As many of you would be aware, to clear up the rubbish written about me, I organized a public challenge for my roulette computer and system to be tested. For the person doing the testing, the idea was to have someone who is well known and trusted on various forums. To help find the ideal candidate, I asked Victor (from this forum) to list numerous suitable candidates - he suggested a few. The selected and willing candidate was Ronjo. He is well trusted, and known personally by many people on this forum, so there should be no doubts that he's not me etc.
Ronjo agreed to do testing of both my roulette computer and my roulette system. There is an incredible amount of complete rubbish circulating about me and my systems, and some people have jumped on the bandwagon believing it. The aim of the challenges are to simply make the truth clear.
Recently Ronjo completed testing of the roulette computer. His findings are explained in detail below:
I sent Ronjo a DVD of approximate 100 spins from a current model roulette wheel. He selected one diamond, then set the computer to give predictions only when that diamond was predicted to be hit. Of course the computer can give predictions when any diamond is predicted to be hit, but for testing purposes it is best to just focus on one diamond.
The wheel used is a mk7 huxley (current model), and there are 4 dominant diamonds as shown below. The red diamonds are the dominant diamonds. Three of them are vertical diamonds, and one is horizontal. It is important to note the dominant horizontal diamond is right between two dominant vertical diamonds. This ensures things arent easy like it would be if there was a single dominant vertical diamond because when a horizontal diamond is hit, the ball is typically deflected to the other side of the wheel where the ball may hit another diamond. This condition perfectly represents not merely "average" modern roulette wheels, but wheels that many "experts" consider to be impossible to beat.
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fnolinks.roulettewars.com%2Frondiam.jpg&hash=0e1f313cf31d9ce837e69a254eb7c49cdb337df0)
An ivorine ball was used, which is quite bouncy, especially since the plastic from the pockets was removed - this means the ball bounces on metal, not plastic. The mk7 wheel is John Huxley's current model wheel. You can see photos of the wheel design at nolinks.tcsjohnhuxley.com/en/live-gaming/roulette-wheels/traditional-roulette-wheel.html (nolinks://nolinks.tcsjohnhuxley.com/en/live-gaming/roulette-wheels/traditional-roulette-wheel.html) - as this page says, it's the world's most popular wheel.
Ronjo was able to adjust the tolerance levels so accuracy can be maximized. The tighter the tolerance, the less predictions he'd receive, but the more accurate the predictions would be. This is because the computer would reject any spins where it calculates the ball will not hit the target diamond. Again the computer can give predictions 100% of the time and for any diamond, but we stuck to only one diamond in this case to keep things simple. This resulted in 15 predictions out of about 100 spins. Below is what Ronjo said:
Quote"Steves claims are correct about the Diamond hits and I had predictions within a three pocket arc several times and within a six pocket arc as well,and hits more than 50% on one half of the wheel. I did not have a direct hit on one number, but I had a hit on the next pocket to the predicted number three times in fifteen plays,in my opion that is close enough. As personally I would not play one number in the casino as it could cost you if you are on a losing streak. So to recap in fifteen spins I had a three pocket arc hit three times, a seven pocket arc hit five times the rest were losses or they were out of the three and seven pocket range but in half the wheel. This pattern kept on repeating in my testing."
So for all 15 spins, the ball landed on the same half of the wheel as the prediction. That means the ball always landed within the predicted 18 or so pockets, including all factors such as diamond hits, scatter etc. While 15 spins is not a large number, you have to keep in mind the computer was set to give predictions only when a specific diamond was predicted to be hit, within whatever tolerance range he set. In a real casino environment, if you bet on every spin, it is too obvious. So it is better to make small diversionary bets to stay at the table, and on those 15 spins when a prediction is given, you bet large.
In the tests done by Ronjo with the ball landing on the correct half of the wheel every time, the results are very clear. Additionally, Ronjo verified the computer announced "risk" when the target diamond was not hit. This is an important part of the testing because it was done over approximately 100 spins, so clearly the results are not due to luck. Ronjo has confirmed my claims about the diamond hit predictions are true.
The test with diamond isolation (predictions only when a diamond was predicted to be hit) verifies my computer is capable of determining which diamond will be hit, and that it is capable of accurate timings - his findings have obliterated the false claims about my computer. The computer can give predictions for any of the diamonds, but for testing purposes it was more appropriate to just choose one diamond and focus on testing for that diamond alone. With respect to the equipment's ability to deal with human errors, Ronjo confirmed my claims about virtually all predictions being within a 3 pocket arc (maximum accuracy) for the different diamond test explained by Forester.
So this is what we have learned from Ronjo's testing:
1. The computer is capable of determining which diamond will be hit clearly the majority of the time. On the mk7 wheel it can predict exact diamonds, but on the mk2 wheel it can predict within 1/3rd of a diamond.
