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.

-