Questions from readers to John Solitude

[john_solitude]

Although I do not longer run the website (see the other post in this section),
I still receive e-mails from readers.

I do not have the time to answer them all personally,
so I grouped the most asked questions here.


What has happened to John Solitude?

After researching, playing and writing about roulette for many years,
I decided to move on to poker and playing the stock market.
If you are serious about making money gambling,
I consider both to be more interesting choices to make a profit than roulette.


I've seen a video on You Tube a dealer was able to deliberately target sections.
Is this final proof a dealer can do this?

With the information alone of watching the video this is NOT conclusive evidence.
Why not?

- The experiment shown is done without any independent witnesses being present.
- You do not know how many takes there were before this final video was put on You Tube.
- The video could have been chosen from many days of trying only to show a good result.
- People can make money from posting a popular video on You Tube. So this alone could be enough motivation to post the video.
- The final result could have been coincidence not skill.
- The wheel could be dodgy or the ball / the wheel loaded with a magnet.
- Even if the croupier has the skill, this experiment is done on a wheel in a home environment.
- A casino environment is totally different: the dealer does not only have to concentrate only on spinning the wheel
  and aiming the ball but also on pay-out and watching the players.
- The video shows the wheel is only spinning in one direction. In a casino environment wheels are spun clock and counter clock wise.


I've seen a video on You Tube showing a demonstration how to use a roulette computer.
Is this final evidence the roulette computer works?

NO. For several reasons:

- The computer shows to bet for fairly large sections (up till 15 numbers). Even if you would bet 15 numbers randomly and you would repeat the bet several times you could also have a positive result.  Only a large trial would show statistically if there is any benefit in using a roulette computer. The video does not show a trial large enough to be statistically convincing.
- The home environment in which the video is shot is totally different to a casino environment. Even if the computer is accurate, it's only as accurate as the player aiming to track the ball. A player in a casino would have to stand very still, very near to the wheel and at the same time not acting suspiciously. This would be very difficult because most players move around a lot. Even the slightest disturbance when tracking the ball would lead to a false result.
- It would be almost impossible for a player to stand still waiting for the computer to give a read out and at the same time to place the bets. So the player would need an accomplice to place the bets. Add to this you still have to do this in a highly secure place: the casino.

At this time I do not have enough information to say with certainty the roulette computer works. I was not invited to confirm the result independently. It's easy to fool readers who do not have a background in probability and statistics.

I consider the result of the video to be highly unlikely. Also for sellers of roulette computers it would be far more profitable to do this by themselves or only with trusted friends, not advertise with it on the internet because this will only tighten casino security. I also consider it highly unlikely a working roulette computer would be sold online because the profit would be far lower than actually doing it yourself (if the computer works in a casino environment that is.)


Do you have any more advise to people who have read the Roulette Fact and Fiction guide?

No, I'm still proud I wrote the guide and from what I see it's still popular even after all these years. When the Demonoid website was still running the torrent tracker showed a total download of more than 2 GB (while the guide is only 12 MB). Add to this all the other distribution on  other websites like Roulette X Treme and my previous website, and an author can only be content there was so much interest.

I wish to stress once more the guide and the system within is only valid for automated roulette machines with a large spread between the minimum and maximum bet. It does not apply to high stakes roulette tables in which the spread is normally much lower. With 'the spread' I do no mean the amount of money you can play, I mean the amount of trials you can take before you reach the maximum bet. With the 'raindrop system' the important thing is the amount of trials you can repeat the bet before reaching the limit.

ONCE MORE I want to state clearly that the guide was written in the first place with the intention to warn players about the risk when playing roulette. Only if you fully accept the fact you might loose money doing this, no matter what strategy you choose, you can use my system. I can only guarentee you on average your chances are higher to loose less money. If you will win money depends on how lucky you are. The system was designed to make this chance as high as possible, full accepting the fact you are playing a negative expectation game. No system designer, no matter how convincing their ads can ever guarentee you, you will be a certain winner in the long run.

I wish good luck to you all. And remember when it does not work out on roulette, there are possibilities that might give you a better shot to win some money gambling. Specifically they are poker and stock market investing.

