Forester's / Myrulet IQE6 FFA Unlimited Roulette Computer

This is another electronic device used to predict where the ball will land (roulette computer). The seller maintains numerous mirrored roulette system review sites where he gives himself top reviews, but attacks his competition. This would be fine if he actually told the truth, but he unjustly slams his competition while portraying himself as the most honest and competent person alive. One of his review sites includes rouletteplace.com/collection/index.html but he mirrors it elsewhere.

 

You're probably aware I'm in conflict with Forester. The details aren't relevant, but if you're interested, see www.roulettewars.com/forester.html. What IS relevant is that I do not let our conflict get in the way of truth when it comes to reviewing his devices. That is to say if his device is great, I will say it. Or if his device has shortcomings, I will say this too. Unfortunately Forester doesn't share the same views when it comes to putting truth before pride.

 

Forester has a hard time accepting his devices are inferior to those I've developed. For example, years before he had developed a computer that actually "spoke" predictions, I had developed computers that generate predictions automatically from image recognition hardware and a hidden camera (see www.hybridroulettecomputer.com) - our technology is worlds apart. It's not that he isn't aware of the truth - he simply chooses to ignore it. I've tried many times to enlighten him, but my every attempt to show him proof is met with excuses and refusal. In other words, he's not interested in the truth because it doesn't suit him. On one occasion he even refused to see a 5 minute test when I had my roulette computer right in front of him. Why? Because the testing would have proved he has been misleading people about my roulette computers, and that his computers are NOT the superior devices he claims them to be. In addition to his ostrich-like behavior, Forester seems to believe if his device can't beat certain wheels, then no other computer can. Nevertheless, I'll focus on the review of his FFA device.

 

While Forester may claim my opinions are biased, it is important to note what I say about his technology is virtually identical to what other professional testers of his devices have said. When the other testers released their results (several different reports), Forester manipulated the public by highlighting only the positive points, while ignoring the negative points. The negative and most relevant points were that the device can only beat significantly flawed and rare wheels - not the average modern roulette wheel. However, you don't even need a roulette computer to beat flawed wheels. An example of Forester's manipulation is as follows:

 

The tester claimed the device is "deadly accurate", but ONLY when it comes to predicting where the ball will fall from the ball track - NOT the actual winning number (this is NOT even giving consideration to ball deceleration rate changes that occur in the real casino environment, but I'll explain this later). When it came to predicting the actual winning number which is what counts, the tester found the computer was unable to achieve a significant advantage on the average modern wheel. Forester's "version" of the tester's conclusion is simply that the tester said the device was "deadly accurate", period. Certainly, Forester tends to present words in the context that best suits him. If you confront Forester with this information and the other tester's reports, it is undeniable - although Forester's defense is basically that if his computer can't beat certain wheels, then no computer can. If you read the roulette computer comparison page at my website and the points below, you will understand what forester's computer does wrong, what it doesn't do, and why my computers beat wheels that his doesn't. Since his computer very clearly doesn't do all it could do, why does he say accuracy can't get any better than what his FFA achieves? Ego. To his credit, Forester is still developing FFA but it still has a long way to go.

 

Nevertheless, it is not to say FFA cannot be successfully used on some wheels. As the other tester found, I certainly agree it can produce a significant advantage on rare wheels that exhibit a strong drop zone - that is where the ball tends to solidly hit the same diamond(s) far more frequently than others. However, such wheels are quite rare and arguably you may spend more money traveling trying to find suitable wheels than its worth.

 

FFA unlimited is Forester's latest roulette computer. It is at an overall stage of development my "standard" computers were at approximately 2 years ago. It uses almost identical algorithms to his FFZ computer, but FFA is far better than FFZ because it finally speaks predictions rather than giving very impractical electric zaps (see FFZ computer for the "zap" version).