The wheel that we used is of great significance - with every other computer I've tested, you can only get 1 in 15 hit rates on an easily beaten wheel which is really nothing special (although mark howe's computer is by far least accurate, actually pathetic - it achieves about 1 in 20 on the most pathetically easy to beat wheels where the ball hits the same diamond almost every time, and the ball drops straight down with almost no bounce). But to achieve such hit rates on a mk7 wheel is saying something - so-called "experts" claim such wheels can't be beaten at all.2. Out of the spins where the computer determined a particular diamond would be hit, on all spins the ball landed on the same wheel half as the prediction. This is not a minor thing - others may be happy when the rotor strike point alone is predicted within 18 pockets accuracy. With Ronjo's results, it is with scatter and all incorporated. I know "experts" like Barnett will say it is impossible, but then again he hasn't seen any of my computers, and certainly not my latest computers - especially he wont see it whether he purchases under a fake name or not because I'm not selling them anymore soon. Of course not always will you get all predictions that close, but in this case that's what the result were. Even if we just considered 15 spins without consideration to the total 100 or so spins, the results would still be statistically relevant because of how close to the winning number the predictions were. But again you also consider the diamond hit predictions over the 100 spins.
Putting the results into perspective, since all predictions were in the correct half of the wheel, on average this is the equivalent of approximately a 1 in 10-15 exact number hit rate.. again for a mk7 huxley wheel, not some easily beaten wheel. This means if you bet on just 1 number, you can expect to win approximately 1 in 10-15 spins (on average). As per Ronjo's statement, of the 15 predictions he received, he may not have gotten any direct hits, but on 3 from 15 spins the ball landed directly next to the predicted number. You can expect much the same results on modern wheels in casino conditions, where other computers achieve near random results.
None of the above would be possible if the hardware and software wasn't capable of accurate timings. You also need to keep in mind various factors such as the wheel and ball used, the ball track distortions which decrease accuracy, and the general layout of dominant diamonds including the dominant horizontal diamond. It's not like we used an easily beaten wheel - it is a wheel that others say cannot be beaten, yet as per Ronjo's testing the wheel was more than just "beaten". Plus for the dominant diamonds I deliberately had a dominant horizontal diamond - it was intentionally made more difficult, and still the results are what they are.
All up I'm satisfied with the results, even without using additional features to better manage ball bounce on different rotor speeds. All Ronjo looked at was the basics of accuracy for diamond hits and end predictions. The end predictions part is most relevant of course, but again you need to consider accuracy of diamond hits which tells us a lot about computer capabilities. There will of course be people that claim Ronjo must be wrong somehow, or that he is me under a fake name etc, but we expected that from the start. There are more than enough well known and trusted forum members, from various forums, to back Ronjo up with respect to his identity and credibility.
In addition to Ronjo's official statement, he also said:
Quote"Steves explanation is correct on my testing. The different diamond test was done and is correct and that the prediction was within a three pocket arc, the first spin and several others as the sample spin gets updated and deals with errors, as below as per quote that there were no predictions as the tolerance got tighter which is better than getting a poor prediction. I tested the whole DVD and as the sample was updated I got the same results. I was very impressed with the accuracy of the predictions, where I got predictions in a three pocket arc and a seven pocket arc and over 50% of half the wheel within the three pocket arc."
I'm aware that many of you here believed I'm a "scammer". You most likely based this on what others have said. For those of you that trust Ronjo, you now know better about me. Also if you have a good read of roulettewars and most importantly consider this public challenge done with Ronjo, you can now be better informed. So this testing completes the roulette computer validations - you can choose to believe Ronjo, or absolute rubbish from people that dont care about truth, and only strive to discredit me.
Now validations for the roulette system are next. Many of you are convinced you have seen my system, specifically the document that explains charts between one reference point to another. I have noticed a few "self-proclaimed experts" have thought such referencing is a scam, but clearly they don't understand what it is. Interestingly, these same individuals develop various rubbish even money betting systems - my point is research matters for yourself, because there are many ignorant people around, and many sheep that just follow. Regardless, I'm not here to tell you why their systems and 99% of other systems fail - I just want to make the truth about me and my technology clear.
Regarding the system and what I teach, I'll make the following clear:
The only way to beat roulette is with physics. No matter what method you use, it is always, always affected by the house edge. The house edge is simply unfair payouts. The ONLY way to overcome this is by increasing accuracy of predictions. You cant win consistently with progression betting, because every spin is independent, and all progression does is create an opportunity to either get very lucky, or blow your bankroll in spectacular fashion. The oldest gambler's fallacy is after many reds, a black is "due" because the "inevitable balance" is going to occur. Sure, the balance will eventually occur, but how does that help the issue on unfair payouts especially when utilizing knowledge of the "balance" does not in the slightest change the accuracy of predictions? Anyway, I have been developing systems and technology for roulette for roughly 15 years. Many people take my advice and understand what I'm saying, but unfortunately many people still dont take the advice because they dont understand why their approaches simply CANNOT win consistently over the long term.