If I receive any more question I will be answering them in this forum and not personally any more.

[Steve]

John, in reference to your comments about my roulette computer demos, respectfully you dont know what you're talking about. Again respectfully, you have been teaching people a system that uses classic gambler's fallacy - specifically the raindrop method claiming that there will eventually be some kind of "even spread". Ask any professional if the odds of one number spinning change based on previous spins. They'll say NO. You say otherwise.

Now again regarding my computer demos. Lets look at two of them:



--------------------------------------
Demo 1:  In-person public demo:
--------------------------------------

nolinks://nolinks.roulettesystemanalysis.com/m/publicdemo.wmv

This is a video recording of our roulette computer device being publicly demonstrated, with a 93% win rate betting 15 numbers, that's a win on almost every spin. It was on a modern wheel with bouncy ball, and predictions about 13 seconds before the ball falls. The wheel conditions were 8.5/10 difficulty rating.

Ensuring wheel integrity:
This is video where the wheel was disassembled at the public demo to show the wheel was not tampered with to cheat.
nolinks://nolinks.roulettesystemanalysis.com/m/antitamper.wmv

----------------------------------
Demo 2 - Live webcam demo
----------------------------------

nolinks://nolinks.ustream.tv/recorded/28927136

Predictions were about 15 seconds before the ball falls. The calculated edge was +28%. Considering the casino's edge against players is –2.7% and it earns them billions, you can understand that a +28% edge is enormous. Putting it into perspective, professional blackjack card counters consider a +2% edge large.




I've done many public demos before. In all easily 50+ total demos over many years. These are just two recordings of the public demos.

After I released the first one, anyone that did proper analysis would know the chances of it being "luck" are rather remote to say the least. Nevertheless, a minority said it may just be luck. A pretty big gamble for me to rely on luck in a public and recorded demo, isnt it?

So in my webcam demo yesterday with 40 people watching live, among other things, I demonstrated how the computer knew where the ball would be at a specific moment at the end of the spin (the raw prediction). This was done with a prediction about 15 seconds before the ball was at this point. I did it this way so there would be no doubt of the chance of "luck". I'm pretty sure the computer was correct and accurate (within half wheel) with the raw prediction close to 100% of the time. What are the chances of RED spinning about 50 times in a row? Well thats the odds of the raw prediction accuracy being due to .. "luck". It was more like 25% of the wheel accuracy, so it is more appropriate to ask the question, "what are the chances of hitting the same 9 numbers on 50 spins straight? Answer that, then you'll get the approximate chances of it all being "luck".


Also you listed one of your reasons the first demo was not conclusive proof was because I covered 15 numbers. John, look at the jump charts.

Another thing, you may say I would never sell it if it actually worked. Sure, if I sold if for $49.95 with free steak knives. But my advanced computers are $30,000 and $80,000. Sales is not my primary focus, but when I do sell them, the prices are high but justified.

Regarding your comments:

A player in a casino would have to stand very still, very near to the wheel and at the same time not acting suspiciously. This would be very difficult because most players move around a lot. Even the slightest disturbance when tracking the ball would lead to a false result.

- It would be almost impossible for a player to stand still waiting for the computer to give a read out and at the same time to place the bets. So the player would need an accomplice to place the bets. Add to this you still have to do this in a highly secure place: the casino.

What experience do you have with actually using a computer? Ultimately John, what you've said is nonsense. It is not a personal attack. Whether or not you revise your statements is up to you, but it wouldnt be the first time inaccurate information is written about me. At the very least, you have said you dont have enough information.

[john_solitude]

Steve, I think you and I have been at this for a long time from different perspectives.
So, let's try and remain respectfully intellectual honest okay.

The only way you could ever produce a statistically acceptable and accurate proof your roulette computer works,
is under the following conditions. Each statistician / gaming expert would agree with these statements:


First condition: each wheel in a casino environment is thoroughly tested on bias BEFORE it is set into action.
Hence, concerning your 'video proof': if your home environment wheel is NOT tested on bias BEFORE you do the experiment the results would  be considered statistically invalid, no matter what the result produced. The viewer is given no prove what so ever to assure the wheel is not biased before the experiment with the roulette computer takes place.