 

The bottom line is FFA is "acceptable" computer, but can only beat rare wheels. It is still miles ahead of Mark Howe's latest roulette computer. To someone that does not have thorough experience with roulette computers, FFA is initially impressive, if you apply it on DVD spins of heavily flawed wheels where the ball hits the same diamonds very often, and the ball barely bounces like the wheels in the video on Forester's site. But take it into a modern casino environment, with modern wheels in good condition, and it is "profitable" only in rare circumstances. It is NOT the best roulette computer despite what Forester's ego will tell you - in reality it is quite simplistic, and doesn't anywhere near do all that is possible to maximize accuracy. Again if you read the roulette computer comparison page at my website, you will understand what forester's computer does wrong, what it doesn't do, and why my computers beat wheels that his doesn't.

 

After being sent FFZ for free and seeing how poor it was, I did not bother to look at Forester's other computers until they at least spoke predictions - this is what FFA does. Actual voice predictions saying exactly where to bet should be considered essential, yet it took years for Forester to create such a device. Now three of my own players own a FFA who all agree my computer is definitely more accurate, easier to use, and more practical. But that is not to say FFA is a scam or no good. After discussing the device with owners I know very well, and testing it for myself, I found the following:

 

Positive Points:

• After the final click for timings, predictions are announced virtually instantly. The FFA announces the prediction approximately 20MS after the final click. My mobile phone roulette computers announce the prediction approximately 80MS after the final click (depending on model and firmware mods). The question is does 60MS make a difference? No, although Forester claims it to be a strong selling point. Overall my computer can still achieve predictions considerably earlier than FFA because it uses more advanced algorithms.

• Accuracy for basic tilted wheels is very good. Specifically I mean wheels where the ball hits the same diamond on almost every spin, then falls with barely any bounce. It is not at all difficult to beat such wheels - you don't even need a computer. Comparing my computer on the same spins, accuracy of my computer was only marginally better. However, the FFA's "point set" feature is highly prone to errors -it is extremely easy to set incorrectly, which will dramatically reduce accuracy and the user wont even know about it until a loss is made. My computers use a far superior method of "point set", and they did this literally years before any of Forester's computers used a "point set" feature.

• For tilted wheels only, you can get predictions in as few as 5 clicks (2 for rotor, and 3 for ball).

• The device is small and easily concealed, although if it is found, it cannot be explained away, unlike with mobile phones.

• Level wheel prediction is reasonably good provided the ball barely bounces, and the ball deceleration rate does not change too much. Accuracy is certainly miles ahead of Mark Howe's computer which achieves virtually no accuracy on any level wheel. If the wheel is near perfectly level, and the ball is spun frequently to lessen to effect of air pressure variations, the FFA can predict the rotor strike point within around 10 pockets, as opposed to my computer which can predict within around 5 pockets (depends on numerous other factors).

Negative Points

• For reasonable accuracy on level and semi-tilted wheels, you need at least 6 clicks, and you MUST isolate the computer so that predictions are only given when the ball is a certain speed. The "unlimited" feature that is supposed to give you accurate predictions "anytime" in the spin is useless for the majority of wheels - it can only be used for tilted wheels. If a new dealer comes and spins the ball too softly, you will constantly hear the error "too late", indicating your clicks were too late. This is not an issue with my computers as ACCURATE predictions can be made on every spin, and at anytime in the spin (rather than only when the ball is a specific speed), with either level or tilted wheels.

• Like FFZ, FFA assumes the deceleration rate of the ball will remain constant. This is a major problem with Forester's algorithm design. If you use FFA on DVD spins where spins are one after the other, the air pressure and therefore ball deceleration rates will barely change. But if you play in a casino where the ball is spun perhaps once every 2-3 minutes, by the time you have analyzed enough spins, the ball deceleration rate will have changed, making it impossible for the computer to give accurate predictions. More details are as follows: If you consider air pressure variations in the real casino environment, the FFA becomes almost completely ineffective on modern level wheels. On the same spins used to test my computer (with realistic time between spins and where the ball deceleration rate varies), Forester's FFA was almost completely ineffective, whereas my computer was able to predict the rotor strike point within approximately 5 pockets. Forester will tell you 5 pockets is impossible. It's just not possible with his computers because they assume there are no diamonds on the wheel at all, that the wheel is physically perfect, and that the ball will always decelerate at the same rate. His device's enormous and incorrect assumptions lead to enormous errors and reduction of accuracy.

