Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Genuine winner roulette system and computers
Forum Login
Login Name: Create a new account
Password:     Forgot password

Roulette Forum | www.RouletteForum.net    Main Message Boards    Roulette Challenges  ›  Genuine winner roulette system and computers Moderators: Administrator Group
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 1 Guests

Genuine winner roulette system and computers  This thread currently has 159,324 views. Print
37 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... » All Recommend Thread
Vincent
November 4, 2008, 5:39am Report to Moderator
Guest User
Steve, can i test your genuinewinner?
Logged
E-mail Reply: 75 - 551
Roulette physics system Roulette computer devices
digf
November 4, 2008, 8:14am Report to Moderator
Guest User
Hello Vincent

In response to your post of 31 Oct      [How would i know that you and your friends does not lie?
You can easily fake the whole thing.]

I have never had any dealings with Steve hoo-hoo or Iwonder, but I have met Lanky and his lovely wife Nancy in Nov 2007 at Sydney.
I first communicated with him a couple of years ago after reading his posts on the forum and after a little while we began to telephone one another. I live in England.
I quickly came to realise that he is a very good, honest and helpful man who will do his best to help anyone who needs it but he certainly won't be taken for a fool and he is the straightest bloke you could wish to meet.

When I met him and Nancy I very quickly knew that the opinion that I had formed about him over the previous few months was correct. At one point during our meeting I needed to go to the toilet but I didn't have any hesitation in leaving my rucksack which contained among other things, my passport, a few hundred Aussie Dollars and my return plane tickets to Adelaide and England, with him. I was on a holiday in Adelaide at the time.
That is the level of trust that I would put in him.

Whatever he says about the device being tested will be results and facts that he has seen during the trial.
Steve hoo-hoo is the one taking the risk because I know that Lanky will report, good or bad on the result.

digf
Logged
E-mail Reply: 76 - 551
Wally Gator
November 5, 2008, 4:05am Report to Moderator
Still in Diapers
Posts: 26
Hi Steve,

I'm new here, but have spent a good deal of time reviewing your website and the like.  Have also read all the negative hype about you.  As far as I can tell, it seems like a bunch of personal crap that has no bearing on anything really.  My question is this.  Becasue I'm from the US and play here, your computerized system does me no good, unless I travel to, say, Europe.  So, while the testing will provide you with great credibility for those who can use the cheating computer system, how about a means to test your other systems that supposedly work elsewhere, like here in the US?

Is there someone on the forum who has your system and plays it in a real casino in the US?  And, could you arrange for some of us to watch an hour or so of play?  I think it could provide you with a tremendous sales tool through this forum, especially for US players.

I specifically ask because when I watched your video with the streak of losses and then the comeback, I was wondering just how often that occurs.  If it constantly wins and loses like a rollercoaster then the only way to win in the long term would be by increasing your bet size or doing some sort of progression.   Even some of the testimonials talk about having alot of patience.   This indicates that the player is continually making comebacks or waiting for the right time or sequence to bet.

Anyway, since this thread was about testing and proving things, I thought I'd throw the idea out to you.

Regards, Gator
Logged Offline
Reply: 77 - 551
jd1963
November 5, 2008, 6:09am Report to Moderator
Guest User
Steve,

I live in the UK, and as far as I'm aware electronic devices are also illegal here, so the computer is not really an option for me either.  Funnily enough, I was about to suggest something very similar to what Wally Gator has posted. Do you have many players of your system in the UK? and would it be possible to meet some of them?
Logged
E-mail Reply: 78 - 551
fredytedy
November 5, 2008, 7:08am Report to Moderator

The luck is with the stupid ones!
New Member
Posts: 135
Likewise as above , i`m also from, the Uk and would it be possible to meet some of them?
TKxs ft
Logged Offline
AIM YIM Windows Live Messenger Skype Reply: 79 - 551
Steve
November 5, 2008, 8:34am Report to Moderator

Administrator Group
Posts: 2,668
Vincent, Lanky and Iwonder will already see enough of my methods to know whether or not they are legitimate, or a scam.

Digf and Lanky, thankyou for verifying various points.