Second condtion: taking the wheel apart for witnesses is NOT proof what so ever the wheel is not biased. It only shows the wheel is not tampered with in a deliberate way the naked eye could see.
Hence why casino wheels are statistically tested on bias even when the wheel looks perfect for the eye.
Such a thorough statistical test would at very least take 10.000 trials (spins) unless it would even be very obvious a wheel is biased before running such a huge but necessary sample.  The succesfull 'hero family ' always reffered to when it comes to the big bias theory even stated taking samples of 13.000 spins (trials) BEFORE coming to early conclusions.

At the same time I answer the question of of another reader: is it worth the time and effort to search for a biased wheel in today's professional casino environment? NO, because in any case a serious casino will spot a valid bias long time before a player does and simply close down the wheel to perform maintenance. After this all previous calculations of the player would be invalid because the conditions differ.

These days there is even a website (which I will not mention by internet address so players would not be tempted to fall for this one) giving the impression a bias could be detected on only a very small sample. The website is even charging for money for access. Completely ridicilous players would choose to pay a fee for access to this website. A sure rip-off. 

Third condition; professional casino wheels are very expensive considering the need to assure the wheel is as perfectly random as possible. Most professional wheels on the second hand market are there for a reason: they are not considered to be longer up to a high professional standard.
Hence, ideally final proof would only be valid if the test takes place in the same conditions a buyer would have to face using the roulette computer in a casino, not home environment. From the moment there is bias -of which the possibility is high on a wheel in a home environment- claiming the roulette computer works would be false, because the result could not be repeated on a professional non biased wheel. In this case the roulette computer, if working accurately would only identify sectors with a higher probability of frequency appearence because of the bias. It would not be proof the computer is working on a non biased wheel. The roulette computer, if working, would merely be able to at best identify the biased sector. But you would not need a computer to do this: only an accurate amount of spins would be enough.


So, do I accuse you of obvious cheating?

NO, I merely state the video 'proof' you are showing would not statistically be considered to be valid, because there was NO test with independent qualified witnesses to make sure the wheel was not biased before you do the experiment in the first place.

This is the first rule of exact science before a hypothesis can become a valid statement:
any statement what so ever should be able to be examined by peer qualified scientists and should be able to be reproduced under exact given conditions. Otherwise it becomes mere speculation.


In your case the (proving the roulette computers works) the obvious question would be:

Does a roulette computer produce enough accurate results when used on a wheel in a professional CASINO environment?
This is the only valid question because you claim to sell an accurate device of which the obvious aim is to be used in a professional casino and make money out of it.

With all the cheap hidden spy camera's available (some are the size of a shirt button these days) it would be possible to shoot a long session in a professional casino environment to prove your case. For easy sake we will even consider the wheel in a serious casino is random enough to do a valid experiment.

Most roulette computers vendors deny this possibility stating they are 'banned' from the casino.
Of course they are: some because the casino found out something fishy was going on and they end up on the international black list, in other cases the vendor only states this to make an impression. In both cases: I'm sure it would be easy to find a friend or one of your clients who is not yet banned who is willing to demonstrate the device being used succesfully in a casino environment. It's easy to blur faces on video so the player would not be recognised.

After all, there is NOT much use to buy a roulette computer which is only accurate enough in a home environment in which you can comfortably set all the conditions for the computer to work. There would also not be much use in buying a roulette computer if the pratical use and reliability in a professional casino condition would be too low to use.


Providing this definitive proof would in your case could be easy but I do agree time consuming.

Ask a qualified mathematician / statistician working for a university to run an extensive test on your wheel BEFORE your video taping proof takes place, to make sure the wheel is up to a professional (hence: random) standard. Of course the expert should be willing to accredit his name and credibility on the line for this. Hence people should be able to contact the qualified researcher to check his credentials given and to verify the results.  This is the way in which reliable science and knowledge is conducted.

With all the reseachers employed by universities or working freelance I'm sure you could find an assistent who is qualified and who is willing to put his time  and reputation on the line for this. He could even take your wheel home and run the necessary tests before doing the video taping experiment. Of course the downside of doing it this way: your claim the roulette computer could be used in a professional casino environment could be proven false and you could seriously jeopordize your business. But hey, if you feel sure of your case why not do it the real scientific way? If it doesn't work out this way, your claim could be proven to be false.

Students at MIT gave the valid  proof Blackjack could be won by accurate card counting in casino conditions.

So I don't see why people selling roulette computers are so reluctant to prove their point in casino conditions?

After all, if this prove would be video taped in a casino environment with a qualified statistician being present, the selling of roulette computers would skyrocket. It would be even very good for your business, so why not do the experiment in VALID conditions = the same environment the player would be facing when using the device.

I'm glad I could give you these tips how to conduct a valid experiment so it's up to you who puts the statement forward your device is working to prove this in an accurate and scientically accepted way.

I do repeat for the readers the video's as they are would NOT be accepted by any people with a scientific background as 'proof' what so ever. At very best they show how the roulette computer is being used on a wheel in a home environment. That's all: nothing more, nothing less. They should not be considered to be proof the roulette computers would work in a professional casino.

Concerning the Roulette Fact and Fiction guide.

Steve, I think you keep missing the whole point of the guide.

If players ask me again and again (which is the reason why I stopped this whole internet debate any way):
Can I win on roulette using LEGAL systems in the very long run I answer time and time again:
the chances are slim to none.

Refusing to accept this notion makes you viable to lose money.

Then the eternal second question always comes:
being informed and accepting roulette is a negative expectancy game,
what can I do  if I decide to play his game anyway in which the odds are against me?

My answer is always the same:
read the Roulette Fact and Fiction guide. If it doesn't make you a long term winner,
at least it's free and it will save you some money if you decide to play roulette anyway and fully accept the negative risk you are about to take.

[Nikolic]

download mark howes scam roulette computer for free at nolinks://nolinks.datafilehost.com/download-74e1a92c.html

see nolinks://nolinks.roulettesystemreviews.com/index6.html





There will be a live webcam demo of mark howe's computers too on the same wheel, soon

[Steve]

john I will respond next week sometime. I just here for sec

ps, nikolic is mark howe. mark, I'm not interested in wasting time with you.

[Steve]

John, again I'm being respectful when I say you really dont know what you're talking about. You wrote a lot that is plain wrong. If you sincerely want to know the truth about roulette computers then I suggest reading the whole site of nolinks.roulettecomputers.com

To create a very simple roulette computer is literally a few lines of source code, and you will basically get the same accuracy as visual ballistics. Are you going to argue that VB doesnt work? Its one of the few methods that have made millions. Casinos call it "wheel clocking". They actively apply countermeasures against it, because it works. But as I've said many times, I dont like VB. There are much better methods. If you want to bet after ball release, computers are a much better option. Anyway I already gave a lengthy response with your other post and there is more I can say but I could waste days on it and it achieves nothing.

[john_solitude]

For the readers of this thread:

I did actually follow up in detail on Steve his statements in the following post.

nolinks://nolinks.vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=20649.0


But to be short:

Visual ballistics?

NOT ONE player in roulette history was able to prove his 'ability' in a seriously conducted scientifical experiment.
I'm sure players with such an ability (who would have won 'millions' by now like Steve calls it) would have stepped forward by now.
In fact they would be in the Guiness Book of World Records (predicting where the ball will land using your perception only).
If you think you have this ability please contact The James Randi foundation: $ 1.000.000 reward for people with supernatural powers.
NO succesfull contenders by now. You can still claim the reward, hurry 
Be prepared to be rich or make an utter fool of yourself: fraudsters are exposed.

Roulette machines?

Read the discussion in full here:

[nolinks://nolinks.vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=20649.0

[Steve]

John, I'm sorry but you really dont know what you're saying. See nolinks://nolinks.vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=20649.msg150207#msg150207

[Steve]

-