Forester’s IQE6 FFZ Roulette Computer

Forester’s IQE6 FFZ (zap) Roulette Computer

Forester FFZ Roulette Computer

Forester’s FFZ Roulette Computer

This is another electronic device designed to predict roulette spins. Its creator is known as “Forester”, and he mirrors his own roulette reviews site giving himself top reviews while unjustly discrediting his competition. Having a review site would be fine, provided he told the truth, but he doesn’t. Nevetheless, I’ll focus on his actual device (FFZ model).

Despite Forester’s claims, this device is extremely simplistic, and anyone can build one for about $25 with off the shelf components. The algorithms (mathematics) are not without some merit though. It uses a known time and distance to make calculations. If you were to do the same without this device, you’d basically observe a point in the spin when the ball is at the same speed. This is simple visual ballistics.

Although his algorithms do some things correctly, they make numerous mistakes that greatly reduce accuracy, one of which is they incorrectly assume a wheel is either heavily tilted (very rare), or perfectly level (never). Most wheels are in fact semi-tilted meaning they’re somewhere between level and tilted – in other words most wheels are either too tilted to be considered level, or not tilted enough to be considered tilted. Forester has attempted to defend his device’s shortcomings by claiming semi-tilted wheels only make a difference of about 2 pockets. In reality, the difference is closer to 7 pockets which overall can lead to completely ineffective application.

However, the incomplete and simplistic algorithms are not the primary problems with Forester’s device. The main problem is impracticality – it is virtually impossible to apply at home in front of a TV, and certainly far from practical in the real casino environment. This is for a few reasons, but the main one is explained below:

To know where to bet, you click a button until the device gives you a painful electric zap (that is also very easy for casinos to detect). When you receive the zap, you then observe which number on the wheel is under the fast moving ball – call this the “first number”. Determining the “first number” alone is almost impossible to do with any kind of accuracy because the ball moves way too quickly (AND the wheel spins the opposite direction so the “relative” speed is much greater), plus half the time you’ll receive the zap when you can’t even see the ball. Bare in mind you almost never see the whole wheel in real casino conditions – usually you can only see about half. But even IF the ball is visible at the time of the zap, and even IF you can see the number under the ball, the “first number” is not even where you bet. To know where to actually bet, you need to find a “second number” which is a certain angle from the “first number” (the second number is where you actually bet). To find the angle, you need to test about 30 spins and take visible notes, further increasing unwanted attention from casino staff. And on every spin, you need to apply the angle from the first number to find the second number. So even IF you can actually see the ball when you get the zap, and even IF can accurately determine which number it was (the “first number”), chances are you wont even be able to see the actual prediction (second number) which may be on the other side of the wheel. This among other reasons makes Forester’s device useless in real casino conditions. Even Forester himself admits his device is very difficult to apply – after all, with such a poor prediction process, how could he deny it? But what he doesn’t say is no amount of practice will fix his device’s problems, as you only find out for yourself after purchasing.

 

Real view of ball

Realistic view of roulette ball

Shown right is the very best view you can realistically have of a wheel, and this is standing right in front of the wheel, not at the betting table where you need to be. The blue line shows where the ball is actually in view. Now consider that your view is even worse when standing at the betting table. Furthermore, consider you lose a further 25% of spins because you can’t actually see the second number. This leaves you with only a possibility of knowing where to bet on just 1/4 of spins. And this is not even considering the fact that the ball is moving far too quickly to know which number was beneath it when the zap occurred. These are simple and obvious facts.

Is the difficulty of application something that’s overcome with simple practice? No, the problem is the device’s design. Forester claims that he uses the electric zap instead of the computer actually telling you a number because it’s most accurate. I find this an absolutely absurd and dubious claim as his prediction process cannot possibly compare to the computer simply telling the actual predicted number, as competing devices do. Despite his claims, Forester appears to be developing his technology so audio predictions are given, which will fix part of his device’s problems.

Among it’s many problems are:

* Severe impracticality: it is almost impossible to apply at home in controlled conditions, and certainly far from practical in real casino conditions.

* No multiple player support: To avoid detection, roulette computer players need to play as teams to draw attention away from the winner. Forester’s device has no multi-player support whatsoever. Even if you could use his device in real casinos, you will most certainly be caught.