Wally Gator, yes what is written about me is a lot of personal crap, because if people that wanted to discredit me actually focused on my technology, they would either be blatantly lying about things, or accidentally validating the techniques as effective. There are many examples, but Forester goes on and on about how I'm a fraud, then says visual ballistics is legitimate. VB is only part of what I teach, and there are many different ways to apply it. I intend to teach VB to both Lanky and Iwonder, among numerous other legitimate techniques I teach. It appears that to people like forester, such legitimate techniques are only legitimate when taught by someone else that doesnt sell computers. Mark howe is the same - goes on about how I'm a fraud etc, then says visual ballistics and bias analysis are legitimate methods, although I teach them too, and they are only a small part of what I teach overall.

Wally, you said:

Quoted Text
while the testing will provide you with great credibility for those who can use the cheating computer system, how about a means to test your other systems that supposedly work elsewhere, like here in the US?


Really it's not "cheating" - you are using predictive technology. Cheating is influencing outcomes. The computer is only part of what is being tested. Originally I did not intend to just send the computers to Iwonder and Lanky, but since someone claimed my wheel is an old design and it would make winning easy, we decided to wait until I receive a John Huxley Mk 7 wheel, which is Huxley's current model. And due to the delay, I just sent a computer to Lanky (and Iwonder today) so they can at the very least get the ball rolling. At the very least, all they need to do is a quick test to validate my claims about the 6 and 3 pocket arc - it exposes over 90% of the lies about my computer, and leaves Forester, Mark Howe and our poor friend Bago quite red-faced.

My non-electronic methods will be addressed too, but validating my claims about them is a little more tricky. That's because while the computers are far more effective and the proof of their effectiveness can be done quickly, the effectiveness of a system takes much longer. Realistically we'd need thousands of spins, and that would take days. A few things to consider about the system validation:

Any system can end up with a profit after even 2000+ spins. Does it mean the system is legitimately effective? No. Many players on various forums have tested systems on programs like roulette xtreme and produced profits over tens of thousands of spins. But extensive testing shows the methods eventually crash, usually in spectacular fashion, due to betting progression. My point is an actual test of the system does not prove much - it is only part of a picture. Even playing a biased wheel often produces a loss over 2000+ spins, although if the bias is legitimate, losses are made back over larger amounts of spins. Does the temporary loss make wheel bias an illegitimate method? Of course not, but to someone that doesnt know any better, wheel bias may seem like an illegitimate way to win. My point is a test on a real wheel, successful of not, does not actually prove much. To many people, it would seem like an ideal test but it is not.

Actual tests on a real wheel are practical and an effective demonstration for roulette computers, but not for non-electronic systems. So what I'll do is explain and demonstrate many of the working principles of the methods I teach. From just explaining various elements of my system alone, they both should know they are legitimate methods, but I'll demonstrate the actual principles too - of course not all, just enough for them to have reasonable information to ascertain whether or not my methods are the real thing, or if I'm the scammer many people have been led to believe. Exactly what I'll show them with regards to the system is not yet decided, but I'll at least cover traditional advantage techniques, and the basics of the first 3 patterns of custom variants as they are the least sensitive, although alone they should be more than sufficient to validate my claims.

I'll also show them both the hybrid roulette computer (http://www.hybridroulettecomputer.com) which may not be necessary, but a lot of people have said it probably doesnt exist, and it's just a scam to increase sales of my other products. For example, Mark Howe claimed that he and a "newspaper" offered me $1M to prove it exists, which is completely a false claim as explained at http://www.genuinewinner.com/markhowe.htm - I've agreed to the challenge many times but Mark ignores it, and refuses to state the name of the newspaper that he claims wants to pay me $1m... for a single story. Yes it's a stupid claim, but for Mark Howe, it's just one of many ludicrous claims - really the man has serious problems and literally appears to be sick.

Wally, every legitimate winning system can and does have losing streaks. There is no way to avoid it. Sure you can use progression, but then you run the risk of blowing your bankroll if the losing streak continues. I've seen losing streaks even continue on biased wheels, but losses are recovered eventually. Generally yes, you need a lot of patience for wheel analysis methods, which is largely why many players dont succeed. But patience and hard work is well rewarded usually with an income far greater than standard employment, plus you dont deal with the thieving tax man in most cases. I do teach quicker methods that enable profitable play within a few spins, and accuracy gradually increases, but such methods require more skill and thorough understanding - it is fine for the serious player, but usually too much for the casual player. If you want quick AND easy, the computers are more what you want, but even they are not perfect because while you can beat any wheel design, not always are conditions suitable (ie if no more bets is called too early).

