Learn the techniques professionals use to beat roulette consistently. The most complete professional roulette strategy course including visual ballistics, bias analysis & much more. Submit your name & email for a free evaluation copy and more info (your email is kept private & you can remove yourself anytime):
just to keep everyone informed. Lanky and Iwonder are just concerned that tests being done with my computer and with my dvds may be subject to my influence, and that any results may not be "independent". It's a fair call. However I've emailed them a list of suggestions to verify the phones are not "rigged".
The bottom line lanky is I know my computers are legit, you and Iwonder dont yet. I have absolutely nothing to hide and am somewhat naked in sending phones to you both for whatever tests you want - test it until the keys wear down for all I care. Because my claims are accurate, any testing you do will validate my claims. The question is now what testing can be considered "fully independent", and this is addressed in the email I just sent.
The computer can predict which diamond will be hit, and which third of the diamond (top, middle or bottom) will be hit.
I mean rly what world do you live in? I highly doubt that any roulette computer can predict this. Since the ball does not drop at a constant speed.
Quoted Text
The ball is going to hit the rotor when the ball reaches a certain speed. Does it really happen like that? No. You need to take into account mild drop zones, and ball-diamond interaction.
Steve... First you claim that you can predict, which diamond it can hit, then you say that ball don't drop in to rotor at the same speed. These claims are against eachother.
What average hit ratio can i expect on the computer? When will the demonstration video be done? What is status on the huxley?
I mean rly what world do you live in? I highly doubt that any roulette computer can predict this. Since the ball does not drop at a constant speed.
I live on Earth. You dont have the computer so it is easy to criticize what you dont know. If I thought for a second that Lanky and Iwonder couldnt verify this, I wouldnt include it in the list of claims for them to investigate. My players know it is true, and anyone that actually tests the computer will know. It may not be correct 100% of the time because there are other factors such as slight timing errors, ball track deformations etc, but it is correct about 90% of the time with regards to which diamond will be hit, and which part of the diamond will be hit. Accuracy to within 1/3rd of a diamond may not be possible with all wheels, but even on the most modern wheels it is correct to within 1 diamond on clearly the majority of occasions.
Skeptical? How about we let people that actually have the computer decide if it's true.
You said:
Quoted Text
First you claim that you can predict, which diamond it can hit, then you say that ball don't drop in to rotor at the same speed. These claims are against eachother.
Vincent you obviously dont understand how the computer works, or the physics of the wheel. True the ball does not fall at the same speed every time. Sometimes it will miss all diamonds, sometimes clip a horizontal diamond, sometimes a vertical diamond, and different parts of the diamonds can be hit with different effects. So correct the ball doesnt hit the rotor at the same speed every time.
My statement was "Mark's computers and forester's IQE6 all assume the ball is going to hit the rotor when the ball reaches a certain speed. Does it really happen like that? No. You need to take into account mild drop zones, and ball-diamond interaction.". I'll elaborate. Mark's and Forester's computer assume that when the ball is CALCULATED to reach a certain speed (not necessarily when it actually reaches that speed), let's say at point A on the wheel, that the ball is going to strike the rotor at that point. Is that how it really happens? NO. That was my point. My computers have the capability to know not only which diamond will be hit, but if the ball will miss a diamond, hit a horizontal diamond, hit a vertical diamond, and if hitting a vertical diamond, it can determine which part of the diamond will be hit within a reasonable degree of accuracy. How accurately? It varies between wheels, but usually between 1/3rd of the diamond on older wheels, to 1 diamond on the most modern wheel. Why only 1 diamond on modern wheels? Because the diamonds are usually smaller (often 1/3rd of the size) and it's a smaller area to target.