• I personally did testing of the single player FFA, although a trusted associate tested the wireless version and reported the following. The wireless for 2 player application is abysmal with the following problems:

a. An off-the-shelf bluetooth muse is used for the second player. It is basically a bluetooth headset for mobile phones. It's range is extremely short because the equipment is designed to be used with a mobile phone, by the person who is wearing the phone. There is no way this is practical in a real casino environment. The second player would need to be virtually pressed up against the first player to even hear the predictions. Even when the receiver and transmitter are very close together, any movement of either the transmitter or receiver causes the audio to be distorted and at times impossible to hear.   b. Once the receiver is connected, there is a constant radio emission from the transmitter. This is like having a radio transmitter turned on the whole time you are playing. For the average casino that has equipment to detect such an obvious signal, there would be no problems detecting users of the FFA - they would likely be aware of the presence of a roulette computer before you made your first bet. Truly Forester either has not thought through his design through properly, or has taken cheap shortcuts that mean FFA for team play is guaranteed detection.   c. A quick bluetooth network scan shows both the receiver and transmitter - clear as day. As if the constant radio emissions weren't a clear announcement to the casino surveillance staff, having plainly visible bluetooth will ensure your detection.   NOTE: My computers have none of the above problems. They are invisible to network scans, and a virtually undetectable radio signal is sent to send predictions to the second player. My computers do not use standard bluetooth, and they do not take cheap shortcuts.

• Before you commence play, you must apply the computer on approximately 20 spins. After each spin, you must write down the prediction you received, and where the ball landed, then calculate the distance between the two. For attentive casino staff, this makes it obvious what you are doing. Furthermore, after leaving the table you may see you don't have enough spins to clearly tune the computer, so you need to collect even more spins - the last thing you want to do is constantly leave and return to the table. With my computers, you enter the data in the computer with a hidden button, and the computer automatically tunes for you. The more spins you log, the better the accuracy. With my computers, there is no need for pencil and paper, manual charts, or constantly leaving the table.

• Every time you resume play on a different day, even on the same wheel, you must proceed through all stages which wastes time - you may spend an hour or so just to tune the FFA computer on each day. With my computer, you can resume play with full accuracy almost immediately on each day, provided the wheel hasn't been moved which rarely happens.

• FFA assumes the ball will bounce the same way regardless of the wheel rotor speed. On Forester's site, he presents information to show that if you tune a computer with a 3 second rotor (one revolution every 3000ms), then play with a 5 second rotor, your results will be very poor, so he is aware of the problem. Forester claims that no computer can adjust predictions based on rotor speed, but my computers have been doing this for years - they can do it either automatically or manually. It's just that Forester's computers are incapable of performing such tasks - firstly because it's simply work he hasn't done, and secondly because the hardware he presently uses is not capable of performing such tasks. He has enough trouble fitting his simplistic program on the current microchips he uses.

NOTE: There are countless very important features and capabilities my computer has, but FFA lacks. Truly Forester does not appear to have the vaguest idea of what my most powerful computers ara capable of. However, I no longer sell my roulette computers (they are FREE to partners), and I have no interest to explain full details of them.