I've never found a "holy grail" - only legitimate methods that are both effective and practical on most wheels. One method may be completely impractical for one wheel, but perfect for another. This is why I teach many legitimate methods, not just a singular method as some people have been led to believe. In my experience, even without electronics, there is almost always one way or another to beat any wheel. But a wheel being beatable and being practical to beat are two different things. MOST wheels are both possible and practical to beat - even the newer designs, although of course you dont focus efforts where application is less effective. Can you lose with the methods I teach? Yes of course. Even with correct application, you can lose over a few days or even a week, but continued correct application will almost definitely lead to recovered losses. Non-electronic methods to beat roulette, especially wheel analysis methods, are realistically long term - nothing in this field really happens over hundreds of spins. Often an edge is not fully realized until 2000+ spins are played. Of course it's not always like this. The average play can confidently profit after 1000 or so spins, but there are rare occasions where even more spins are required to overcome losing streaks. The casino achieves an edge from ordinary players very slowly, and that's how professional players turn the edge in their favor. Because many people have trouble coping with the required patience, they dont succeed, but it doesnt mean the methods dont work. I'll clearly state my techniques are not for everyone. For some people they're easy to understand and logical. But some players never seem to fully understand what they are doing, or what they've purchased. Usually they are players that dont speak english well. One Spanish player "Addonai" lost over 10,000 Euros which I only found out about a week or so ago, although he's been a banned player for a long time. Before I deleted his wheel analysis software account, I tested his spins and found clear profit so he clearly had no idea what he was doing. I had to fight to get him on the phone to give support, when it should be the other way around. Addonai was banned fro contract breach, and he breached the contracts because he was frustrated. All my documentation clearly states never to apply the methods without first thoroughly testing, so you know application is correct and effective. Did Addonai do this? No, he went out and lost 10,000 Euros. That to me shows a very clear gambling problem - it is not professional play. Who does Addonai blame for this? Me of course, not himself. It is just easier to blame the provider of the tools than to blame himself for incorrect application. In the end I have no idea what Addonai did to lose that much money - but this moron has been attacking me on forums and blaming me for his own mistakes. As for other players, many regularly earn tens of thousands of dollars and more per week. It is not as uncommon as you think. As I have said many times, I have over 500 system and computer players, and there are an enormous range of situations players are in - ranging from literally becoming millionaires, to losing 10,000 Euros and blaming me. Unfortunately for my credibility though, winners dont brag about it on forums. But losers blame me and post rubbish based on their own mistakes and misunderstandings. This creates the illusion that my methods dont work and that I've scammed a few people. Then you have people like Bago who is probably the least trustworthy person i've ever dealt with - basically a child who refused to accept my call (because he didnt speak english well enough) when I only wanted to give him support and correct his misunderstandings of my computer's features. It was very basic things like advice not to use PC dvd players because they are notorious for skipping, but he didnt want to accept that. All this on top of rubbish spread by competitors has led to me having a bad reputation, but I trust soon the very simple truth will be known soon.

Regarding the UK and computer legalities, before the Ritz incident (NOT a "scam" like the papers call it), it was legal. Then it became illegal, and since last years September gaming deregulation, they are legal again. Dont take my word for it though - I suggest all players do their own legal research. That way you have it in writing, and this is your insurance policy. So many people believe computers are illegal, but in actual fact they are mostly legal. There are only a handful of jurisdictions where application is expressly "illegal", which include Australia & USA. Gaming laws are usually state by state, not national, but my solicitors have covered most major states in the USA and found application is illegal. On this note, some have claimed I dont really have solicitors which to me sounds like a claim from someone that has never encountered significant wealth, so I'll specify my solicitor who did this particular research is Lynda Slavinskis, who I hired because she previously worked for Tattersalls which is a major gaming organization in Australia. Anyway perhaps I shouldnt cover all the rubbish claims that aren't really relevant otherwise issues that matter most may be clouded. So starting with the computers, I'll prepare a simple list of the most relevant false claims about the computer for Lanky and Iwonder to investigate. The most important one is about the 6 and 3 pocket sectors.

Regarding meeting UK players, if you were them, would you agree to meet complete strangers and tell them how you covertly win in casinos? If you are actually another player, then that would be fine and many players meet up often for many reasons - usually to either form teams, or just collaborate on which casinos are best, which casinos should be avoided etc. If you want to speak to players without being an actual player, then you need to compensate them for their time which is perfectly reasonable - see http://www.genuinewinner.com/speaktoplayers.htm
Logged
Site Reply: 80 - 551
jd1963
November 6, 2008, 3:04am Report to Moderator
Guest User
Hi Steve,

I understand your observations regarding losers posting on forums and winners keeping quiet, and I'm not trying to get "on your case" here, but there are a couple of points in your last post (and on your website) which are bothering me, hopefully you'll be able to address them.

As indicated in my previous post, I'm primarily interested in your non-electronic methods (although I didn't realise that computers are not illegal in the UK, so I may reconsider this) and it seems to me that there is an inconsistency here:

You said -
Quoted Text
My non-electronic methods will be addressed too, but validating my claims about them is a little more tricky. That's because while the computers are far more effective and the proof of their effectiveness can be done quickly, the effectiveness of a system takes much longer. Realistically we'd need thousands of spins, and that would take days.


But on your web site you state that the most effective methods require collecting between 300 - 600 spins, this is a lot more than the "thousands of spins" you mention. It's true you mention on the system home page that "more assured" methods require 300 - 3000 spins, but these numbers are only mentioned once, on the FAQ page and elsewhere it's 300 - 600 spins, please can you clarify this?

Also, in FAQ 57:

Quoted Text
Assuming you want to use the most effective method, start by collecting 300-600 spins. While you collect these spins, you can apply one of the quicker methods so you profit while you collect spins.


But surely, if you can profit from some other method while collecting spins for the most effective method, why bother to collect those spins in the first place?  the quicker method may not be as profitable, but couldn't you just increase your stakes and thereby get a greater return?

One of the difficulties (as far as I'm concerned), is that there are so many different techniques used in your system, this may be necessary in order that 95% of wheels can be beaten (your figure), but it would be helpful if you were to say what proportion of wheels on average require application of which technique. For example, you mention that VB and dealer signature are both incorporated into your analyses, but VB requires a lot of practice, plus you need to see the wheel and be able to bet late (in the FAQ you say that in general, it is not necessary to have a good view of the wheel) . I'm no expert, but isn't it the case that VB requires a certain amount of bias? but you say a biased wheel is not necessary, or is this only for using the custom variants?

In FAQ 45 you say that you previously analyzed all spins for players, but that this took too much time and so now you provide the software, but elsewhere you say that users of the software can only use 2 of the nine patterns that are available. Doesn't this severely limit the effectiveness of the system? particularly as you say that casinos are already aware of these 2 patterns and monitor their wheels...
I'm not clear as to what you are actually doing at this time. You have a page for players to submit spins so you must still be analyzing them, but then, you say that you now have more than 500 players, and 400 players was the limit of your support...

Again, I'm not trying to catch you out here, I'm seriously considering purchasing one of your products, but I want to get as clear and complete a picture as I can before committing myself, after all, the initial purchase price is a relatively minor factor here.
Logged
E-mail Reply: 81 - 551
Steve
November 6, 2008, 9:08am Report to Moderator

Administrator Group
Posts: 2,668
JD1963, you said:

Quoted Text
But on your web site you state that the most effective methods require collecting between 300 - 600 spins, this is a lot more than the "thousands of spins" you mention. It's true you mention on the system home page that "more assured" methods require 300 - 3000 spins, but these numbers are only mentioned once, on the FAQ page and elsewhere it's 300 - 600 spins, please can you clarify this?


Yes I was going to elaborate on that. Good question. Generally the more spins that are analyzed the better. The absolute minimum should be considered 300 spins per direction. This usually allows me to get a reasonable overall picture of patterns. It is not enough for all pattern types though. If a player sends me 300 spins and I see numerous pattern types, I will usually need extra spins to verify the patterns. Why? Because patterns may be coincidental - there is always that chance. So by analyzing extra spins, this reduces the chance that patterns are mere coincidence. So before at least a basic CV is generated, I need two completely independent sets of data to compare. With smaller amounts of spins, usually it is only possible to generate a reliable enough CV that has only 2 or so patterns. With more spins, finding other pattern types is much easier. Also factors like segregation play an important part. For example, if the player separates spin directions, then I may need only half the amount of spins for the same reliability of analysis.

Usually if a player sends me X amount of spins, the first thing I do is split them in half to check for consistency in patterns between them. Sometimes X is 100 (too few but I still look at them), and sometimes it is 2000+. Not every play has a team and the time to collect thousands of spins which are required for a full analysis. Most players stick to 300 spins, so I split into two segments of 150 spins. 150 spins is adequate for at least 1 pattern type. If patterns are consistent between 150 spins, then a CV can be issued but it is usually better to send more spins so I can verify patterns are authentic. If the player wants to send 2000+ spins that's good, but it doesnt guarantee other patterns will be found - at the very least though it enables a better understanding of previously found patterns. More specifically, always, always the patterns are there, but sometimes they are just too weak to define and if they cant be defined, they cant be used. But sometimes I will see the patterns, but they come and go with irregular cycles and it is too difficult to know when the cycle will start or end. Essentially any of the chart types only tell you what "was", not what is going to be. You use history to predict the future, but you can never do it with 100% accuracy, although you only need enough accuracy to overcome the house edge.

To explain a typical scenario: a player sends 300 spins. I find at least 1 pattern type and inform the player. I will usually request an additional 300 spins to check for consistency, and if there is consistency, a custom variant (CV) with at least one pattern type can be issued. Such CVs will usually have patterns that change, but the pattern types will remain consistent. So I may recommend that before play each day, the player collects 100 spins to use in the online software (or do manual calculations) to make adjustments for pattern changes. Pattern types and actual patterns are two different things. You can use 300 spins to find pattern types, and once the pattern type is known, you can use only 100 spins before play each day to see how actual patterns have changed - this allows optimal accuracy. By teaching players about pattern 1 and what to look for, they will be better prepared for changes that happen with other pattern types. If they dont do this before progressing to other pattern types, they'll be too confused as the charts between pattern 1, and pattern 4+ are like the difference between 2D and 3D. I know many players want to go straight to 9 patterns, but it is not advisable. While CVs are charts that say when and where to bet, they often require adjustment on a day to day basis - the adjustments are very simple once you know what you are doing, but if you dont, then you may be predicting the wrong sectors instead of the correct sectors - this means what should be a strong positive edge goes to a strong negative edge. There are similar issues with traditional advantage techniques like visual ballistics, where betting the wrong sector actually gives you a lower edge than you would have with random bet selection,

Regarding the quicker methods, typically they are not as effective, but it depends on which one you mean. There are a few of them. Some of them are overall better than custom variants - for example visual ballistics, but for this you need a lot of practise and skill, plus not always is no more bets called late enough for such a technique to be viable. Visual ballistics can form part of custom variants - this is what I call format 3 spins.

You said:

Quoted Text
One of the difficulties (as far as I'm concerned), is that there are so many different techniques used in your system, this may be necessary in order that 95% of wheels can be beaten (your figure), but it would be helpful if you were to say what proportion of wheels on average require application of which technique. For example, you mention that VB and dealer signature are both incorporated into your analyses, but VB requires a lot of practice, plus you need to see the wheel and be able to bet late (in the FAQ you say that in general, it is not necessary to have a good view of the wheel) . I'm no expert, but isn't it the case that VB requires a certain amount of bias? but you say a biased wheel is not necessary, or is this only for using the custom variants?


You are referring to different methods. They all have different requirements. In the FAQs on my site, people want clear answers so that's what I try and give them. But in reality, different techniques have different requirements. For example, yes visual ballistics requires a certain degree of 'tilt' to be practical. Indeed application is possible on perfectly level wheels, but it is quite a bit harder - you can learn application, but it is better to simply seek easier to beat wheels. Some players just attempt application on the first wheel they find which is not how it should be done - I always say it all starts with wheel selection. Also to address your comment, yes VB of course needs you to look at the wheel. But CVs dont always use VB (format 3). With the typical CVs, you dont NEED to look at the wheel, unless you segregate which means something like accepting only spins where the wheel is significantly slower - you need to see that, and place your bets after ball release even if no more bets is called way too early (too early for normal visual ballistics). Correct that biased wheels are not necessary, but if a bias is found, the analysis contributes to the CV.