Every method I teach is based on physics. Why? Think about the wheel, not the table. The table is nothing. Everything happens at the wheel. So now that you know you need to increase the accuracy of predictions, HOW do you do this? Well what determines where the ball will land? Fancy progressions? Some kind of "balance" things? Nope. Only physics. What else did you think it could be? Specifically there is only one universal way to beat roulette, which is ultimately ballistics - ball and wheel interactions. With the exception of phenomena such as precognition, ballistics is the only way to beat roulette and I've said it many times (by saying ballistics, I mean ball behavior, which includes things like wheel bias). This is all I have ever taught.
When new players join, the first thing they receive is the primordials document. Unlike you may have previously believed, it is merely an introductory document to teach players the basics - as I have clearly stated many times, it is approximately 10% of what players learn. A free version of this document is at Genuinewinner.com/gw.zip
Some of you have received a similar document, but with primordial 1 - 3 which is basically using two reference points to make predictions. The very reason it is called "primordials" is because they are the very basics of the basics. Any professional player, or anyone who has applied known effective techniques such as visual ballistics, will tell you that such methods are not a scam. Only an ignorant person could say it is a scam. To define any legitimate pattern, you need at least two reference points - typically this is the first reference number, then the winning number. An example is:
A,B
A,B
'B' is the winning number, and 'A' can be many things. Now what is the most "primordial" and basic reference point possible? Simply where the ball landed last, hence the name "primordials". For many of you, what you have been led to believe is my system in its entirety is just looking for "dealer signature". Unfortunately this is what you have been led to believe by morons like Bago who are not only ignorant, but only care about discrediting me, not telling the truth. Bago's attacks with his stupidity and ignorance is a bad combination, and many of you have not investigated for yourself.
Anyway, so when players receive the "primordials" document, all they receive is the very basics. Once they understand the basics, they move onto progressively more advanced methods to use this knowledge, whether it be forms of wheel analysis, or visual ballistics. Name a legitimate technique to beat roulette, and it is part of what I teach players. If you have been led to believe my system is a scam, now you know better. Generally I teach a player only what they need to know to achieve consistent success, and this is to prevent undue leaks of information. It would be no good to reveal everything I know with all techniques in one document, because this presents a security risk, plus it would be an information overload for many players - some players struggle even with the primordials, but usually a player only has troubles if they have english as a second language.
An example for the typical player is they start with the primordials document, and have a look at the basics of beating roulette. They then may decide they want to focus on visual ballistics. The current primordials document gives an outline of what it involves, so they know what they are getting into. So from this point, I send the player free practice dvds of two wheels, and I teach them various VB methods personally. There are countless VB methods that can be taught, but what I teach depends on the conditions at the player's local casino, and the player's personal preference. Another example is a player may prefer to make bets before the ball release, and in this case I teach them various methods including but not limited to bias analysis. Contrary to what many people think, predicting where the ball will land is not all about ball and wheel speed - there is far more to it. If you believe otherwise, you need to think along the lines of long term rather than just one spin. When needed, I develop a custom strategy for a wheel called a custom variant. There is nothing mystical about such methods - they are simply a method that COMBINES the edge from various types of patterns into one convenient method. So one pattern type may give you a 2% edge, and another may give you a 5% edge, so if you combine them into one strategy, you get a 7% edge. There are many types of custom variants with varying complexity. Probably the simplest example I can give is using visual ballistics combined with bias analysis, where you apply VB but avoid betting when the prediction is a number with a negative bias. This way you get the edge from the VB and bias combined. This is a very simple example only though.
If anyone asks if I am a scammer, they are asking if legitimate methods to beat roulette that have literally won millions is a scam. Perhaps this puts things into perspective. Of course people that aim to discredit me will tell whatever lies they must to achieve their goals, but you need to look past their blatant manipulations and the very simple truth for what it is.
Over the years, I have amassed approximately 600 players. Of course a few are bound to not understand things fully, and on a few occasions, frustrated players have vented on forums by calling me names such as "scammer". It is just easier for a tradesman to blame his tools rather than himself, but unfortunately such a player's venting does no good for my public image, although it has only happened with a few players out of 600. I always do the very best I can to teach players legitimate advantage methods to beat roulette. If a player is unstable and breaches the contract by identifying themselves as a player, then they get banned, and they lash out on forums more. This hasnt done wonders for my reputation, but the maintaining of secrets for the benefit of all players is more important than my public image. Why arent players even allowed to identify themselves as players? Because then people ask them questions, and secrets leak. There are many of my players here at VLS, at my forum and even GG, but they keep to the contracts. In clearly the majority of cases, players simply don't want to tell others about my methods - they want to keep it private and rightfully so. This has meant, with a few exceptions, the only legitimate players that speak out about their experiences with me are ones that had negative experiences, through no fault of my own or the methods. Again, bad tradesman blame their tools. You might ask if what I offer is so good, why do I sell it.. my response is who says I sell my best technology? Before anything, I am a team manager and have partners who play for a 50% profit split. But I also sell technology and my time to teach methods, of course for additional revenue. It is just not realistic for us to have teams in every casino worldwide - it would be far too hard to manage. Speaking of actual players, there are some testimonials.
There is a good mix of relatively new players, and players that have been playing for a while. Everyone needs to understand I teach legitimate advantage techniques. These are techniques that have literally won millions.
From this point, clearly after Ronjo's testing of the computers, I am not the "scammer" many of you have been led to believe.
Ronjo has confirmed his results on my forum, and now he only needs to confirm here. I also plan to record a phone call with Ronjo in time. So now Ronjo will learn more about my system, and eventually report on his findings about this too. Then anyone can review his findings, and decide for themselves what to believe about me and my technology, rather that believe what morons have said.
On some final notes, thanks Victor for suggesting Ronjo. Ronjo, thanks again for your time and effort with testing - you can freely verify your findings to anyone that asks, but please never answer questions about the computer's features - only confirm your findings are what they are. If anyone wants to challenge Ronjo's identity or credibility, I'm sure there are many others here that will back him up. Despite Ronjo's clear findings, I know for a fact my attackers will continue to try and discredit me. We expected that all along, because they are not interested in the truth. Everyone needs to understand they twist and manipulate information in every conceivable way. This in combination with various other factors like me having a criminal record, the occasional venting player who doesn't have a clue what they purchased, and malicious competitors and morons who exploit all this has contributed to rubbish being spread about me and my technology. Like I always advise people, if you want to know the truth, FOCUS ON WHAT COUNTS. If you want to pay attention to my favorite t-shirts and ironing boards of my tenants, you aren't going to learn much about my technology.
If anyone has any questions about all this, please contact me directly. The full thread of this challenge and the developments that led to it are at nolinks://nolinks.rouletteforum.net/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1220826187/ (nolinks://nolinks.rouletteforum.net/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1220826187/)
Hello Steve, good to see you here and good to know Ronjo is doing its part with the testing :thumbsup:
Regarding the images and links:
Once you reach 10 posts the forum will stop messing with your images and links.
We do this as a countermeasure to deter spammers as most won't have the patience to enter 10 posts before they can get a clickable link (i.e. getting search engine benefit from it).
Again, good to see you here, and as usual the best way to counter ignorance and disinformation is good ol' information so each can make their judgement; this website is open for everyone to post, feel free to post as much as you wish.
Best regards,
Victor
Not a problem, thanks.
There is one thing I don't understand about the testing. Why wasn't it done in a more scientific manner?
For example: Why didn't you guys test it like you would in a real casino?
You guys should have run about 1k trials. You should have input your prediction, then input the actual outcome, and then graphed the difference in pockets between the two.
If you could break through three standard deviations for the predicted area neighborhood of five, then you could call the testing successful. The testing that I've read about above, isn't a statistically significant sample size. It doesn't prove that your system works or doesn't work.
Just my ten cents,
Herb
Herb, the aim was not to bare-all, it was to dispel lies about it. What Ronjo did more than adequately achieved the goals of the challenge. I understand what you're saying but I have said many times I could easily release much information and videos, but at the cost of released secrets and what for? Just to see a few idiots completely red-faced. Not worth it.
Also 1,000 spins would take forever, and it doesn't take anywhere near that much to see the computer is what I claim. Ronjo checked diamond prediction accuracy over about 100 spins which is more than enough - Ronjo confirmed my claims about diamond prediction accuracy. Can you imagine what the odds are that it was all just a fluke? Over that many spins, with the diamond hit accuracy, it most certainly is statistically relevant. It's not like the spins were rigged or anything because he could begin testing from within anywhere in the dvd. It's not like the computer magically links with the dvd player to know which spin is which.
Really all Ronjo needed to do was test on the same spin, but use a different reference point every time (called "forester's different diamond test"). This is not the be-all end-all test of computers, but it dispelled many untruths about my computer, such as it not being able to deal with human errors etc, and that mobile phone computers cannot be accurate etc etc. But Ronjo did that and more. Again keep in mind this was to dispel myths - not show casinos every little thing my computers can do.
Beyond that, I'm really not interested in anything further although there are other private matters that dont need to be disclosed. There is much more to the story, such as Ronjo having spoken to one of my partners, and a few other things, but it wont be disclosed. If Ronjo felt my computer was a scam, I know he would have said this. Thing is people assume when I dont disclose something, then is must be negative. In fact it is the opposite, but again I already achieved the goals of the challenge. Do I want to obliterate the naysayers all for a bit of extra satisfaction at the cost of harming my players? No.
On a final note, I'm just waiting for ronjo to confirm for himself I'm telling the truth, then I dont want to waste more time on it. If anyone has any questions, please contact me directly.
QuoteMost people would rather see that the computer can accurately predict the correct number, rather than just the correct diamond.
I'm well aware of it, but my aim was not to impress people - only to dispel myths. This mainly involved:
1. The different diamond test, where one spin is tested repeatedly, but with different reference points. Ronjo did this over multiple spins though to confirm I didnt send him a computer rigged for one spin. He had 100 different spins to choose from and I dont know which spins he chose.
