Microprocessor Vs mobile phone roulette computer

[Steve]

Everything you could want to know about microprocessor Vs mobile phone roulette computers is at nolinks.roulettecomputers.com/comparison.htm

I developed microprocessor computers a long time ago. See nolinks://nolinks.roulettesystemanalysis.com/m/micro.wmv
This one is for sale for $500. It was developed to see if there was any significant difference between:

1. Entirely microprocessor computers, and
2. Mobile phones modified to use timings from microprocessor timings

There was no difference except the audio is called about 200ms quicker (about human reaction time) for straight microprocessors. I have to remind people that despite this, my computers get prediction far earlier, and far more accurate that any of forester's microprocessor computers. The earliest he can get a prediction is half rotor timing and 1 ball rev. But do that, and first you need to wait for the rotor to pass, THEN do the ball. And you will get huge errors. With my computers (standard version), ball and rotor can be clocked seperately - by either one or two players - no need for rotor then ball. they can be at anytime. Plus two players clocking means less error, more accuracy. Forester's computers cant do this. There are a lot of things they cant do. The truth is anybody can code what his simplistic devices do in a matter of hours or less, but the man's ego is rather excessive and he makes it out to be more than it is... basic vb with clicks. Same as my free computer.

Microprocessor devices are much cheaper to produce, but I dont do them because there are too many disadvantages. Forester will tell you my computers use java timers. He doesn't understand how it is done. They use microprocessor timers. The only computer of mine that uses java timers is the FREE version as explained at nolinks.roulettecomputers.com/comparison.htm

Anybody interested in learning the truth, and exposing forester's inaccurate BS need to read nolinks.roulettecomputers.com/comparison.htm and see the various videos.

Any of my skilled players can use the free computer I provide and get almost exactly the same results you get with forester's best devices. That's because all they essentially do is define rotor position and ball drop time. That's what vb essentially does. His point set feature is ineffective, and so is his latest version which attempts to correct the issue. You need to manually write down timings? Manually write down prediction and winning number then manually calibrate??

Now I'm not even counting the hybrid versions (nolinks.hybridroulettecomputers.com). To be fair, let's compare my standard version with his most advanced versions. Read the extensive information at nolinks.roulettecomputers.com/comparison.htm and you'll understand why my computers are far more expensive. FFS his idea of wireless is a bluetooth muse that constantly transmits audio, same as bluetooth headset for a phone. It's a disaster and very easy to detect. I could go on and on but its all at nolinks.roulettecomputers.com/comparison.htm

PS - Forester also doesn't understand what is meant by my claims about roulette and patterns in nature. I have expressly said my system does NOT use fractals. It uses principles related to fractals, namely SELF REFERENCE. He understands basic referencing, ie reference point 1 to winning number. That's what I call primordial (very basic). My methods model the relationship between multiple reference points and variables. Forester has a hard time with it and cant understand how someone is smarter than him. For example, he's still stuck of the assumption that the ball will bounce the same on different rotor speeds - something my techology first dealt with years ago. Even laurence scott expressed to me that he identifies with my approach better. Of course it makes sense to calculate rather than ASSUME. That's why forester's computers dont do any good beyond the dvd player. My system with bets before ball release are more effective on the average wheel than any of foresters computers. He cant believe it because all he knows is traditional AP, which I might add that I teach too (traditional AP), but there are better and more accurate methods he clearly doesn't know about. He knows all this. It's easier for him than admitting the truth.

I'm holding another public demo for the computers soon, and ANYONE can attend and see a comparison of the different computers and see first-hand.  Recordings from the previous public demo are at nolinks.roulettecomputers.com/videos.html where I achieved over 90% hit rate on 3 dominant diamond mk7 velstone huxley wheel, with 1 dd on opposite side, and using bouncy ivorine ball, with predictions 13 seconds before ball falls. Over 90% hit rate on 15 numbers. FFA was compared and barely achieved a fraction of the accuracy, even with much later predictions. I just dont care about forester and his computers and only address his false claims about me

[Steve]

-