 

Many times I have explained the shortcomings of Forester's devices, and he responded by claiming I was just full of it. Then later he ends up fixing his computer's problems, and making them more like mine. A few examples are:

• When Forester had developed only FFZ, he claimed using audio predictions is very bad because it can take a long time for the audio to be announced. With my computer, any of the audio files are announced completely and well and truly within 500ms (0.5 seconds). My computer can also use vibrations and/or beeps in the exact same way as FFZ and be perfectly accurate, but it is never used that way. So what is the advantage of using a zap instead? Sure, you get the prediction quicker you might say. But the reality is you need to see the number under the ball when the zap occurred, and that's IF you can see the ball at that time, and that's IF you can actually see it when the ball is fast with wheel going to the other direction. But that's not all - when you are actually betting, you also need to mentally adjust the prediction for every spin. So say for example you get a zap under one number, but the tuned prediction if 10 pockets to the right, you first have to wait for that 10th pocket to be visible so you know what it is, then place your bets. Forester's claims were just nonsense - whatever Forester has at the time, he just claims is best. I find him to be extremely egotistical and arrogant, and has little regard for actual truth. So now that Forester developed a "speaking" computer (FFA), of course he says it is best.

• Forester claimed that it is not possible to develop a computer that is capable of giving predictions anytime in the spin. He claimed I was a scammer for claiming my computers were capable of this. Now Forester's computers can do this very same thing, but for his computer it is only possible with tilted wheels, whereas my computers can generate accurate predictions anytime in the spin for both level and tilted wheels, without significant loss in accuracy.

Forester is still developing his FFA, so perhaps eventually his computers will more more beneficial. But while he hasn't achieved full development, he shouldn't be claiming his computer is far superior to every other computer.

 

Further Details of the other tester:

 

The FFA has been reviewed by Michael Barnett, who is a consultant hired by casinos to advise them about professional players. Forester openly sent his FFA to casinos for testing, and has openly stated he educates the casinos on how roulette computers are applied. Forester claims he is a player. Why on Earth would any serious player, or advocate of players, ever help the casinos to detect roulette computer players? Nevertheless, as with Barnett's review of FFZ, I basically agree with his report regarding FFA, with some exceptions. Before I explain the exceptions, I'll state that Barnett's review of FFA was much more positive than his review of FFZ. For example, the FFA gave predictions on almost all spins, whereas FFZ failed to give any prediction on a huge amount of spins. FFA finally made it "practical" for Barnett to conduct extensive testing.

 

Barnett concluded that accuracy for tilted wheels was very good, although you should be aware such wheels are very difficult to find. As for level wheels, Barnett found accuracy was very good only IF you consider where the ball actually lost momentum and fell, without giving any consideration to what happens once it fell and hit the rotor. Barnett had said previously that Forester's computer could NOT achieve a significant edge on such wheels because it could not predict where the ball would bounce with sufficient accuracy. In other words, Barnett said FFA is not accurate for real play on modern and well-maintained level wheels. Importantly, you need to read all of Barnett's reports to fully understand what he is saying, including the reports on FFZ.

 

While I agree with Barnett's findings, I have the following additional comments:

 