2. As if #1 wasn't enough, he also confirmed accuracy of diamond predictions, which again verified my computer deals with human clocking errors, in addition to having accurate algorithms.
Read the challenge thread on my forum, and you'll understand why these points were the focus.
Additionally, Ronjo did look at actual predictions, and he clearly stated all predictions were on the correct side of the wheel. That is the equivalent of getting 15 reds in a row. It is possible, but very unlikely. And especially unlikely to have happen in 100 spins.
Regarding the diamond hits, if the computer can predict which diamond will be hit, it stands to reason it can accurately predict where the ball will strike the rotor. Front there, the computer predicts other things, but discussion about them is not required but I will say the computer doesnt just assume the bounce is unpredictable - it considers numerous variables.
Anyway let's not make this more complicated than it should be. You have to read the challenge thread at my forum. I understand you aren't a noob, but you have to understand what the testing was all about, and the reasons for it. You say the original goal was not achieved. Again I have to say you really dont know what you're talking about. Hopefully this post clears it up. All Ronjo would have needed to do to achieve what I wanted is a 5 minute test - the different diamond test. That was achieved, and so were the goals. Plus Ronjo did additional testing despite it not even being needed.
Hi there I woundering about the other 85 spins did they come with a prediction or where they given by roulette computer as a no prediction or where they any wrong predictions given.
Cheers Lucky Strike
My take on this was that it was 15 direct hits on the numbers. If you dd this you would bet on neighbours as well so basically covering a section of the wheel. Presumably the hit rate on this section was much larger
Firstly, some of the comments and questions appear though none of you read the challenge thread at my forum. Everyone needs to understand the aims of the public challenge. To get a full understanding of what was done and why, you need to read nolinks://nolinks.rouletteforum.net/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1220826187/
1. Lucky Strike, on the other 85 spins, as explained above, the computer announced "risk" and stated which diamond was predicted to be hit. Ronjo confirmed these predictions were accurate. Again he set the computer to only give pocket predictions when a specific diamond was to be hit - this was to keep things simple. For the 15 predictions that were given, the ball landed on the correct side every time. This works out to be roughly a 1 in 10-15 exact number hit rate - probably better though. Ronjo mentioned the ball landed right next to the exact prediction 3 times, which is almost a 1 in 5 hit rate, but that's not the best way to determine accuracy. Sure it is consistent with the other diamonds too, but we only focused on one diamond to keep it simple. You have to also keep in mind this is a wheel that produces "scatter" that many others consider is impossible to predict. It is not just some easily beaten heavily tilted wheel without ball bounce. Both Barnett and Forester believe this wheel in this condition is impossible to beat, yet my computers more than just beat the wheel. I have tested both foresters and marks computers on this wheel, and results were honestly virtually completely random.
2. Bruce, Ronjo could have chosen any diamond he wanted. The wheel was semi-tilted with 4 dominant diamonds. It perfectly represented not just an average modern wheel, but one that's difficult to beat.
Rather than me explain again what happened, please read the information, especially the thread at my forum. Keep in mind the main focus of the challenge was to DISPEL MYTHS, not drop my pants and bare all with what the computer can do. Ronjo clearly achieved what I hoped he'd achieve, and more. Like I said earlier, while I could have gone-all out showing every little thing, it'd come at the price of leaked secrets, all just to embarrass a few idiots like bago. All that needed to be done is show people like bago havent the foggiest idea what they're talking about.
Boo_ray, have you done legal research with solicitors? Not to offend you, but you obviously haven't. You cannot possible broadly say "they are illegal" without referencing a particular jurisdiction. And if you are referring to VB, although I teach it, I've never much been a fan of VB and I keep saying this. Why? Because if you are going to bet after ball release, then you can do it so easily with a computer, without having to stuff around with collecting spins and manually analyzing them, adjustments for rotor speed etc etc. But hey it is everyone's personal preference. And you ask why would someone spend $7500? Because they can make this in one night just by clicking a button. No-one's forcing anyone to get a computer. I honestly do not give a rats arse about sales anymore. My aims of the challenge were to dispell myths. I always knew there would still be ignorance, but so be it. Everyone can review the information and decide for themselves.
Anyway if anyone has further questions, please first thoroughly read the challenge thread. I always knew there would be doubters, there always are. But I'll answer whatever questions any of you have, but again first do me the favor of reading the challenge thread first.
You know, the thing that gets under my skin the most is not all the attacks from boneheads like bago, it is the ignorance of the average person. I will always have attackers, and there will always be ignorant people. That's why at the start of the challenge I said I dont want to bother with trying to convince people afterwards - I just want Ronjo to validate my claims so everyone can know fact from fiction, then we can just get on with things. This is not about sales, and it's not about people calling me nasty names - it is about having the simple truth told.
Jakk, without the access codes the computer cannot be loaded anyway.
Boo_Ray, I always say the biggest problem is being covert - more specifically it is not a matter of how much you can win, but how much you can win covertly. This applies for ANY professional method, including bias analysis, VB or whatever. How much can you win with ANY professional method including a computer while realistically remaining covert? Specifically with a computer, it is much, much easier than VB or bias analysis.. do it between casinos and actually travel to remain covert, and you can easily earn a six-figure income within 12 months. But if you want to keep it small, earn $1000 here and there, and you'll stay covert while earning more than most people earn, in your spare time.
You ask who cares about the truth and dispelling myths? That is ridiculous - like saying "who cares about the truth?" Well obviously not you, but you dont speak for others. Do you want a forum clogged with lies and deceit, or would you prefer the truth? I have been subject to many lies and manipulations, so I have little doubt others would be interested in the truth, seeing as I've been the topic numerous times, and people have questioned what the truth is. If you dont care then dont bother posting on this thread. But if you want your question answered, I suggest head over to my forum and see if you can find people who closely follow the challenge, and that is only people who actually post on the thread. Realistically, there are approximately 100-200 people who follow the challenge, maybe a lot more considering my mailing list database has something like 60,000 roulette players. I'd say that's significant.
I'm not sure what you mean about chess. This is about money, not games. It is legal, it works, and it sure beats a 9-5 job. Computer users would tend to have more digits in their bank account. That's what this is about. Anyway let's not go around in circles. No-body's forcing you to use a computer. Everyone can do whatever the hell they choose at the roulette table.
Anyway again, I dont want to go in circles. With Ronjo's report, what I aimed to achieve is achieved and I dont want to waste more time on it.
Hi everyone,
Sorry I have been sick in bed again,but everything Steve says in his explanation is correct.you guys need to read his post carefully as it must be kept in mind that we only focused on one particular diamond and we are getting a 1 in 5 hit rate and it was not only the fifteen spins that has been mentioned, this pattern repeated over the 100 spins and was consistent.
Regards,
Ronjo.
Hope your feeling better Ronjo.......... :good: :good: :good:
Yo ronjo, hope ur doing good, i was just wondering that if you still have the computer on you, it would be nice if you make a video of you doing the test. that would be nice.
cheers.
yous.
Thanks Ronjo. Now you can go back to bed and hopefully we can put this issue to rest. I've actually got the flu myself but am mostly over it. I'll be in contact via email about other things soon but it'll be likely some time next week as I'll be interstate for a bit.
Yous, the main purpose of the testing was to have someone who is well known, reputable, neutral etc do testing with the primary focus to dispel myths. 99% of it is the different diamond test as described at forester's site. No video is needed - only ronjo's word because people trust him - that's why he did the testing. Yous please read the contracts you agreed to before becoming a player. The agreement clearly states even identifying yourself as a player is a contract breach. You breaches this in spectacular fashion, then I said it is fine we can forget it provided you tell the truth on forester's forum and apologize, but all you did was lie to me and refuse to correct your posts. So there was no way I could just forget that. Secrets are maintained with trust.
For so long forester said mobile phones can't deal with accurate timings, so they cannot possibly beat level wheels etc, and this was like 99% of what he said to claim I was some scammer. Forester, I thought you said you didnt want contact, and now you post here to discredit not only me, but ronjo too. You say ronjo isnt qualified to do your testing. What testing? You mean the different diamond test that anyone can do blindfolded? You mean the test that for something like 1+ year you have been telling everyone is the holy grail of tests, and it proves mobile phones are hopeless? Now that it is done, you make up new tests and say ronjo isnt qualified. Ok well how about the addition of ronjo checking diamond hit accuracy? How about him repeatedly testing and getting the same results?
Anyway I dont want to waste more time with this. Forester, remember all I am doing is defending myself. Unfortunately we cant avoid court and you want to fight for the ability to publish private material, and then you threaten me alluding to violence because my request for privacy might disrupt your site?? Think about it. Nobody wants this conflict in their life. If you put yourself in my shoes, you wouldn't permit publishing of private information either. So don't threaten me for doing what you yourself would do. As for the computer, you now know better not only from ronjo, but the two mutual computer purchasers of ours that you found out about - both of which who confirmed my computer is more accurate. There are actually others who also say this, but the ones you found out are by chance, and you now would know things you have been saying about me are untrue.
Yous, the truth is as simple as reading the emails between us and the contract. I really hate banning players but if I took a soft stance on confidentiality breaches, I'd have a lot of pissed off players.
Steve,
It would still be nice to see a real world demonstration where you show it predicting the actual number.
I'm also volunteering to test the computer and report what I find as well.
As an impartial member, I could easily put this controversy to rest by proving whether it works or not.
Regards,
Herb
Herb, thanks but one well known and trusted member is enough. All I wanted to do was dispel myths, and even the different diamond test is enough, although went further - specifically Ronjo:
1. Did the different diamond test over numerous different spins to confirm I didnt simply send him a "rigged" phone for just one spin. This test alone was all he really needed to do, but he also:
2. Tested diamond hit predictions over about 100 spins. This is similar to what barnett did with forester's computer, where he looked only at the number under the ball when "now" was called, except ronjo went one step further by looking at diamond hits. And no forester, it's not as simple as just isolating a tiny time. Barnett and forester both consider "scatter" to be everything that happens after the ball loses momentum and falls. I disagree, completely. My computers are capable of taking into account actual diamonds, parts of diamonds, and different scatter for different rotor speeds - it does a lot more before this though that other computers completely lack. The computers are worlds apart, but I wont get into that - again I only wanted to refute lies and dispel myths.