Additionally, both Mark's and Forester's computers assume the wheel rotor is going the same speed when doing a scatter analysis. None of Forester's computer really does a scatter analysis though - it is more like you create the chart on a piece of paper then determine the offset to tune. But that "manual analysis" is still assuming the wheel is the same speed every time. I am not referring to rotor strike point in this case, I am referring to the ball behavior and bounce and the differences between different wheel speed. Did you know on some wheels even a 500MS wheel speed difference can mean the ball bounces an extra 12 or so pockets? As for Mark's computer, his earlier computer has in-built scatter analysis (his recent ones dont), but it does the same thing wrong as forester's "manual analysis" - it assumes the ball bounces the same way each time. Sure such a basic scatter chart is good enough for some wheels, but on other wheels accuracy is seriously degraded.This is all assuming the rotor strike point is correctly predicted, in marks case it is way off for many reasons. If you were interested in playing for a living, I know I'd prefer to use technology that did the job right. Both of their computers have major problems, but I'm not interested in giving them full details of the problems and how to overcome them. Truth is neither Forester or Mark have the vaguest idea of how sophisticated some of my technology is, and I don't just mean my standard computer or even the hybrid for that matter. But specifically comparing my most basic computer to their most sophisticated computers, they are worlds apart. Where their computers get random results, as Barnett found with Forester's computer, my basic computer can achieve hit rates of even 1 in 15. I cant help but get the feeling that mark and forester are following this thread closely, and I'm sure they are, wondering how on earth my claims could be true - especially forester thinks he knows everything, and that if he cant do it then no-one can. He has changed his mind about so much as he continued to develop his computers. At least mark uses polynomials but his use of them is completely wrong. According to forester, everything he does and everything he developed is the "best" like it is a competition about having the biggest penis. At least it is the best, and mine is the worst, until he changes his computers to more closely resemble mine.
My claims are not against each other. You just didnt understand. Feel free to be a monkey on my back - I have bananas for you.
You said:
Quoted Text
What average hit ratio can i expect on the computer? When will the demonstration video be done? What is status on the huxley?
Hit rates will vary from 1 in 10 to 1 in 25 depending on the wheel and settings.
I'm waiting to hear back from Huxley regarding the mk7 wheel.
Vincent I am not going to ban you for asking questions or asking me to address specific points. If I banned people for something like that, I'd be banning quite a few people. Just because I moderate doesnt mean I'll abuse it.
Thanks for all the information, and what appear to be very frank and honest answers. To me, what you do is provide education. It's no different than any other walk of life, really. We commonly pay (very well, I might add) for a good, and sometimes not so good, education. I have 2 kids in college and another starting next year and it's costing me $100's of thousands of dollars. And, for what? So they can say they went to x university. No question the universities have done a phenomenal job at marketing their product.
That all said, perhaps I may be able to use one of your systems to recoop some of my cash going to these universities. I am most interested in a consistent system that will allow me to make a significant income and be able to "fly below the radar".
I am eager to hear the results of all this testing ....
Wally, with either the system or the computers, they are just tools - nothing more. They are effective only in the hands of someone that knows how to use them. To people that dont know any better, I MUST be some kind of scammer because they believe roulette is not beatable, and they think if it works I wouldnt be selling it. But to those that DO know better, even just part of what I teach is well known to be effective and it's really no big deal. Indeed a large part of what I offer is plain knowledge/education, which is still a tool.
After years of false accusations of being dishonest from competitors and people that have no idea what they're talking about, I cant be anything but 'frank' with my responses. I'm extremely tired of ignorant people. There are many examples of ignorance I can use but one is people believe if the system really worked, I would just use it myself and never sell it, so I MUST be a scammer. The truth is very simple - I have much better technology than the system and have no need for the system anymore. But that doesn't mean I'll let it sit unused. Of course I'll sell it for additional revenue.