* Frequently fails to produce predictions: often on over 50% of spins, the devices fails to give any prediction at all. This has also been found by another independent tester who said, “The device can be very frustrating; one day we were lucky to get one prediction per five or six spins, the next day we were getting seven or eight out of ten and the third day same as the first.” This fault is indicative of simplistic algorithms.

See roulette computer comparison and details of many of this device’s faults.

Forester (the seller) claims I’m disohnest with my reviews, so perhaps we’ll include below what an independent tester said. An independent tester came to the same conclusions as me. I understand Forester is just trying to protect his ego and business, but truth is truth. This device was professionally tested by the casino consultant Mike Barnett, who after his initial tests 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. 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.”

The above was in relation to tests conducted on tilted (biased) wheels where the ball constantly falls at the same point. Additionally, this test was conducted on slow motion spins on DVD so the correct prediction was obtained – a luxury not possible in real casino conditions.

Mr. Barnett continued testing on level (non-biased) wheels and stated:

“When the device did produce predictions, the results were close to random.”

Although Mr. Barnett said himself he would benefit by being able to report to casinos that Forester’s device was a real threat, he made it very clear he believed the device was not at all a threat. I agree with Mr. Barnett’s findings. However, Forester lies claiming the casinos have said they consider it to be their only threat. He also lies claiming that my review is a “dishonest scam”. I understand he’s trying to protect his business, but the facts are facts, and anyone who has properly tested Forester’s devices concludes the same.

VERDICT: Click here to see what one purchaser of this device had to say about the seller (Miro Zirdum) If you are going to risk application of a potentially illegal device, the results you achieve should be worthwhile. Despite this device being more affordable than most, you don’t get much for your money. The device’s zap feature makes application completely impractical. There is no multi-player support. The algorithms are incomplete and ineffective on modern “level” wheels. There are too many problems with this device to mention – it is at best a theoretical device, not something that can realistically beat roulette in real casino conditions. It is the same conclusion reached by other professional testers. In his tests, Mr. Barnett used slowed DVD footage to obtain the precise predicted number anyway so even if Forester develops his device to “speak” predictions, this will not change the critical flaws in the algorithms. While to his credit, Forester is actively trying to improve his device, at present it is inferior technology. Actual use of this device in real casino conditions may result in nothing more than jail, and a depleted bankroll. Nevertheless, what Forester has created with limited resources is clever, but you need a lot more than limited resources to build an effective and practical roulette computer for modern wheels.

NOTE: Forester has made countless claims to discredit Mr. Barnett and other roulette computer developers including myself and Mark Howe. He has twisted the comments of Mr Barnett to make his review seem more positive. With regards to Forester’s similar claims about Mark Howe, while I’ve found Howe’s device to be effective only on very heavily tilted wheels and with very predictable ball bounce, overall, Howe’s ‘best’ device is better than Forester’s FFZ device. This is because while Howe’s computer may only be effective on incredibly easily beaten wheels, Forester’s device is not effective on any wheel due to its impracticality.

RECOMMENDED: Download a FREE Roulette System That Works at www.RoulettePhysics.com

4 Comments

  1. The seller claims my review is all lies. He’s just protecting his business without regard for truth. The seller (forester) now calls me nasty names and published rubbish about me and my technology.

    Is my review a lie? Well, even an independent tester hired from casinos did testing. This is a man who would profit more by telling the casinos the device is a threat. And he flat told the casinos it is not a serious threat at all. This tester’s review was virtually the same as mine.

    The seller (forester) greatly exaggerated the tester’s positive comments and hid the negative comments. He basically lies telling people the casinos found it a huge threat when it was the complete opposite. In the tester’s exact words, he said “Time will tell if there is a viable threat to modern well-maintained roulette wheels but at this stage the FF device is not it.”. And this was actually in reference to the seller’s better device called the FFA. The comments about the FFZ device were even worse. He mostly never got predictions, and he said “When the device did produce predictions, the results were close to random.” Forester’s version of this is “they said my device was deadly accurate”. Its not hard to figure out he’s just a seller protecting his business.

  2. I too wanted to purchase this device at some point, but too many negative reviews and the fact that I would not be able to use it in UK casinos helped me to decide not to go with the purchase. What I’m wondering now is whether the software called “RouletteZAP” (familiar name isn’t it) is worth checking out. It sells online for $39 and there is option to pay with paypal so the purchase is (somehow) secure. Anybody had any experience with roulettezap??

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>