3. Observed the actual pocket predictions when the ball was predicted to hit one specific diamond - Ronjo could have chosen any diamond. He stated his direct number hit rate was approximately 1 in 5. At this hit rate he likely would have been targeting part of the diamond, not just the entire diamond.
Again he could have gotten predictions 100% of the time and for all diamonds, but he focused to just one diamond to keep things simple.
As far as I'm concerned, the computer testing is done - everyone can review the results and decide for themselves. There will be doubters, attackers etc etc but we expected that. I'm still doing a live public webcam demo in time. Again Ronjo, I'll contact you via email about other things.
Im sorry to ronjo and i meant no harm, when ever i want to ask something, people usually recommend these 3. thats why i said it, and i personally like Lucky strike the best as he is always very help ful so yea.
Yous, as was already pointed out, Ronjo was one of those ideal candidates. He has experience with VB and was not born yesterday. As for Kelly, I have asked him to do testing but he prefers to stay away. I dont blame him - he'd be attacked if he said anything positive. One person who expressed interest was cloud was GG, but he stated he was predominantly a blackjack player, not roulette, and I wanted someone who understood advantage play well.. in addition to being well known, trusted etc.
I think some of you need to understand I comparatively don't care about computer sales. It is still revenue, but not priority. Do I care about everyone seeing every little detail and irrefutable fact that proves my computers achieves the accuracy I claim? NO. I'll say it again: all I wanted to do was refute lies about it. For me it is much, much more important to maintain secrets than to create a few red faces. I mean look at forester, her flipped when ronjo reported and he attacked the report and ronjo's credibility. Why? Because what ronjo had to say made forester look bad. Forester said ronjo wasnt qualified to do the tests on his site.. hmm different diamond test and taking timings at different points in the spin, to check consistency? [SARCASM]Yeah, real hard thing to do.[/SARCASM] Anyway my point is no matter what validation of my claims I do, there will always, always be attackers. To do the different diamond test and show everyone what morons bago and forester are was incredibly simple. We already did the test that forester claims is the holy grail of tests.... the results were perfectly clear... and STILL forester attacks everything. Can you imagine what would happen if we went into more detail about the computers? Still attacks, but with greater risk of leaked information. You need to understand the people that want to harm me will attack anything conceivable about me - from t-shirts I wear to my tenants ironing board, and so much more.
Kelly is right about getting a load of scientific data - it would need to be properly lab tested with ample results and data crunching. What would the results be? That the computer, with results only pertaining to the wheel that was tested, produced statistically significant results with respect to the winning number. Woopie. But then one may still argue it could be chance, or maybe that the testing wheel was flawed... there is always an argument, and as such results will always be inconclusive if you take a hardened and unhealthy skeptical approach. It is good to be skeptical, but be reasonable. Tell you what though - pick up the computer just like ronjo did, test it until your heart's content, and you dont need lab testing to know it is effective. Look at the diamond hit predictions, the timing of beeps when the ball is predicted to fall, test and retest spins, rewind the dvd and start from a new place... do anything you want to confirm the e everything is legit. The results will be the same. Do you really need a lab coat?
Forester attacks ronjo's testing arguing diamond hits is nothing. Then what on earth was Barnett's testing of his computer? All he did was see that the prediction was close to under the ball when the computer said "now". Why did he do this? Because Barnett and Forester both believe what happens after the ball falls from the ball track is "scatter" and thus unpredictable. Uh ok, well I dont agree and I'm not going to explain it again. Forester is convinced that if his computers cant beat modern wheels, no computer can. Anyway I dont want to get into a mudslinging. Just understand my intentions were not to bare-all and give all kinds of information that would of course benefit a bunch of idiots, and casinos.. all I wanted to do was dispel very simple lies about my computers. That was easily achieved, plus more as you'll see if you care to read the full details.
Sure Boo_ray, all my audio testimonials could just be friends or paid people. Either that, or the player that stated he had won about US$100,000 must have had some major flukes, because you know how I'm a scammer and my methods dont work and all, or so they say. Not all players want to permit such information or their voice to be broadcast - in fact most expressly state they want to remain private and why? Because they don't want to threaten their income. I will clearly state what I teach is advantage play - it has and will always be about ball and wheel behavior. There is nothing voodoo about it.
In the end, I provide whatever information I provide as proof of my claims. Could all of it be somehow amazingly faked? Yes, I'm sure it could be done somehow. Whether or not this is the case is up to everyone to decide for themselves.