I think what many people get confused about is what CVs actually are. To put it simply, it is nothing more than a method that is a combination of every possible and/or practical method for any given wheel. Do not assume they are anything mystical. If I explain patterns to people, it is usually just patterns 1,2 and 3 because they are least sensitive, it is very clear the methods are legitimate. Pattern 1 does not rely on any form of bias, but patterns are stronger if the ball has a drop zone (tilted) - many things can increase pattern strength for pattern 1. As for patterns 2, it is wheel bias. Pattern 3 is a form of bias that casino software completely misses, so it is far more common than pattern 2. How many wheels are actually biased? Every wheel has some degree of bias, and whatever it is, it is incorporated into the CV. To determine a reasonable bias, if it's something like a half wheel bias due to wheel wobble, you need about 400 spins to detect it, and another 400 to confirm it, minimum. For smaller sectors, you need a lot more spins to validate the bias. For pattern 3 bias, you need realistically thousands of spins because it is a cycle that repeats.

As for patterns 4-9, I dont release details on them but they have nothing in the slightest to do with any form of bias. They have to do with the design of the actual wheel. For example, if a wheel has 12 diamonds, they are manifested in the patterns found. There is nothing at all mystical about them - it is basic science, albeit a field of science that is less prominent.

You said:

Quoted Text
n FAQ 45 you say that you previously analyzed all spins for players, but that this took too much time and so now you provide the software, but elsewhere you say that users of the software can only use 2 of the nine patterns that are available. Doesn't this severely limit the effectiveness of the system? particularly as you say that casinos are already aware of these 2 patterns and monitor their wheels... I'm not clear as to what you are actually doing at this time. You have a page for players to submit spins so you must still be analyzing them, but then, you say that you now have more than 500 players, and 400 players was the limit of your support...


Players do not immediately receive software access. After a month or so and a chat or so with me on the phone to get to know each other, I give them initial software access which covers part of 2 pattern types - it is a basic analysis. When they become better known and trusted, they access other parts of the software. There are more than 1 programs players can access - the online software is independent of software that analysis all 9 pattern types - very few players have it. But many players have the basic software which is accessibly online. Over time more of the pattern types are being added to the online software, but not all players will access it, at least not until they become more established and trusted. Players almost never go from being a new player to receiving full 9-pattern Cvs. This is to protect secrets, but also not always spins sent for analysis are adequate to develop full CVs. I can almost always develop 2 pattern CVs, but 9 patterns is far more involved.

I hope that answers your questions. Let me know if you need elaboration or if anything was missed.

PS - I'll be explaining patterns 1,2 and 3 to Lanky and Iwonder. Possibly pattern 4 also. Pattern 1 doesnt have anything to do with bias, but it is helped by ball drop zones and various other ballistic factors. Pattern 4 gets a little more involved and uses multiple reference points and permutations, so even 100 spins can form thousands of reference points.
Logged
Site Reply: 82 - 551
Steve
November 6, 2008, 10:24am Report to Moderator

Administrator Group
Posts: 2,668
@ forum: Iwonder should now have the computer. Lanky already had it.

Lanky & Iwonder, the main claims I'd like you to investigate are:

# 1. When using the test DVD (same spin repeated), after the first ball sample, almost all predictions are within a 6 pocket arc, irrespective of the reference point used. After the tone is heard at least once (ideally twice) to indicate the ball sample has increased in accuracy, almost all predictions are within a 3 pocket arc. Of course if your initial sample is good, then almost all predictions may be within a 3 pocket arc from the start. The false claim from people like Forester, Bago and Howe is that predictions are virtually random. In particularly Forester claims mobile phones cannot possibly be accurate, although he knows nothing about using core timers on cellular phones. He just wants everyone to believe what he sells is superior - like how he said electric zaps were best and audio just saying the prediction is bad, but now he changed his mind since offering FFA. He'll change his mind about other things too if he develops his devices further after finding why Barnett determined FF's results were close to random on a modern wheel.

# 2. There is no significant delay for predictions to be announced. For example, there is no huge 1 second delay before the prediction is announced like Forester has claimed.

# 3. The computer can predict which diamond will be hit, and which third of the diamond (top, middle or bottom) will be hit. You can see this in the DVD supplied, and test it for yourself to confirm it's not some kind of DVD footage manipulation. This will take a bit longer to verify. The above two points are more important though. 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. Despite this, Forester and Mark have the audacity to claim their simplistic technology is superior. And many people believed them because I didnt have the same amount of time to address all this on forums - especially mark was 24/7 on gamblers glen until he was banned. I had better things to do. To be clear though, I'm not interested in discrediting them - I only want to clear my name.

# 4. Forester, Bago and Mark Howe all claimed my computer cannot deal with different wheel speeds. They claim if the wheel speed is outside a certain range, "risk" is announced, so predictions are almost never given and the computer is useless. Their comments are a terrible distortion. Bago simply passed his misunderstandings to Forester and Mark, and it they published their misunderstandings without caring for the truth - because the truth didnt suit them. Even after I corrected them, they didnt want to correct their statements. What's the truth? You can specify whatever acceptable wheel speed range you want. Additionally, the computer can adjust predictions based on wheel speed with an in-built analysis feature. It can be applied manually or automatically. No other computer can adjust predictions based on wheel speed. The others analyze scatter as if wheel speed was the same on every spin, which it is not. My computers can do this, plus also analysis based on wheel speed and resulting ball scatter. Foresters computers only have adjustable offset, but no scatter analysis at all - same as Mark's latest version which is very poor. But anyway perhaps I shouldnt tell them what's wrong with their computers.

If you confirm the above, that exposes over 90% of the false claims about the computer. If you cannot confirm the above, let me know and we'll see what the problem is. There may be many other lies about the computers that we can address, but unless people ask specifically about it, perhaps it is best to focus only on the most relevant points.

Especially with # 1, people like Forester will claim I sent you a manipulated phone or something - he already used that excuse when I created videos to demonstrate this test. Bago sure as hell wont admit he was wrong. And as for Mark, who knows - he may claim the aliens manipulated lanky and iwonder. I dont expect an apology from any of the three stooges. That's because Forester and Mark knew they were lying and distorting information - especially Forester cant plead ignorance because I corrected him many, many times but he just wasn't interested in the truth. I even called him personally, man to man, and he was a complete moron about it all. Some of the most blatantly obvious truths and corrections I made were ignored by him. In the end I concluded Forester was an extremely arrogant person who was so convinced he was right about some things, and about other things, he was not interested in listening to reason probably because the truth didnt suit him - regarding some points, he has blatantly lied. An arrogant person like Forester admitting he was wrong and apologizing? Not a chance. As for Mark, he is the most full of it person I've ever known and has no regard for truth at all - he never had the balls to speak to me via phone. But I think Bago sincerely had no idea what he was doing and was so pig-headed he wouldnt let anyone tell him he was wrong. Whatever their reasons, all I want is for simple truth to be known. If the truth embarrasses them, it is their own doing.
Logged
Site Reply: 83 - 551
lanky
November 6, 2008, 7:41pm Report to Moderator
Still in Diapers
Posts: 34
Hi Steve.

Mate Iwonder & I have some concerns about the computer & how it is to be tested.
And how it can be done totally independent of what You have supplied us with.

But in the interest of an Aussie Fair Go.

Iwonder has sent You am Email on behalf of us both.(I now have a Copy of that Email)

Please answer this Email by 4pm tomorrow Friday the 7th November.

If Not then the packages will sent back to You.

Lanky.
Logged Offline
Reply: 84 - 551
Steve
November 6, 2008, 9:04pm Report to Moderator

Administrator Group
Posts: 2,668
Responded. As I said previously, you have my time as needed on this. I have no intention of delaying or stuffing around.
Logged
Site Reply: 85 - 551
Steve
November 7, 2008, 6:58am Report to Moderator

Administrator Group
Posts: 2,668
I'll be sending you both another email soon about validation and will offer more suggestions.
Logged
Site Reply: 86 - 551
lanky
November 7, 2008, 7:32am Report to Moderator
Still in Diapers
Posts: 34
Ok Steve Thanks.

That will be good.....It would give Iwonder & I more options to go ahead.

Lanky.
Logged Offline
Reply: 87 - 551
Steve
November 7, 2008, 8:39am Report to Moderator

Administrator Group
Posts: 2,668
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".
Logged
Site Reply: 88 - 551
Steve
November 7, 2008, 8:41am Report to Moderator

Administrator Group
Posts: 2,668
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.
Logged
Site Reply: 89 - 551
37 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... » All Recommend Thread
Print

Roulette Forum | www.RouletteForum.net    Main Message Boards    Roulette Challenges  ›  Genuine winner roulette system and computers

Thread Rating
There is currently no rating for this thread