Wally, this is a little off-track but anyway: my thoughts on the education system are varied. Of course you need to give your kids the widest range of options possible, which includes the most "recognized" universities etc. My two are too young for school, and while I intend to do the same for them (so they have more available options), my feelings about the entire "education system" are mixed. School teaches them invaluable skills ranging from basic social skills to knowledge for life. A good education is knowledge that is used throughout life - you can never get enough knowledge. But I feel the "education system" is not all about knowledge - there is too much focus on getting qualifications to get a job, then you spend 50 or so years of your life working 5 days a week, 9am-5pm, too tired to enjoy life at 6pm when you return from work through peak hour traffic, plus the tax man steals half of what you earn to do things like fight wars you dont agree with, all for a bit of time on the weekend with your family. To me that sounds crazy and unacceptable, but everyone is different. To me the "education system" is like a railroad to "subtle slavery". I refuse to believe "thats just how it is" as most people tend to believe - life is EXACTLY we make of it. Nature already gave us everything we need - we as a species seem to have changed our environment to suit us, rather than fit in with nature. In doing so we are destroying the planet and making our own lives hell. I dont mean we all should run around with spears chasing rabbits - i mean we need a blend of technology and nature. We're getting there, but perhaps too slowly. Absolutely unequivocally BALANCE always, always occurs. The balance that will eventually occur, if we dont balance it ourselves, is our planet will become far less hospitable, whic may very well cause deaths of millions, which would actually benefit earth the way people treat it - that is the balance. Again I don't mean I wont send my kids to the best school possible. Just that I want to make them aware of all options.
After high school I did one month of applied physics at RMIT, because I wanted to learn physics. I quit for two reasons - firstly what I wanted to learn was not being taught by "modern physics" (I was after new knowledge), and secondly I didnt want a "career", I wanted a life. For some people, career is life, and acknowledged that everyone is different. Anyway just some of my idle thoughts..
My wife said it brilliantly once. We were walking in a park and looking at ducks. I said to my wife "imagine being a duck. All you'd do is eat, sleep, crap and ****. ". In retrospect, it was a stupid comment. My wife replied, "that's pretty much what we do, except we're the ones stupid enough to work in between..."
Hi Lanky, no problem at all. Sincerely sorry to hear about your health and hope all works out ok.
Iwonder, we are still ok to proceed with you if you are happy to do so.
Either way, can either of you suggest someone else that may be suitable? They need to be "normal" people, well known and trusted on forums (essential), trustworthy, and have at least moderate knowledge of roulette. I'll email Victor from VLS to see if he's interested but any suggestions are appreciated.
Best Regards,
Steve | Management Roulette Wheel Analysis Group ACN 090 739 754 Skype: rouletteanalysis Ph. +61 3 9727 2211 (Australia, +10 GMT, 9am-5pm) Calls from the public must be on Thursdays. Calls from players can be other days, but must be scheduled via email to guarantee availability of consultants.
If anyone is interested in replacing Lanky, please email me (nospam AT genuinewinner.com).
The ideal candidate:
1. Well known and trusted on forums (no point in being someone whois not well known) 2. Adequate time and will to test things, and visit me in person (I'll pay expenses etc). The person needs to be 100% willing. 3. Trustworthy - I'm going to teach you secrets which will help validate my claims, and you need to keep them to yourself. 4. At least moderate knowledge of roulette - you should be at least familiar the basics of typical advantage techniques.
For those who just found this thread or received the email about the challenge, Lanky and Iwonder are well known on various forums, not just this forum. They are best known on VLS roulette forum.
Your wife is a brilliant woman !!! Right on point. What's obvious to some is shunned by most.
As for school, having been to graduate and post-graduate school more than once, I now live by the following observation by one of America's foremost business philosophers, Jim Rohn:
"Formal education will make you a living, self-education can make you a fortune".
I made a living for too many years. While I no longer 'work for the man' I am still searching for that self-education to make a fortune.
I think for most playing roulette on a consistent basis to earn a living would be viewed as something that would need to be held almost as a 'secret' in their life. Do you find that to be the case with your players?
I ask because, living about an hour or so from 2 very large land based casinos in the US, I would think anyone would like to be able to do that, but could never tell their family and friends as they would be ridiculed. Although, I must say, it's very appealing. With that in mind, what is the training process in your system-based program? How long does it take to get familiar enough so that you begin making money on a consistent basis? Do you have players who literally learn the materials, record spins, talk to you and begin making money right away and continue to do so for prolonged periods of time .... say years? How long has the longest player been consistently making money with you and your system? (I am referring to non-computer systems ... I can't use the computer in the US)
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Logged