I would like to see some other test done. I would like to see the hybrid computer tested as well. i don't under stand if you want people to be leave your not a scammer and your computer works Steve. why not give them what they want and have the test done. any one that has a roulette computer knows it is not a big deal to do some test with it. why not clear all the bull shit and have ronjo do all the test people ask for. ether shut every body eltes up or shut up this shit has ben going on for a long time now on every forum i have Ben on. you mark and foster need to play nice.
Jaybird, like a few others, you need to read the challenge thread on my forum. The major lie to address was that my computer gave random predictions with forester's different diamond test. Again, read the thread at nolinks://nolinks.rouletteforum.net/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1220826187/
For ages forester was saying it gave random predictions. I knew he never even had the computer because of many things he said. For starters, he answered bago's question incorrectly... then panicked and started asking around for the correct answer - I knew this because players told me. And then he started spitting out rubbish that showed he most likely was simply passing on third-hand knowledge from someone else who had an equally poor understanding. But let's assume he really did find random predictions - I told him on numerous occasions the likely causes if this is what he found. Earlier versions of my computer achieved almost all predictions within roughly a 10-12 pocket arc.. which is still better than what you'd achieve with his FFZ, and forester tried telling everyone his FFZ was magical. My current versions do within about 3 pocket arc. Forester argued mobile phones are hopeless yadda yadda and they cant do accurate timings. This was the core of his argument.
So.... Ronjo did the different diamond test, and confirmed my claims. Forester doesn't know what he's talking about. Then Forester got all cranky saying Ronjo wasnt qualified to do his tests. So Bago says Ronjo must be me, and forester says Ronjo is incompetent. I mean what else can they say?? Ok, well you read forester's suggested tests to verify computer accuracy - the ones on his site. They take a few minutes to do. Plus he did it over numerous different spins to confirm the phone wasnt rigged or something.
You need to understand forester was referring to this test trying to discredit mobile phone roulette computers - he kept saying the same thing over and over for years. Ronjo doing this simple test was all he needed to do. But was it all he did? Nah. He tested over about 100 spins and on each spin checked the diamond that was predicted to be hit. He found the computer to be very accurate. He was able to start from anywhere in the dvd, rewind and re-test or whatever.
I have said over and over again, I'm not interested in bearing all just to increase the red colour of some faces. What will it all achieve? To show more to the casinos? I comparatively dont give a rats arse about sales, whether it be the hybrid or standard computers. All I wanted to do was clearly refute lies.
Thing is some may argue just because I don't want to bare-all it makes me a scammer.. I mean oooh that stefano guy must be hiding stuff 'cause he's a scammer. Actually my teams rely on maintaining secrets, and I was called scammer by clowns like forester and why? Specifically because of crap claims like my computers give random predictions, hence the focus on the different diamond test. You refer to having "the" test done. Well, "the" test was done, and more. Again he tested over 100 spins, the diamond hits... not just the limited test Barnett did with Forester's FFA (by looking at when "now" was announced). You need to understand Barnett's testing was done with assumptions that everything that happens after the ball falls from the ball track is "unpredictable scatter". It is nonsense. Ronjo's tests went a few steps further, including predictions for which diamond was hit. And from there, you know the ball behavior much, much better. Sure Barnett said FFA was "deadly accurate"... but it was without consideration to what happens after the ball will fall. What good is that? A computer that is accurate, oh unless you consider the ball falling. You could do this test with my computer too and get much the same results, but my computer works quite differently. A few examples: forester's computer assumes the wheel is perfect, and that there are no diamonds at all, oh and that the ball deceleration rate stays the same, oh yes and that the ball bounces the same with different rotor speeds. My computer deals with all of this. They are absolutely world's apart, I have invested a copious amount of time, money and resources to develop technology that is by far superior. I do this for a living, to manage teams of professional players - sales are a supplement only. It is not a hobby like it is to forester. Numerous technicians, mathematicians and developers, including some external companies and others have contributed to my computers, and they are everything I claim they are. I am very proud of what they have become, so you can understand why I get pissed off when some moron with a little hobby zapper calls me the "scammer". According to forester, whatever he has at the time is best, and all others are scammers. Yeah well even once he tried telling everyone that electric zaps were better than audio predictions...until he took the big step up of audio predictions with FFA. Eventually he will scrap his computer on microcontrollers and understand why I abandoned development on them, meanwhile he claims I dont have resources to build a cheap little microcontroller device. Forester also tried saying automated roulette computers like the hybrid where no-one even needs to look at the wheel are a silly idea. Why? Because his zapper is best and everyone else is a scammer. Anyway Ronjo set the computer to give predictions when the ball hit a nominated diamond, and got a 1 in 5 hit rate which was consistent throughout his tests. Read his post.
Ronjo did "the" testing, he is well known to not be me. He is a fair and honest person. He found that I have been telling the truth. He reported this. Case closed. If he achieved such accuracy with a standard computer, do you think the accuracy will be better or worse with the hybrid? So why do I need to have the hybrid tested? Now consider I'm not interested in releasing secrets that may affect my players. Anyway, anyone can think whatever they want. Past this point, I don't care.