Roulette System Reviews | Page 2

This is another electronic device designed to predict roulette spins. Its creator (Forester). Forester is by far the smartest manipulator I've ever known - by no means does he tell the truth about his own products, or his competitors. His site is full of biased and very cleverly twisted information to portray his products as superior.

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.

 

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.

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:

"The tests were carried out in a casino environment on current operational wheels but without the need to operate covertly, this situation, I believe, was close to ideal. Given that the testers did not have to act covertly and could place themselves in an ideal position to observe the wheel, I would expect the testers results to be considerably better than could be achieved in a real-world situation. Tests were carried out on several different styles of wheel and a variety of ball were used. Whilst the device produces a satisfactory percentage of predictions when applied against digital video footage of wheels which have been retired from casino service, the percentage of predictions against live wheels was consistently disappointing. I don't believe the low prediction rate was the fault of the testers, the manufacturer of the device also reports low prediction rates against modern wheels. 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.

NOTE: Forester lies on his website starting Barnett produced positive results for level wheel testing. Speficially Forester claims that Barnett achieved "Good results on leveled wheel" which is absolute nonsense. Barnett's comments, word for word are above. 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.

VERDICT: 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 (Steve) and Mark Howe. See my response to Forester's claims. with regards to Forester's similar claims about Mark Howe, while I've found Howe's device to be effective only on tilted wheels, overall, Howe's devices is certainly better than Forester's device. This is because while Howe's computer may only be effective on tilted wheels, Forester's device is not effective on any wheel due to its impracticality

< Back to roulette system menu

More about Forester

WARNING: This seller (Mark Howe) is now running a new scam. Instead of selling an ineffective device, he claims you can initially pay him £600 to "evaluate" his roulette computer, then later pay the rest him with profits. Sounds like a good and fair deal, but for your £600 you receive NOTHING. He blatantly steals your money and lies claiming the product was already sent. He refuses to provide any recipt to prove anything was actually shipped. So far, we are aware of TWO individuals he has scammed this way, one of which is so outraged he requested we publish his contact details so he can verify to anyone that Mark Howe blatantly stole his £600 (US$1200):

 

Sam Yousif
2/97 Sherwood rd
Merrylands
2160, Australia
Mobile Phone: +61 447 644 106

 

Click here to see a copy of the funds transfer from Sam Yousif. We will soon publish Mark's offensive emails to Sam. If you have also been scammed by Mark, please contact us via the roulette forum.

 

The remainder of this review is regarding his known-ineffective product (when he didn't merely steal people's money):

This seller is incredibly manipulative and dishonest, so a lot of detail is provided. Additional to blatantly lying about his competitors, the seller (Mark Anthony Howe) has broken countless laws to promote his ineffective product. For example, he has lied claiming the Gaming Commission (www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk) tested his device and found it to be effective - a blatant lie that the Gaming Commission confirmed. The UK Gaming Commission stated:

"Mark Howe has been brought to the attention of the Gambling Commission on a previous occasion and we would advise you not to purchase this product. The commission has received previous complaints regarding this individual and these have been passed to the Office of Fair Trading." - Thomas Allmark, Licensing Administrator, UK Gaming Commission, Ph: 0121 230 6666

Mark even published fake letters from the Gaming Commission claiming the quote was inaccurate. He has emailed me a threatening letter pretending to be a Gaming Commission representative, asking me to remove negative information about him. Mark has since fled to Norway.

Mark has also lied and claimed government labs (National Weights and Measures Lab www.nwml.gov.uk) have tested an endorsed his device - an outright lie as the lab confirmed. He has impersonated well known roulette researchers such as Thomas Bass and Ion Saliu (read Ion's comments) to give himself false positive reviews on forums. He trades under a fake business name and operates many web sites under fake names selling the same products to escape poor feedback about his products. He has made countless lies about his assets and claims to be a millionaire when people that know him personally confirmed he's nearly broke. He's even fabricated purchasers of competitors to give false negative reviews to boost his business, in particularly to harm Forester and myself. Mark also runs the fake review site roulettecomputerreviews.com where he attacks his competitors, gives his own products high reviews, and provides top reviews to computers that don't exist so he convince people the review site is genuine. This is scarcely the tip of the iceberg. I have little doubt he will eventually be imprisoned. Nevertheless, what can be said about his computer?

In short, it is nowhere near what he claims. As many others have found, Mark Howe's computer is extremely simplistic, and largely inadequate to beat modern roulette wheels. It can only be successfully applied only on easily beaten biased wheels where the ball constantly drops at the same point around the circumference of the wheel. Mark recently released a mobile phone version, although individuals who have this version claim it is no better than his Psion 3a model shown above.

From Mark's DVD where you see his wheel spinning, I obtained a 1 in 23 hit rate (the correct number was hit 1 in 23 times). However, this wheel is of a very easily beaten design you are unlikely to ever see. It has extremely predictable diamond hits deflecting the ball sharply down from the same diamond on almost every spin, and the ball has virtually no bounce. When queried why he selected such easily beaten conditions, Mark claimed it was because he was renovating and couldn't access his other wheels when making the DVD. Mark has refused a $1,000,000 cash award if he can prove his computer is effective on common unbiased level wheels. He conducted one demonstration to the Guardian newspaper, although it was on a tilted (biased) wheel. Although Howe claims the demo was on a level (unbiased) wheel, the actual article itself makes it clear Mark's claim is false. For example, the reporter states in the article, "Mark Howe claims his software will also work on level wheels." indicating the demonstration was not conducted on a level (unbiased) wheel. In fact half the article is about biased wheels. Furthermore, in the audio report, the reporter clearly states the demonstration was "statistically insignificant7 as it was conducted over only 50 spins, although Mr. Howe advertises the demonstration as conclusive proof of effectiveness, which is far from the case.

In addition to it's many shortcomings, Mark's computer requires you to determine ball speed before wheel speed. This is absolutely incorrect because the ball should be sampled as late in the spin as possible. Such an error is indicative of development from an amateur.

My thorough testing of Mark's computer on level wheels produced virtually random results. His computer has been tested by many others with similar results although to explain poor feedback, Mark claimed purchasers are merely incompetent. To my knowledge, not one credible person (a person other than an anonymous forum member) has ever claimed to have witnessed Mark successfully demonstrate his computer on a modern level wheel. A simple test where the same spin is predicted repeatedly on DVD easily and indisputably confirms the ineffectiveness of this device - namely that it deals very poorly with human errors in timings among other things.

In attempt to refute claims that his computer cannot achieve an edge on modern level wheels, Mark released video footage of his computer being applied on a different wheel. The wheel appears level, and he points to the prediction to confirm predictions aren't voiceovers, but the video has the following suspicious attributes for consideration:

 

• The demo is conducted over only 60 spins which is insufficient, especially when the footage ends abruptly with no comment. Howe 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.

• Again a heavy ball is used with minimal bounce.

• 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.

• 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. Mark 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 Mark appears to have done is merely claim this inevitable peak is where his computer has the advantage. To an amateur, Mark's demo may be convincing. To someone that knows better, his latest video demonstration shows many signs of manipulation. In light of his level of dishonesty regarding countless matters, and the fact that I and many others have personally tested his computer, I have little doubt he has manipulated his video demonstration.

VERDICT: Completely ineffective on modern roulette wheels as many others have found. It can only achieve an edge on very easily beaten biased wheels where the ball constantly falls at the same point around the wheel, and even then the device doesn't do the job anywhere near as well as it could. Literally you can achieve better results with visual ballistics than Mark's computer - a technique that is legal in all jurisdictions. Additionally, Mark Howe is the most dishonest and manipulative person I've ever known. Falsely claiming his device was tested and endorsed by a UK Government Lab (NWML) and the UK Gaming Commission is only a fragment of Mark's dishonesty. Mark is also well known for blatantly lying about competitors, posting false positive reviews, impersonating others and creating false identities on message board to promote his computer. For such action, he has been banned from many gambling forums. If you've been scammed by Mark Howe, report him. He has recently fled to Norway.

Click Here for detailed information about the extent of Mark Howe's manipulation: if you want to investigate Mark Howe fully, this page is an absolute must and will leave you in no doubt of his dishonesty.

< Back to roulette system menu

NOT RATED

 

Initially I believed this seller (John) to be merely Mark Howe under a fake name. This may be the case as Mark has many fake names, so I suggest approach with caution. However it may not be the case. I have spoken to the seller via phone at length. Specifically he wanted to assure me he was NOT Mark Howe. After his call, I'm unsure of what the case is - there are points to support both sides of the argument. On one hand there is information that suggests he is Mark, and on the other hand the seller appeared honest and "normal". So I have given him the benefit of the doubt and have removed my claims that he is Mark Howe. So there is no review for this product. I have not been contacted by anyone who has dealt with him. Basically I know nothing about him beyond what is on his web sites. If you ask me what I know about his products, simply at present I know very little about them.

 

Like I told him via phone, unlike Mark Howe or Forester, I am not interested in attacking competition or anyone just to make a few dollars. I am honest with what I say, and care far more about truth, and the welfare of my fellow man than profit.

 

If anyone has dealt with John, has purchased his products, or has information that would verify the identity of "John", please advise me so this information can be updated.

 

More about Jafco Pred7

Fraudulent

 

This is another one of Mark Anthony Howe's web sites under fake names. The fake names are almost definitely to escape a terrible reputation. Mark's latest fake name is Professor R Johansen. He claims to be from Sweden (recently changed to Norway). The address and phone number given is a fabrication. His last notorious lie was that the UK Gaming Commission tested and endorsed his product as explained above. Most experienced forum members and circles in the gaming industry and well aware of Mark's behavior and the extent of his manipulation. Recently he was banned from the Gamblers Glen forum for impersonating the clients of his competitor. Although Mark was banned, he still frequently pretends to be players of this competitor under other names as a means to compete. Also now Mark has created his own forum also called "Gamblers Glen", but under a different web address. He links to it on this new site. He appears to be trying to convince people his new forum is the real Gamblers Glen forum. Mark Howe denies he is "R Johansen", and makes many claims in attempt to validate his claim including that a well known forum member "Kelly" actually spoke to Johansen. However, Kelly himself said: "Anyone can load an already existing roulette predicting algorithm, maybe with a new interface, into a Samsung phone from an already existing computer seller and call it a new name. It seems RJ [Ronny Johansen] can't decide which name he wants to use so he uses them both."

VERDICT: Mark Howe (alias Prof R Johansen among countless other fake names) has proven to be incredibly manipulative. He has even started a roulette computer review web site to lie about his competitors while giving himself fake positive reviews. His manipulation is atrocious, as is his illegal conduct such as falsely claiming even government authorities have tested and endorsed his devices. Even the UK Gaming Commission has advised against purchasing his products due to various complaints. While I believe the extent of his actions will end him up in jail, for now, educating the public on the severity of his manipulation serves as protection.

< Back to roulette system menu

Fraudulent

I was sent this system for free by one of my own players, and many others have complained. It is definitely a scam - the system is not even remotely effective. Without revealing the actual system itself, it basically attempts to utilize streaks of reds and blacks, and to use winnings to compound wins. Does it work? No, not in the slightest.

 

The casino busters international website is professional-looking, and makes all kinds of fantastic claims designed to convince the reader that they are "the real professionals" that have developed their methods over many years of research, and hundreds of thousands of spins. They also claim that in a 290 day testing period, their system did not fail to lose. In a nutshell, it is all utter BS. Truly I cannot fathom how ruthlessly dishonest some system sellers can be, and they prey upon decent people that also don't understand, or perhaps have limited understanding of how dishonest some people can be. I have no doubt that if CBI had spent as much time on research and development as they claim, they wouldn't have come up with such a poor system. To any professional roulette player, you need only glance over their system to immediately know it is a scam. It is a very simplistic and irrefutably ineffective system that has been designed by an amateur.

 

VERDICT: Casino busters international (CBI) have a professional website, and fantastic claims, but it's all complete rubbish - without a doubt a scam. Even based on the website material alone, to any professional it is clear the system seller doesn't really understand what can and cannot beat roulette. When it comes to the system itself, it is clearly designed by someone that doesn't have the vaguest idea what the house edge is, how to overcome it, and how roulette can be legitimately beaten. If you have been scammed by this company, I suggest demand a refund. If a refund is refused, report the matter to the ACCC who have a mandate to pursue dishonest corporations - this is why most scammers wont dare operate as a corporation. The system is definitely completely ineffective, and it is not a cheap scam. Their roulette system will set you back over $1000. I don't have their systems for other casino games (such as blackjack), but if their roulette strategy is an indicator or their other systems and integrity, I suggest you to stay well away from them.

 

More about Casino Busters International (CBI)

< Back to roulette system menu

 

The Don Young infallible roulette system is $10,000, but does it actually work? No, unless you find a wheel that is so incredibly biased that the ball almost always lands in the same wheel sector.

Part of the theory behind the system is based on the law of a third, which states that after any amount of spins, about a third of them will be repeats. But in no way can this principle be used to formulate a winning roulette strategy. In fact, anyone creating a roulette strategy based on this principle clearly does not understand the science of gaming.

The only part of the method that is potentially valid takes advantage of biased wheels. I don't think Don intended this to be the case though. More specifically, the method relies on you making bets on specific sectors after the ball lands in them numerous times. In other words, the method detects "hot sectors". However, the procedures used by this strategy can only possibly be effective if the bias is extremely strong - to the extent where I don't believe any suitable wheel has ever existed. Put in simpler terms, the system relies on the ball landing in the same sector so frequently that it will almost never happen, unless the wheel is enormously flawed to the extent where it is plainly visible in as few as 10-20 spins. Such wheels simply don't exist in modern casinos, and I doubt they ever existed in the history of roulette.

Additionally, so few spins qualify for bets that application is extremely impractical. In fact, even after an hour or so of observing spins, often only one spin may qualify for a bet. So even if the strategy were effective, it would be far too impractical. Nevertheless, I tested the Don Young infallible roulette system his system against 50,000 real spins from Spielbank Hamburg and on average, bets only qualified once every 50 or so spins. I really wanted to test this system thoroughly and it literally took days, but the end result was -280 units. This is far from an infallible system.

Don Young's guarantee is that his system wins against the Zumma tester book (15,000 real casino spins), which it does. But after testing it over my own set of real spins, I'm convinced his system was "reverse engineered" solely for the 15,000 spins which is something anyone can do.

VERDICT: I find it difficult to believe this is anything but an expensive scam. The method is very poor, and far from infallible. Whether or not Don realizes it, the strategy can be adapted to wheels exhibiting an inconceivably strong bias. For this reason, it received one star. However, realistically, suitable wheels do not exist in modern casinos, and may have never existed.

< Back to roulette system menu

More about Don Young

Name: Email: