forester’s false claims that my devices cannot accurately process timings. In fact the testing indicated my devices are approximately twice as capable with respect to reducing timing errors.

Again this test ONLY determines a roulette computer’s capability to deal with human timing errors. It is NOT an overall gauge of how accurate the device is. See the comparisons page for further details of overall effectiveness differences.

Further Validations

To discredit the above videos, Forester claimed 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 address these further false claims, I created a new video, but this time I connected both devices to the same switch arrangement. This ensured that any inaccurate timings would affect both devices. See the video below:

Your browser does not support this video format

The results are below:

Overall Comparison
Overall Comparison Between FFA and Uber For Error Reduction

You can see the entire correct setup for both computers, and that the clicks are made with the same switch arrangement. This ensures insignificant differences in timings. Very importantly, you’ll notice that when one computer’s prediction is a bit far out from center, the other computer’s predictions are a bit far out to. Whether this test was the result of video maniplation as Forester claims, or that Forester is simply a salesman protecting his product is up to to decide.


* 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.

* The typical clocking error is 50ms for such roulette computers. The typical timing error for my hybrid roulette computer ( is 5ms. Forester has developed nothing comparative to my Hybrid device.

* In the last test, 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.

Since releasing the last video and test results, Forester claims I used the only faulty version he ever made. However, I have several different versions of his FFA device and all of them produce much the same result. You can draw your own conclusions.