Barnett's testing was not done in real casino conditions. That is to say while his tests were done on a wheel, they were able to spin as frequently as they wanted. This means tests were conducted in conditions where air pressure would not have varied significantly, as it often does in the real casino environment. This in turn means ball deceleration rates would not have changed significantly which is a major consideration. If you do 100 spins in an hour, you can assume ball deceleration rates will remain reasonably consistent. But if you do 100 spins in 2-3 hours, the average distance between the first and second 50 spins may vary 1 whole revolution. Does there need to be such a large variation for it to be significant? No. For level wheels, even a variation of an inch can be the difference between winning and losing, and such a variation can easily occur within 30 or so minutes due to many factors that affect ball deceleration rates - not just air pressure. The smallest difference in ball deceleration rates can and do make a large difference to which diamond will be hit, how the ball falls, and ultimately the winning number. This all means that Barnett was only considering accuracy of predictions relating to where the ball fell from the ball track, NOT the final winning number. From this perspective ONLY, Barnett said FFA was accurate. However, if FFA is tested over a longer period of time, results would be significantly different as I found. While the factor of air pressure variations applies to tilted wheels, it is much more significant to level and semi-tilted wheels. On a tilted wheels, you can have a much larger degree of tolerance - i.e. ball deceleration may change very slightly, but the ball will still hit the same diamond. But on a level or semi-tilted wheel, slight ball deceleration variations can make a huge difference to where the ball actually falls. In his final comments, Barnett did emphasize that he was only evaluating accuracy of where the ball fell from the ball track, NOT comparing predictions and the actual winning number. What happens after the ball falls is often called "scatter". Other than being able to "manually" adjust predictions manually (set the offset), Forester's computer has absolutely no way of dealing with scatter. Forester says there's simply nothing that can be done about scatter, which is absolutely false - it is his way of dismissing his device's shortcomings. Does his computer adjust predictions based on rotor speed? No. But my computer does so, automatically. Does his computer know when the ball will hit a diamond and just drop down predictably, or barely touch a diamond and be deflected unpredictably? No, although my computer can isolate such spins. Can his FFA adjust predictions automatically to compensate for ball deceleration rate changes? No, although my computer does this very well.

 

VERDICT: Forester claims to be one of the world's best roulette players, that he wins often, and knows millionaire professional roulette players. Forester has many websites to promote his roulette computer, including numerous manipulative review sites, and a large professional website with a fancy order page - he also previously advertised on ebay but stopped probably because no-one purchased. He once had someone sell his device for him for $5000 each. When he posts on roulette forums, he tends to spam his links. Often he posts to forums solely to discredit his competitors, yet criticizes other sellers such as Mark Howe for doing the same. Forester claims he has no interest advertising FFA or sales, and that he offers his device purely as goodwill. You decide.

 

FFA consists of about $20 in parts, and would take approximately an hour to assemble. FFA sells for almost $2000. Forester claims he doesn't profit from sales, and that he has no business interest in discrediting anyone. You decide.

 

Regardless, Forester is relatively honest about what his computers can and cant do. But where he goes wrong is claiming that if his computers cant do something, then no other computer can. FFA is excellent for tests at home in front of your TV and DVD player, but has limited use in the real casino environment on the average modern wheel. It's why there doesn't appear to be a single person who has ever made significant money with it. It's why many of his players end up selling the device, rather than actually profiting. It's why one player lost over EUR40,000. It's why one player was caught using it in Europe - likely because of the very poor wireless equipment.

 

If you live near wheels where the ball hits the same diamond almost always in a solid way, and the ball barely bounces after falling, I recommend FFA, but only if you play as a single player because the 2 player wireless version will just get you caught. However, if you play in a normal casino where the ball isn't made from lead, the ball doesn't always hit the same 1 or 2 diamonds, and spins occur once every 2+ minutes, then FFA isn't going to make you money. Nevertheless, the idea of professional play is to actively SEEK the best wheels to play. If you do that, traveling around may be expensive, but you'll be able to find suitable wheels. It's more a question of whether or not the money you spend on travel will be returned by the wheels you find. It may be a better option to use a computer than can be successfully applied on a much broader range of wheels and better yet, it wont cost you anything up-front - see www.roulettecomputers.com/partners.html

 

Of course Forester will again say my review is inaccurate, despite it again reflecting Barnett's review. And of course he will claim his computer is best, and that all mobile phone computers are scams. Therefore, so should any of Forester's FFA or FFZ purchasers want to know for sure if my claims that my computer is more accurate are true, read the roulette forum thread at http://www.rouletteforum.net/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1262064653/ - I have created a DVD of many spins showing application of my roulette computer, and will send this DVD for FREE to Forester's purchasers so they can compare results. If you have FFA or FFZ and take this offer, you will find that clearly my computer produces a better edge, even when predictions from my computer are a whole second or so earlier than predictions from FFA. Then you'll know for yourself who has been telling the truth, and who is full of it.

 

Name: Email: