So what would it actually take to make a working roulette computer?

[john_solitude]

'Roulette computers' seam to be back in.

I remember the funny days,
several years ago I took on Mark Howe (the self proclaimed king of roulette computers)
in another forum trying (without use) to talk some sense into him.

In the light of what happened later with Mark Howe
see this post nolinks://nolinks.vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=20637.msg150127#msg150127 ),
I now realise my attempts to reason with him were doomed from the beginning 

Okay so once more, let's seperate the fact from fiction:

What would it actually take to make a working roulette computer?

- Of course the device should be able to accurately measure the velocity of the ball.
  After all, it's this factor that will determine where the ball will descend from the upper track.

- At the same time the speed of the wheel rotor has to be calculated.

- Both previous parameters are in fact different on every spin.
  Some may argue on automated roulette computer the velocity of the ball and the rotations of the wheel are about the same, but the
  devil is in the details.

- Then of course we also need to take into account the ball
  will sometimes hit a vertical or horizontal diamond.
  This will deflect the ball and the scatter will be different depending on the type of ball and the angle
  in which the ball hits a horizontal or vertical diamond.

- Hell, it will even be different depending on the type of wheel you are playing.

- So yes, it may seam absurd (and it also is) but you really need to calculate all these factors in.
  (the same goes for visual ballistics) before you have a prediction.

- After the ball has hit a diamond it still has to hit the spinning rotor.
  Again the exact angle will determine where the ball ends up.

- Seams complicated huh,
  but logically these are all the factors that should be accurately measured and predicted on every spin.

- Even the slightest failure to take into account all the above factors,
  will simply result in a false prediction.


Okay, are you getting a headache?

- But now we still need to take it one step further:

- We can only determine if the roulette computer is really working after we have calculated
  the expected probability of a win by randomly playing numbers versus the predictions of the computer.

- Let' say for instance the roulette computer has an average margin of error of 10 numbers.
  So in this case you would need to play 10 numbers on every spin just to make sure.
 
  But here it comes: if you would pick 10 numbers by random you will also have straight hits by chance,
  so the computer has to perform better than this. Otherwise the result is no better than playing at random.

- And of course the test to determine if the roulette computer is really working should be done
  on a non biased wheel. Most wheels in a home environment are biased (hence: that's why these wheels are not (longer) in a
  professional casino.


To complicate things even further:

- Some people reason some diamonds are hit more than others (which would give an advantage to the calculations of the roulette   computer).   This may be well be true but if the same diamonds are constantly hit more than others this is a first indication the wheel is simply not  level or the wheel is biased.

- And of course just imagine having a roulette computer to simply come to the conclusion,
  operating it in a decent manner would be so complicated you can practically not do this in a real casino.

- Just imagine for instance 7 seconds before the ball will hit, the computer gives the predicted winning numbers but with a margin of error of 8 numbers. So, while operating the roulette computer, you still have 8 seconds to place 8 bets on 8 different numbers. Seams crazy huh... and yes it is.

Hence, I think this is the final answer why we see so many demonstrations (of a small amount of trials)
of roulette computers in a home environment these days 







 

[xman1970]

I feel a reply from Stevie H winging it's way ASAP........

[Steve]

Ingredients

600g canned chickpeas, drained, rinsed
3 garlic cloves, crushed
100ml olive oil
2 tbs tahini paste*
1 tsp ground cumin
Juice of 1 lemon
Toasted Turkish bread, to serve
Log in to add to My Shopping List
Method Related Recipes Notes

Step 1
Place the chickpeas, garlic, olive oil, tahini paste, cumin and lemon juice in a food processor and process until combined. Add 1/4 cup (60ml) of water and process again until quite smooth.

Step 2
Place hummus in a bowl and serve with toasted Turkish bread.


IF YOU LOSE ACCELERATION ON THE FOOD PROCESSOR, YOU'RE FUKD.

[bombus]

Just tried this recipe.

My food processor lid broke half way through, and if the lid is broke the machine won't turn on.

Now I'm up for a new lid @ $56.00 plus $15.00 for postage & handling.


.....Thanks Steve.

[Steve]

If your chickpeas are out of date, of course it'll screw things up

[Steve]

John, see my comments below in blue:

Roulette computers' seam to be back in.

I remember the funny days,
several years ago I took on Mark Howe (the self proclaimed king of roulette computers)
in another forum trying (without use) to talk some sense into him.

Trying to reason with him is a waste of time. He is really mentally ill.

In the light of what happened later with Mark Howe
see this post nolinks://nolinks.vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=20637.msg150127#msg150127 ),
I now realise my attempts to reason with him were doomed from the beginning 

Ha, you dont even know 5% of it.

Okay so once more, let's seperate the fact from fiction:

What would it actually take to make a working roulette computer?

- Of course the device should be able to accurately measure the velocity of the ball.
  After all, it's this factor that will determine where the ball will descend from the upper track.

- At the same time the speed of the wheel rotor has to be calculated.

- Both previous parameters are in fact different on every spin.
  Some may argue on automated roulette computer the velocity of the ball and the rotations of the wheel are about the same, but the
  devil is in the details.

Modelling rotor travel distance and remaining ball travel time is "really easy". Thats what all most computers do. Mark's try to do this too but very poorly - I dont underatand how anyone can make such a bad computer. Foresters do the basics correctly with bad assumptions. It can get a reference point, and thats all. Its a very basic computer. He copied his algorithm from laurance scott's old books and even laurence himself said it isnt appropriate today. The typical basic algorithms are explained at nolinks.roulettecomputers.com/howtomake.html and connected pages - its really not complicated. My basic computer which is free to existing players does the same thing. It is free. My other computers are $80k. Very different things.

- Then of course we also need to take into account the ball
  will sometimes hit a vertical or horizontal diamond.
  This will deflect the ball and the scatter will be different depending on the type of ball and the angle
  in which the ball hits a horizontal or vertical diamond.

Simplistic computers dont care what the ball actually does. They just take the reference number and winning number then consider the difference in pockets.

- Hell, it will even be different depending on the type of wheel you are playing.

- So yes, it may seam absurd (and it also is) but you really need to calculate all these factors in.
  (the same goes for visual ballistics) before you have a prediction.

John I assume you have no experience with roulette computers or professional/advantage methods. Sure different wheels are different.

- After the ball has hit a diamond it still has to hit the spinning rotor.
  Again the exact angle will determine where the ball ends up.

- Seams complicated huh,
  but logically these are all the factors that should be accurately measured and predicted on every spin.

Actually its all very simple.

- Even the slightest failure to take into account all the above factors,
  will simply result in a false prediction.

No, it wont. The degree of acceptable error depends on many variables, but there is most often a reasonable degree of permitted error even for a large edge.

Okay, are you getting a headache?

- But now we still need to take it one step further:

- We can only determine if the roulette computer is really working after we have calculated
  the expected probability of a win by randomly playing numbers versus the predictions of the computer.

There are many tests you can do, but just blindly testing the end prediction accuracy is very time consuming and wont tell you where improvement is possible

- Let' say for instance the roulette computer has an average margin of error of 10 numbers.
  So in this case you would need to play 10 numbers on every spin just to make sure.
 
  But here it comes: if you would pick 10 numbers by random you will also have straight hits by chance,
  so the computer has to perform better than this. Otherwise the result is no better than playing at random.

Thats not how it works.

- And of course the test to determine if the roulette computer is really working should be done
  on a non biased wheel. Most wheels in a home environment are biased (hence: that's why these wheels are not (longer) in a
  professional casino.

A wheel is taken off the floor for many reasons. Two main ones being an older model, and cosmetic reasons. Many casinos have their own in-house wheel refurbishment service. But things they cant easily repair are things like the pockets, bent spindles etc. They can refurbish a ball track quite easily and thats the most critical part. I own 3 wheels. 1 was an older model, and 2 are modern mk7 huxleys. The first mk7 had problems with the pockets and would have had bias due to a deadened area. So I just removed the plastic from the pockets. I dont consider BIAS with roulette computers. Bias analysis is old, time consuming and too tedious. There are much better ways to beat roulette. The scatter and dominant diamonds on a new or old wheel is no different. With respect to roulette computers, NEWER WHEELS ARE EASIER TO BEAT because the ball rolls in a more predictable way. My latest wheel is a mk7 with velstone ball track, and it was virtually new. I spoke personally with 2 of Huxley's staff on loudspeaker including to their actual director. And they flat refused to sell me a wheel because of who I am and what I do. So I had to get the wheel elsewhere. Again it was near new with the only issue being cosmetic because of a dint. Anyway my main point is for roulette computers, newer wheels are easier to beat. Both new and old get dominant diamonds. Older will be more prone to dominant diamonds, but dominant diamonds is NOT primarily what makes a whee beatable for roulette computers. It is SCATTER. And a major factor especially with advanced algorithms is how smoothly the ball rolls. Put it this way, as a general rule, if a wheel frequently achieves 20+ ball revolutions, then the ball track is better than most wheels.

ps - mh said my wheel is old and ratty because of fast rotor deceleration. Actually truth is I just neglected to oil it. Now I oiled it. It was due. Wheel is in perfect condition



To complicate things even further:

- Some people reason some diamonds are hit more than others (which would give an advantage to the calculations of the roulette   computer).   This may be well be true but if the same diamonds are constantly hit more than others this is a first indication the wheel is simply not  level or the wheel is biased.

Bias does not mean dominant diamonds. Dominant diamonds are a factor, but scatter is much the same on a new or old wheel of the same design.

- And of course just imagine having a roulette computer to simply come to the conclusion,
  operating it in a decent manner would be so complicated you can practically not do this in a real casino.

John, you really have no idea what you are talking about. What experience do you have with roulette computers? None, right?

- Just imagine for instance 7 seconds before the ball will hit, the computer gives the predicted winning numbers but with a margin of error of 8 numbers. So, while operating the roulette computer, you still have 8 seconds to place 8 bets on 8 different numbers. Seams crazy huh... and yes it is.

8 seconds to place 8 numbers is EASY. on a touch bet with racetrack, two taps. On real table in team of 2, not a problem. For single player with a day of practice, easy.

Hence, I think this is the final answer why we see so many demonstrations (of a small amount of trials)
of roulette computers in a home environment these days

John, if you've seen my last demo, you'd know I focus on raw predictions. ie showing the computer's ability to know where the ball is at a specific point in time. That is a basic, basic testing and I used only the most basic algorithm possible. To an inexperienced player, it is impressive. To an experience player, it is a basic test. From that point, the ball fall however it falls and as it is not random, patterns develop because of the consistency of ball behavior, which includes the dominant diamonds but is not limited to it.

Since you love statistics, calculate the probability that the computer accurately determines the correct 50%/half of the wheel for the raw prediction, about 50 times in a row. Basically 50 blacks in a row. Then tell me it is not statistically significant.

If you had any actual experience in roulette computers or the physics involved, you would better understand why what you are saying is so incredibly green.

I dont have a problem with you john but you really dont know what you're talking about and type as if you're an expert. Sure many people do this, but you can expect people are also going to set you straight, so dont take it personally. You are just sounding like ion salui who acts like an expert but knows very little. Im not trying to insult you, but again you really dont know what you're talking about

[john_solitude]

If you had any actual experience in roulette computers or the physics involved, you would better understand why what you are saying is so incredibly green.

I dont have a problem with you john but you really dont know what you're talking about and type as if you're an expert. Sure many people do this, but you can expect people are also going to set you straight, so dont take it personally. You are just sounding like ion salui who acts like an expert but knows very little. I'm not trying to insult you, but again you really dont know what you're talking about.

Steve,

I do not question you are trying to approach the subject 'roulette computers' in a serious manner.
And I have no doubt you have persuded this topic with vigor (like all known roulette computer vendors).
But I suppose this 'vigor' may also blind people from accepting certain facts.

However, before I did even write my first post on roulette computers many years ago I did consult the information available.
If you read our guide 'Roulette Fact and Fiction' you may well know I do have a higher degree (with honors) in social studies which basically means I'm surely not a rocket scientist but I did graduate on a higher level in courses like statistics and psychology.
I graduated with honors class of 1999, Hogeschool Gent, Belgium. The name Clercx will be sufficient if you want to check up on this.

Now please give me your credentials?
After all, this is basic scientific conduct.

What basically makes you think you can build such an incredibly sophisticated machine you would need to predict spins on a roulette wheel?

The first assumption I always make about someone who is making such statements in gambling forums, trying hard and spending much time to market their product in gambling forums, is 'Why on earth would someone be doing this if you could play yourself to riches and retire happily ever after after several succesfull hits on casino's?' Let's face it: there must be more enjoyable activities if you were rich already than giving roulette demonstrations, hoping at least one customer would fork out the asking price for the top of the line model.

My motivation to research gambling was not inspired only by the intellectual challenge trying to make a profit gambling
but especially by seeing how many urban myths surrounded gambling and roulette especially.

As I do not have a product to endorse I can also do this in an independent way.

Frankly I don't care if you or Howe or Forrester sell roulette computers online.
I'm only interested in examining the main claim you all make being:
'you can buy this dependable and accurate device to consistently make serious money on roulette in a casino environment'.

May'be you have a disclaimer on your sales contract (if you have any) the device can only be used for entertainment value only,
but in this case the buyer would already know enough. In fact signing such a 'waver' would free you of all charges.
In the end it would all boil down to the user did not use the device properly.
Why not simply take your interested customers in a casino environment, film it using a spy camera, take a qualified statistician with you to observe the whole event? If you are willing to take a roulette computer in a casino, I don't see the problem with an observer having a spy camera to film the whole event?

In any case selling roulette computers online is not illegal, you could not even be sued for doing this
it would only be illegal if you would raise false expectations of what a certain product can do
(like Howe seams to have experienced already).

In the end it's only a matter of time before a dissatisfied customer starts a prosecution and it turns into a law case.
And I'm glad I informed the readers of the Roulette Fact and Fiction guide how to succesfully prosecute scamming businesses.
At least some of them used the advice succesfully 


Now, I do enjoy gambling myself and so do many of my friends. I do not have a problem with gambling but I found it terrifying how much money people wasted gambling and all tried to rationalize their behavior following all kinds of plain nonsense they picked up from the internet. Having not even basic understanding of probability theory and statistics is sure to make you a victim for all kinds of 'hear say'.

So yes I do have trouble with people marketing and selling 'the holy grail' (be it roulette computers, mathematical systems, visual ballistics, dealers signature, whatever) claiming only buying this or that will be able to 'beat roulette' in the long run without risk being involved.

Of course I did not write the guide 'Roulette Fact and Fiction' only based on my personal research, experiences and opinion.
Like anyone having enjoyed scientific courses I did what you are supposed to do when your expertise is not enough: you simply ask qualified people in a certain domain.

The guide Roulette Fact and Fiction (which is until now freely distributed) was deliberately written in a laymen and entertaining way, because there is no point of writing for a target audience you do not reach by using overcomplicated jargon (jargon which in many cases is only used to impress people anyway).


In your previous post you are basically stating calculating the physics involved in a roulette spin to produce an accurate prediction is not very difficult.

This is a totally false presumption and either you are aware of this or you are not,
but in the interest of potential buyers I'll try and explain as simply as I can.

Physicists would actually beg to differ with your statement because there are so many parameters involved.
Parameters that all interact. If only one of the parameters is measured incorrectly,
the prediction would simply not be accurate enough.

For instance: if the measurement of the ball velocity or rotor speed is only one millisecond 'off' this will produce already a totally different result. The ball will hit a diamond or a pocket at a different angle than expected, resulting in a different collision, scatter and so on.
It's like a chain reaction: when one measurement is 'off' it will result in miscalculating all the following parameters.

The technology needed to produce very accurate moving object speeds (and in this case collision is also involved)
is quite advanced.

This is even further obstructed by the problem you would need a not stationary but hand held small device to do it.
A device that even needs to be hidden to avoid detection.

Concerning statements of people who think they would be able to achieve this only using their perception (using your eyes):

There is a reason why on professional sporting events you do not see officials pushing a chronometer when an athlete arrives at the finish. The reason is the eye-hand coördination is not very accurate to measure tenths or hundreds of a second,  even plain impossible in thousands of seconds. Of course you can simply guess when to push the button or very roughly estimate where the ball  is versus the position of the rotor, but the timing would be off in any case, not accurate enough to produce consistent results, even any dependable result what so ever. This is why law enforcement don't use handheld speed guns so much anymore: the margin of error is too high, often being succesfully questioned in court and this only involved measuring the speed of a moving car. In any case: there is still and advantage of measuring: if a car is moving far above the speed limit it's rather easy to determine this. Roulette is a totally different case: the measurement would have to be near perfect, not simply a rough estimate.

A roulette machine by comparison would have to measure even several more parameters (and this in only a timeframe of a couple of seconds).

So yes there is already indeed a scientifical and well researched arguments why any statements using eye-hand coördination should be examined very thoroughly before coming to early conclusions. That's why qualified psychologists would tell you that all statements using only your eyes to determine accurate ball or rotor speed would be far from accurate. The estimate a human could biologically make would by far not be enough to produce an accurate prediction.

I am aware people try to tackle this problem of visual ballistics in totally different ways, but basically there is already the biological problem the human perception and reaction speed is simply not up to measuring in hundreds or milliseconds.

So in any case the measurement should be done fully automated using a speed gun type of device. Add to this the problem the accurate device you would need to do this is not stationary but hand held and hidden. This actually means the position of the device is changing versus two moving objects that need to be accurately estimated (the ball and the wheel). And even then we're still not home yet.

Measuring the position / velocity of the ball versus the position of the rotor by eye?
Forget it, far from accurate enough and biologically simply nonsense.

Others try to avoid this problem by simply averaging the distance travelled between the first impact of the ball on the rotor
versus the final result.

Basically this is statistical nonsense as any one with a background in statistics would tell you.

First you would need a large sample to determine with statistical significance what the average or median would be.
Don't think hundreds but thousands of spins on a specific wheel.
It's simply not only a matter of adding up the distances measured and dividing by the amount of trials.
This would give you the average distance measured but on a smalll sample this average would fluctuate enormously,
resulting in a false prediction based on flawed presumptions (a not significant sample space).

So I can only wonder why the MYTH of anything to do with visually predicting where the ball will end up is so persisting.

As a matter of fact:

There is until now NOT ONE player who was able to demonstrate this in a scientifically valid experiment.
We can safely assume this would have happened already because a player who would be able to do this in a proven way would end up in the Guiness Book of World Records and could travel the world showing his skill in game shows and be 'the hero' of the gambling community. I can safely estimate if people would have already achieved their riches playing roulette, some of them would be happy to step into the limelight if only to prove their point.

Many have tried, at one point we even tested 3 contenders but only a couple of hundred spins on a non biased wheel were enough to state without any reasonable doubt these specific players were not up to the challenge (see the Roulette Fact and Fiction guide).

Basically proving this is very simple but NOT ONE player was able to do this.

I consider it in the same realm like astrology, tarot card reading and 'psychic' ability.
It always works when someone who has knowledge of psychology and statistics is NOT present.

The great magician and academic James Randi managed to debunk all kinds of claims,
Readers who are interested in this can watch his video' on You Tube.
Just watch the great Randi at work to show how easy it is to fool people.

Using only proper science he was able to show not one contender
managed to demonstrate his supposed ability in a controlled setting.
Some of them, even today being payed top dollar for abilities that were proven false when examined properly.

I'm sure if anyone would have stepped up to him proposing a bet one would be able to visually predict the outcome of a roulette spin, he would have gladly accepted the bet. If I'm right his foundation is still offering $ 1.000.000 for anyone who can demonstrate outrageous claims. No succesfull contenders yet.


Of course Steve, there are some claims you make on your website which also sound plain unbelievable.

Predicting an accurate result 50 spins in a row, even if you only manage to predict where the ball will land on half of the wheel.
Indeed very impressive (if it is true). Concerning your question: if you would have taken the time to read the guide you would have seen all the probability calculations needed to calculate such a result are in the guide. It's under the section sequential probability.


But basically I see the problem proving your roulette computer works like this Steve:

I agree it would be time consuming to scientifically prove your roulette machine is really working.
But I see no reasonable arguments why you would NOT choose to do this if you are convinced your roulette computer is really working.
Your name is already exposed online, so this would be no argument.
The conditions needed to do this I already stated in another post so I will not repeat them here.

But already the first condition is not met.
You only need an independent qualified statistician to measure if your wheels are not biased
(or not biased enough rather, this would interfere with your claims).
There is simply no proof of this what so ever on your entire website.

Failing to do this would be the equivalent of walking into a contaminated labo situation.
while the first step is always to determine how contaminated the labo is before you perform any experiments.

Also, I would urge you if you have indeed consulted a qualified physicist concerning your results he states his credentials.
This is the only scientific way to verify all sorts of claims and this is basic conduct in science. if you indeed consulted a qualified physicist he knows this as much as I do. If scientists believe they have examined a certain claim using scientifical tools, they wiill simply claim their credentials.

Simply claiming 'a physicist examinated and confirmed the results' is simply not the way scientists work.

If a qualified scientist is invited to research some kind of hypothesis for instance: 'this roulette computer is accurate enough to be used on a professional wheel in a casino environment' (this is your claim) he will simply observe you in this setting, count the number of hits versus misses on a sufficient amount of trials, deduct the probability you would achieve this result by chance only, playing x amount of numbers and finally determine if your claim is false or positive. That's all it takes really.

Note I do state 'casino environment' after all it's the idea the device is build accurately to perform is such circumstances.

When I asked Howe to do this, he declined stating he was 'banned'.
I'm sure any one of the happy customers would volunteer to do this if only for testing before buying
(especially if they could only keep the winnings -which are tremendous I do presume if you have really 'an edge').

I think many physicists or statisticians would be willing to do this,
so I can only wonder if you are so convinced of the ability of your machines,
why this confirmation is not on your website already.

After all, the MIT-students never declined to prove their claims they could beat Blackjack in a casino environment.
So I wonder why not roulette vendors have stepped forward in all this time?

Until such a proof is documented, I consider (short) video demonstrations of roulette computers working in the same realm as magicians flying or cutting people in half on stage .

It's not because your eyes believe someone is really flying, no wires visible,
or a person is cut in two, you should abandon your rational thought this is actually true.











 

[Steve]

john, before i reveal how little you know, please answer these two questions. just yes or no answers, please.

1. have you ever had any personal experience with any roulette computer?

2. your raindrop method states you can beat roulette with it, because eventually the balance or even spread of winning numbers will eventually occur. isnt this correct?

[john_solitude]

Steve,

Now, now, let's remain honest okay:

You ask me questions,
but you did not even answer mine (see my previous post in this thread).
I did however answer all of your previous questions already,
be in the guide Roulette Fact and Fiction (which you obviously did not read) or in other posts.


So for you and the readers I will repeat my questions to you:

- I have giving you my credentials (see previous post: in my case having a higher degree in social studies which means being graduated with honors in all of my courses (amongst others) like psychology and statistics). Any reader is free to check op on this (see my personal details previous post).

After all this is basic fair conduct when you want to engage in a serious discussion.

My question remain Steve: what are your credentials?
(I have answered this question already, you did not).

Building such a accurate sophisticated roulette machine would at least need a very thorough understanding of physics and I do not mean high school level.

Readers just joining in: see the logical requirements in previous post in this thread.

Even then, the machine should be scientifically tested before it can be confirmed to be dependable or not for the use it's intended to. Building an accurate roulette predicting machine and selling it online is not illegal, so I don't see the problem with having your machine tested in a proper scientific test.

Only using it in a casino environment is illegal and even this is questionable depending on the casino. If you did not interfere with the game itself you could even walk free if you are arrested.

Just imagine what fame this would bring to you Steve. You would end up in the Guinness Book of World Records, having produced THE FIRST confirmed working roulette machine. Your business would sky rocket.

But I do warn you: any entries for the Guinness Book of World Records are tested in a serious way: it's not just a matter of showing a video 

Of course Howe did not enter his machine to have it properly tested and so didn't you,
otherwise the confirmation would be on your website.

Just walk into any college or university of your choice, and ask for them to do a proper test.
I'm sure many professors and students in physics or statistics will be more than interested in examining such a sophisticated machine.
Especially because they think now it couldn't be done.
Feel free to enlighten them.

I even tried to convince the producers of the mythbusters show on Discovery to take a look at this for entertainment value, but since they are a 'family oriented' show, topics concerning gambling seam to be off. At least, I never got an answer so far. I let you know if they would be willing to investigate or maybe you can propose it again to them yourself.

Or just contact the James Randi foundation.
There is even a $ 1 000 000 reward for supernatural proof.


Another question remains not answered: on your website you refer to 'a physicist' who has 'confirmed the results'.

Okay, so what are his credentials? (which studies, year of graduation, field of expertise).

Plainly it's very stupid to refer to such a result if they are not willing to give the credentials of the qualified physician.

It mostly means the 'expert' person does not excist, does not have the qualifications or did not do a proper test.
In the scientific community it's basic conduct if any qualified person refers to any properly conducted test they will give their credentials No questions asked -it's just plain honest conduct.
There is no magic about it: you do a scientifically accepted test and you either confirm or falsify the results.
That's all there is to it.

NOT ONE roulette machine seller seams to be willing to enter their machine for such a test
(although it's not illegal and it would sure be good for business if the test would be confirmed).

If you do not want 'the secret' (the calculation of the physics itself) of your machine revealed, you can also have it tested by a qualified statistician. He will not even ask you about the calculations itself but only measure the predicted results versus probability over a sufficient amount of trials. But of course if he's smart he will test if the roulette wheel is not biased to begin with BEFORE the experiment.

And since you claim the machine can be practically used in a casino environment,
this is where the ultimate test should take place.

When will you surprise it with such proper evidence Steve?


You do not need to be a magician to logically question the illusion a magician performs.

[Steve]

Ok so your answers are:


Q1. have you ever had any personal experience with any roulette computer?

No. You have ZERO experience with roulette computers. You have never seen or touched one. You also have no experience with the only techniques that the casinos apply countermeasures against, for no reason. You have a degree, which it is better than any actual experience.


Q2. Your raindrop method states you can beat roulette with it, because eventually the balance or even spread of winning numbers will eventually occur. isnt this correct?

No, you admit the method loses. But you claim it improves the player's chances of not losing as quickly.



John, dont worry I am going to answer your questions in full when I have time. You really have no idea what you're talking about. If you are an honest person, you will be apologizing. If pride is more important, you will fight. Dont mistake my comments for arrogance. If someone was to tell you you're really a female, and you know how stupid that is because of what you know about yourself, but that person is so convinced you were really female ... then your confidence may appear arrogant. Same principle here. I know what my teams do. I know what I earn from roulette. I know what my technology and systems do. I have been working with roulette around 20 years almost every day. Again while it may appear conceded, I believe it is likely fact that nobody knows roulette better than myself. But anyway let's keep it simple. I'll just address each of your points in clear detail in the next day or so.

ps - your raindrop method document is full of contradictions and again, you really dont know what you're talking about. And after reading even more of your material, I'm sorry but there are almost comical misunderstandings and misconceptions. Your raindrop method not even remotely increases chances of profit, but your document that explains the method keeps saying it does. You are rather wrong. But I'll only address what is most relevant here.

[Steve]

Below black text is what John said and blue text is my response.

John, to be direct, you have no idea what you're talking about and to continue to educate you wastes my time. I will be thorough this time, but dont expect me to be so thorough other times as your lack of knowledge is not my problem.

So for you and the readers I will repeat my questions to you:

- I have giving you my credentials (see previous post: in my case having a higher degree in social studies which means being graduated with honors in all of my courses (amongst others) like psychology and statistics). Any reader is free to check op on this (see my personal details previous post).

If you had sound knowledge of "statistics", you would not be telling people that you can increase chances of winning roulette by considering what numbers have spun in the past, then betting on numbers that have spun least. John, I'm sorry but this is classic gambler's fallacy and your content is clearly from an amateur.

This is fact. You can try to argue though. Any statistician would tell you:

#1. The previous spins do NOT influence future spins (in the context you claim), and
#2. Because of #1, the accuracy of predictions is not increased
#3. Because of #2, your method is guaranteed to fail, AND it does not even remotely increase a player's chance of winning or losing.

Simply your bet selection is no better than random. So you wrote a huge document explaining a system that uses classic gambler's fallacy.

After all this is basic fair conduct when you want to engage in a serious discussion.

I AM being serious. But the fact is from the start, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about even regarding this simply but critical point. But as for your other comments, they are just as absurd and "uneducated".

My question remain Steve: what are your credentials?
(I have answered this question already, you did not).

In a nutshell, only about 20 years of actual experience in roulette and gambling in general. I studied applied physics for a while at RMIT. Of course only dummies are admitted there. I attended the course out of my interest in energy research. I did not want a "career". At that time I already had a business making money. I just wanted to learn physics. But when I found the course moved far too slowly for me, I decided I would be better off learning everything at my own pace from my own research. Yes by reading books and with practical experience, I didnt need to wait for the rest of the class. Considering you dont appear to have the vaguest idea that your raindrop method uses classic gambler's fallacy, I think it is more appropriate to question your qualifications and where you studied.

Building such a accurate sophisticated roulette machine would at least need a very thorough understanding of physics and I do not mean high school level.

I understand more about physics than most graduate students, in addition to having almost 20 years of experience in roulette, working on it literally almost every day.

Readers just joining in: see the logical requirements in previous post in this thread.

Actually they are incorrect assumptions from you who has no experience with roulette computers. And I'll explain your mistakes.

Even then, the machine should be scientifically tested before it can be confirmed to be dependable or not for the use it's intended to. Building an accurate roulette predicting machine and selling it online is not illegal, so I don't see the problem with having your machine tested in a proper scientific test.

Again you are uneducated on the matter. I'll make it as simple as possible:

1. It is well known fact that visual ballistics beats roulette under the right conditions. It is not magic and has limitations, but it works. It involves identifying when the ball has a particular number of revolutions to go in the spin. For example, can you practically guess when the ball has about 5 revolutions remaining? Yes, anyone can. And thats almost all that is required. There is no need to know the ball timing to any strict tolerance as you have suggested. It is as simple as noting when the ball has "X" number of ball revolutions remaining. You do not take into account partial revolutions. You have no concept of VB or how it works. You have no experience in it. I suggest before speaking about something, learn about it. Start with the free vb course I provide:

Free Roulette System Genuinewinner.com | Video 1 of 3

Free Roulette System Genuinewinner.com | Video 2 of 3

Free Roulette System Genuinewinner.com | Video 3 of 3

Would a professional more likely use your gambler's fallacy method, or advantage play such as visual ballistics and roulette computers.

John, you clearly do not know but even the casinos themselves acknowledge these methods are a legitimate threat.


Ok so you are going on about "scientific" testing. As I said above, the above principles are thoroughly tested by the casinos themselves. They know it all works. Thats why they apply countermeasures. But how about see results of actual testing from a UK Government lab. See attached files. Is that ok with you now?

Basically the testing was requested by Mike Barnett, who is a casino consultant. His roulette computer was tested, which use the very basic algorithm explained at nolinks.roulettecomputers.com/algorithm.html

Essentially it is just as I described in the VB videos. Very simple algorithm.

What did the lab tests reveal? That when a wheel has reasonable dominant diamonds and ball bounce, the wheel is comfortably beaten.

So john, what happened to your claims that you need millisecond perfection that is just absurd? You have no concept of what you are talking about. In the real world, even practically guessing how many ball revolutions is remaining is all that is needed for a suitable wheel. It is not about ball timing as such. It is just about remaing revolutions, but you've just learned this today.

How common are these required conditions to beat the wheel? Well, try a live online roulette casinos like dublinbet and you'll see a good 80% of diamond hits are on the same two diamonds. And the way the ball bounces is quite predictable. That wheel is rather easy to beat. The thing that makes it difficult is ONLINE the footage is poor.

On another note, you will see the document mentions mark howe. That was before they knew he was a fraud:

Mark also said the UK National Measurements Lab (Government Lab) witnessed his roulette computer beating a level roulette wheel. Their response is:

"I hereby confirm that no such testing or endorsement of his device has taken place."
- Paul Dixon, Director of Certification Services National Measurement Office, Ph 020 8943 7282

Mark also claimed the UK Gambling Commission tested and endorsed his device. And when it came to testing the other device he claimed to have, he didnt even have it. The man is just sick and its no wonder why police are chasing him.



Only using it in a casino environment is illegal and even this is questionable depending on the casino. If you did not interfere with the game itself you could even walk free if you are arrested.

You also have no idea about the laws. In most casinos, as long as you dont interfere with the game, it is legal. In other jurisdictions, you cant use any electronic device to predict outcomes (in part or full) or even store game outcomes. Nevertheless legalities is another issue. We're just looking at whether or not the technology works.

Just imagine what fame this would bring to you Steve. You would end up in the Guinness Book of World Records, having produced THE FIRST confirmed working roulette machine. Your business would sky rocket.

John, beating roulette is not rocket science. Many people do it every day, just not with methods like your raindrop system. but you mistakenly assume that if you dont know about it, then it cant be real.

But I do warn you: any entries for the Guinness Book of World Records are tested in a serious way: it's not just a matter of showing a video 

Ok, I will keep that in mind. Thankyou.

Of course Howe did not enter his machine to have it properly tested and so didn't you,
otherwise the confirmation would be on your website.

John, the NWML testing was testing a very basic computer using very basic algorithms. It is basically the same accuracy as my basic (free) roulette computer or visual ballistics. Again it is explained throughout my videos and websites. The computers I have are far more advanced, including automated tracking using image recognition that is 10 times more accurate than any manual clocking computer:

Roulette Computer with Auto Predictions

Just walk into any college or university of your choice, and ask for them to do a proper test.

But why? Everyone knowledgeable in the industry already knows it works. Only uneducated people without experience debate it.

I'm sure many professors and students in physics or statistics will be more than interested in examining such a sophisticated machine.
Especially because they think now it couldn't be done.
Feel free to enlighten them.

As above. I believe I've sufficiently covered it. In addition to the lab testing of BASIC ALGORITHMS:

My roulette computers have been publicly demonstrated many times. You can attend a public demo yourself, or see recordings of such demos below:

--------------------------------------
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.

Keep in mind the public demos only demonstrate basic settings. Much more is possible with the advanced settings, but they are only demonstrated in private demos to players with actual intent to purchase. See details at nolinks.genuinewinner.com/conference.htm

I even tried to convince the producers of the mythbusters show on Discovery to take a look at this for entertainment value, but since they are a 'family oriented' show, topics concerning gambling seam to be off. At least, I never got an answer so far. I let you know if they would be willing to investigate or maybe you can propose it again to them yourself.

What a pitty. But on that note, those guys are full of it. They are entertainers, not serious investigators. The NWML are serious investigators, and what did they find even with basic algorithms?

Or just contact the James Randi foundation.
There is even a $ 1 000 000 reward for supernatural proof.

James Randi is a fraud. Maybe you missed it, but I contacted him for a challenge to prove mere human emotion and attention can affect the decay of boiled rice. No touching, just thought. And they rejected the proposal because.......... I was not a "celebrity". Yes, it is a CONDITION that anyone applying to their $1m challenge be a celebrity.

Is that condition in the best interests of finding the truth, or creating unrealistic fine print so you can openly claim... "hey, look, it is all nonsense!"

Another question remains not answered: on your website you refer to 'a physicist' who has 'confirmed the results'.

Okay, so what are his credentials? (which studies, year of graduation, field of expertise).

Plainly it's very stupid to refer to such a result if they are not willing to give the credentials of the qualified physician.

You are referring to the below which is for the non-electronic system, not computer:

Part of the JAA roulette system was tested by a qualified physicist with a background in gaming. While you don't need qualifications in anything to know my system is effective, a qualified physicist is best suited to assess the significance of the results. My roulette system is the only one to ever have been properly tested in real casino conditions:

Download the test report:
PC Version: nolinks://nolinks.genuinewinner.com/labtest.exe
MAC Version: nolinks://nolinks.genuinewinner.com/labtest.zip

The application of the system produced positive results. But most importantly, the analysis of the wheel analysis itself indicated my methods are effective. So this is not just a profit/loss test. It is an investigation into whether or not my wheel analysis method actually assists to predict where the ball will land. If we just considered the profit/loss result, this doesn't prove much because any system can win in the relative short term. So we needed to consider the effectiveness of the analysis and how it correlated to the actual spin results.

While the results are clearly positive, the reporter doesn't conclusively say my methods are effective or not. He simply states the probability that the results were due to coincidence. And the probability is clearly in my favour.

Proof doesn't get any clearer than this. The document is a self-extracting e-book with the viewer (which is why it's an exe file). Nothing gets installed and it's safe to open.

This testing was primarily done because as I trade as a corporation, I must adhere to strict ethical trading practises and be honest about my products. This is why scammers almost never trade as a corporation. So I had this testing done in case the legitimacy of the genuinewinner.com roulette system was ever questioned. Government authorities have asked me to verify the accuracy of my claims once, and the matter was promptly settled once I provided relevant material. Because I am honest, my corporation has existed since 1999.

As explained above, the credentials and contact information of the tester(s) are released only to government authorities. Sure it all could be fabricated. Anyone can decide for themselves.



It mostly means the 'expert' person does not excist, does not have the qualifications or did not do a proper test.

Does it?

In the scientific community it's basic conduct if any qualified person refers to any properly conducted test they will give their credentials No questions asked -it's just plain honest conduct.
There is no magic about it: you do a scientifically accepted test and you either confirm or falsify the results.
That's all there is to it.

Is it?

NOT ONE roulette machine seller seams to be willing to enter their machine for such a test
(although it's not illegal and it would sure be good for business if the test would be confirmed).

As I said, it is not even needed. In addition to the government lab testing with BASIC algorithms.... Anyone with half a brain can plainly see the results in my live demonstrations. Like I said, one of the things I demonstrate is the computer correctly knowing the raw prediction within half the wheel on about 50 spins in a row. Coincidence?.. John, you the statistician can do the math. I'm betting you havent even seen the demonstrations. People like you are called "armchair scientists". They sit and postulate with no real experience.

If you do not want 'the secret' (the calculation of the physics itself) of your machine revealed, you can also have it tested by a qualified statistician.

For what? So I can have another report and people can say "oh it must be faked"? My primary focus is actually using the technology, not sales. I offer the proof I provide and could offer so much more, but sales or convincing people of anything is not my focus.

He will not even ask you about the calculations itself but only measure the predicted results versus probability over a sufficient amount of trials. But of course if he's smart he will test if the roulette wheel is not biased to begin with BEFORE the experiment.

The NWML testers incorrectly used the term "biased". They were referring to dominant diamonds. Nevertheless, as you can verify for yourself, dominant diamonds exist on almost every wheel. But where there are no dominant diamonds, a different approach needs to be taken to beat the wheel. In my 2010 public demo, the wheel had a good spread of diamond hits around the circumference of the wheel, and the spread was greater than most wheels. You tell me, what were the "odds" that those peaks shown on the computer's charts are due to "luck". You tell me, if I was not confident of my computer's capabilities, would I dare conduct public events where people may witness a failed demonstration?

And since you claim the machine can be practically used in a casino environment,
this is where the ultimate test should take place.

When will you surprise it with such proper evidence Steve?

1. It is illegal in australia to even have the equipment anywhere near a gaming area
2. Cameras are not permitted in the gaming area
3. Casinos would not permit the open filming of how to take their money

John, your comment is ridiculous. Roulette computers work, for as long as the player remains covert. Casinos are not interested in teaching people to beat roulette or supporting public demonstrations where the effectiveness of the devices is exhibited.

You do not need to be a magician to logically question the illusion a magician performs.

In a post somewhere else, you mentioned something like "if it really worked, you wouldnt sell it".

As per #1 faq on my nolinks.roulettecomputers.com site:

1. If this technology works, why would you sell it? Wouldn't you just keep it secret and use it yourself?

Purchasers pay a fair price. It's not like I sell them for $49.95. Of course we use our own technology - specifically I manage many teams for a profit split. Despite having many partners, there are still far too many suitable casinos for us to play in them all. You might ask why I don't simply partner with everyone that asks, but partnering with every interested person and sending everyone free roulette computers would get extremely messy in many ways. I only partner with the most suitable teams and individuals. To maximize revenue, I also sell (license) a limited number of computers to the public. When I feel my devices are becoming too common, I will stop sales completely to avoid use becoming too widespread. This will ensure my own teams are not affected, and revenue is maximized.

Basically John, my advanced computers are $30,000 and $80,000 respectively. My players pay a fair price. Most are my genuinewinner.com system players that know what I teach is real before they invest further on something even more powerful. People generally dont part with such money unless they know for sure they will get something valuable in return. Do you sell me selling computers for $49.95? Sure I offer a FREE roulette computer, which is about the equivalent accuracy as the roulette computer tested by the government lab (NWML). The difference between my most basic computer with least effectiveness, and my most powerful computers is rather substantial. Putting it into perspective, one is free, and the other is $80,000.

Summary:

1. Just about every comment you made reveals you as inexperienced. You have no concept of professional methods used to beat roulette, or official lab testing. The government labs comparability know very little about more advanced technology. Again while it may appear conceded, I believe it is likely fact that nobody knows roulette better than myself.

2. Your raindrop method does not even remotely change a player's chances of winning or losing. How you can dare call yourself a qualified statistician and public such an abysmal system using gambler's fallacy is incredible. Even a junior high school student could determine your raindrop method changes nothing for the player. And you have a degree?

The combination of your lack of inexperience and inflated confidence in your own knowledge has led you to publish incredibly ignorant and uneducated statements. You are not the first and wont be the last person to masquerade as a professional, who unjustly discredits valid approaches to beat roulette while publishing utter junk systems that dont in any way increase a player's chance of winning. Facts, that any gaming professional know. You may act like you are arguing with me, but you are really arguing against truth, which is a "debate" you cannot win.

If you have any integrity, you would admit your mistake. If your pride is hurt, understand when you try to discredit honest people and they start explaining the truth, any embarassment you endure is from your own false claims being debunked. Something tells me you will continue to argue as a matter of pride. And if this is the case, I'm sorry, I'm not interested. If I tried to educate every self-professed professional that actually knew nothing, I would have no time. As I said at the start, I would respond to your comments in detail once. Any further responses, if any, will be much shorter.

[Steve]

oops I forgot to respond to your earlier post. I think the major points were already addressed, but in my next post I'll address anything I missed...

[Steve]

Same deal below, John's text is black, and blue text is my response:

I do not question you are trying to approach the subject 'roulette computers' in a serious manner.
And I have no doubt you have persuded this topic with vigor (like all known roulette computer vendors).
But I suppose this 'vigor' may also blind people from accepting certain facts.

I think upon review of my post, anyone with a sound mind would see the shoe is more likely on the other foot.

However, before I did even write my first post on roulette computers many years ago I did consult the information available.

Actually, clearly you did not because you made outrageously inaccurate comments.

If you read our guide 'Roulette Fact and Fiction' you may well know I do have a higher degree (with honors) in social studies which basically means I'm surely not a rocket scientist but I did graduate on a higher level in courses like statistics and psychology.
I graduated with honors class of 1999, Hogeschool Gent, Belgium. The name Clercx will be sufficient if you want to check up on this.

Great. But as I explained, it clearly hasnt helped you.

What basically makes you think you can build such an incredibly sophisticated machine you would need to predict spins on a roulette wheel?

The fact that I've actually DONE it.

The first assumption I always make about someone who is making such statements in gambling forums, trying hard and spending much time to market their product in gambling forums, is 'Why on earth would someone be doing this if you could play yourself to riches and retire happily ever after after several succesfull hits on casino's?' Let's face it: there must be more enjoyable activities if you were rich already than giving roulette demonstrations, hoping at least one customer would fork out the asking price for the top of the line model.

See previous post.

My motivation to research gambling was not inspired only by the intellectual challenge trying to make a profit gambling
but especially by seeing how many urban myths surrounded gambling and roulette especially.

I'm sure it is safe to say I've earned more from roulette than you ever will.

As I do not have a product to endorse I can also do this in an independent way.

You are not qualified to do testing. For one thing, you believe your raindrop method changes a player's chance of winning.

Frankly I don't care if you or Howe or Forrester sell roulette computers online.
I'm only interested in examining the main claim you all make being:
'you can buy this dependable and accurate device to consistently make serious money on roulette in a casino environment'.

May'be you have a disclaimer on your sales contract (if you have any) the device can only be used for entertainment value only,
but in this case the buyer would already know enough. In fact signing such a 'waver' would free you of all charges.
In the end it would all boil down to the user did not use the device properly.
Why not simply take your interested customers in a casino environment, film it using a spy camera, take a qualified statistician with you to observe the whole event? If you are willing to take a roulette computer in a casino, I don't see the problem with an observer having a spy camera to film the whole event?

Spy camera or not, it is illegal here to film anything like that. Many of my players have sent me such footage though. And what would you determine from it? Gigabytes of footage that show the player profiting, but it doesn't "conclusively" prove anything from a scientific viewpoint. Again, just see the attachments on my previous post. It is part of the picture, but clearly you werent aware of it. Also, I offer a 200% money-back guarantee that my computers will either beat any wheel design under reasonable conditions that are defined in the user guide, or the computer is developed further so that it does beat a wheel, or a 200% refund is provided. On legally binding contract. It doesn't mean you can beat every wheel in all conditions. I can beat any wheel design though when the conditions are reasonable. Over the years, a few people have invoked the guarantee, and the result was an even better roulette computer. And keep in mind, my computers were made to beat roulette, not sell.

In any case selling roulette computers online is not illegal, you could not even be sued for doing this
it would only be illegal if you would raise false expectations of what a certain product can do
(like Howe seams to have experienced already).

Who of the roulette computer sellers trade as a corporation? Only I do:

Generally gambling product sellers never trade as a corporation because unlike standard businesses, corporations and their advertised claims are strictly regulated by the authorities. If you are cheated by a standard business, the authorities will tell you to take them to court which is rarely a viable option. If you are cheated by a corporation, the authorities have a mandate to investigate for you, and they take it very seriously.

We trade as a corporation (ACN 090 739 754), which was registered in 1999, so we have been around for a while. As such, if you found my claims to be false, you could simply report me to the regulatory authorities who are obligated to investigate us on your behalf. So as we've traded as a corporation for almost 10 years, you can be more assured our claims are accurate.

If you made allegations against me that my advertising was inaccurate, it could put me out of business without you even needing any legal resources. This is why scammers don't trade as a corporation, and if they do, they don't last long.


In the end it's only a matter of time before a dissatisfied customer starts a prosecution and it turns into a law case.

One player read rubbish claims about me from mark howe's site. So he started a case, even without having used the system. The result was I provided material that substantiated my claims to the ACCC (government), and the player ended up APOLOGIZING to me.

And I'm glad I informed the readers of the Roulette Fact and Fiction guide how to succesfully prosecute scamming businesses.
At least some of them used the advice succesfully

essentially if the scammer is a sole trader or plain registered business, you have to take them to court privately. Nobody would really do that over a small amount, especially internationally. But if the scammer is a corporation, then the victim only needs to report them to the corporate authorities. No private legal action needed. Thats why it is suicide for a scam to trade as a corporation.

Now, I do enjoy gambling myself and so do many of my friends. I do not have a problem with gambling but I found it terrifying how much money people wasted gambling and all tried to rationalize their behavior following all kinds of plain nonsense they picked up from the internet. Having not even basic understanding of probability theory and statistics is sure to make you a victim for all kinds of 'hear say'.

You speak about "all kinds of nonsense" without apparent knowledge of your own suggested system.

So yes I do have trouble with people marketing and selling 'the holy grail' (be it roulette computers, mathematical systems, visual ballistics, dealers signature, whatever) claiming only buying this or that will be able to 'beat roulette' in the long run without risk being involved.

I never say there is no risk involved so please get it straight. What I provide are tools, nothing more. As with any tool, they can be used correctly or incorrectly.

Of course I did not write the guide 'Roulette Fact and Fiction' only based on my personal research, experiences and opinion.

If you use the word "facts", it needs to be based on more than personal research, experiences and opinion

Like anyone having enjoyed scientific courses I did what you are supposed to do when your expertise is not enough: you simply ask qualified people in a certain domain.

And what if the self-professed "qualified" person is so very clearly wrong?

The guide Roulette Fact and Fiction (which is until now freely distributed) was deliberately written in a laymen and entertaining way, because there is no point of writing for a target audience you do not reach by using overcomplicated jargon (jargon which in many cases is only used to impress people anyway).

Entertaining. Yes. Because you have the audacity to attack legitimate methods and mislead the reader into believing pure nonsense.

In your previous post you are basically stating calculating the physics involved in a roulette spin to produce an accurate prediction is not very difficult.

This is a totally false presumption and either you are aware of this or you are not,
but in the interest of potential buyers I'll try and explain as simply as I can.

Physicists would actually beg to differ with your statement because there are so many parameters involved.
Parameters that all interact. If only one of the parameters is measured incorrectly,
the prediction would simply not be accurate enough.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. See my previous post.

For instance: if the measurement of the ball velocity or rotor speed is only one millisecond 'off' this will produce already a totally different result. The ball will hit a diamond or a pocket at a different angle than expected, resulting in a different collision, scatter and so on.
It's like a chain reaction: when one measurement is 'off' it will result in miscalculating all the following parameters.

Only partially correct. If timings are many milliseconds off, it almost never changes the predicted number with either visual ballistics or computers. Why is explained in the material throughout my site. If you dont care to read it, you will remain uneducated on the matter.

The technology needed to produce very accurate moving object speeds (and in this case collision is also involved)
is quite advanced.

Wrong again. It is very simple.

This is even further obstructed by the problem you would need a not stationary but hand held small device to do it.
A device that even needs to be hidden to avoid detection.

What are you talking about? The computer is not held in the hand. It is typically op[erated by a hidden toe switch and is never visible to casino staff. I knew you had no experience, but it seems as if you really know nothing about them.

Concerning statements of people who think they would be able to achieve this only using their perception (using your eyes):

There is a reason why on professional sporting events you do not see officials pushing a chronometer when an athlete arrives at the finish. The reason is the eye-hand coördination is not very accurate to measure tenths or hundreds of a second,  even plain impossible in thousands of seconds. Of course you can simply guess when to push the button or very roughly estimate where the ball  is versus the position of the rotor, but the timing would be off in any case, not accurate enough to produce consistent results, even any dependable result what so ever. This is why law enforcement don't use handheld speed guns so much anymore: the margin of error is too high, often being succesfully questioned in court and this only involved measuring the speed of a moving car. In any case: there is still and advantage of measuring: if a car is moving far above the speed limit it's rather easy to determine this. Roulette is a totally different case: the measurement would have to be near perfect, not simply a rough estimate.

John, you utterly have no clue. See my previous post and study the free visual ballistics course. Do some research before you claim you know anything.

A roulette machine by comparison would have to measure even several more parameters (and this in only a timeframe of a couple of seconds).

Again, very wrong.

So yes there is already indeed a scientifical and well researched arguments why any statements using eye-hand coördination should be examined very thoroughly before coming to early conclusions. That's why qualified psychologists would tell you that all statements using only your eyes to determine accurate ball or rotor speed would be far from accurate. The estimate a human could biologically make would by far not be enough to produce an accurate prediction.

See my videos on nolinks.roulettecomputers.com which demonstrate the computer's ability to deal with timing errors from button presses. Accurate to within 5ms when clocking multiple revolutions.

I am aware people try to tackle this problem of visual ballistics in totally different ways, but basically there is already the biological problem the human perception and reaction speed is simply not up to measuring in hundreds or milliseconds.

It has NOTHING to do with "reaction" speed. Again you dont have the vaguest idea of what VB is

So in any case the measurement should be done fully automated using a speed gun type of device. Add to this the problem the accurate device you would need to do this is not stationary but hand held and hidden. This actually means the position of the device is changing versus two moving objects that need to be accurately estimated (the ball and the wheel). And even then we're still not home yet.

Measuring the position / velocity of the ball versus the position of the rotor by eye?
Forget it, far from accurate enough and biologically simply nonsense.

Others try to avoid this problem by simply averaging the distance travelled between the first impact of the ball on the rotor
versus the final result.

Basically this is statistical nonsense as any one with a background in statistics would tell you.

John, the above is absolute junk and far from accurate. Please, educate yourself.

First you would need a large sample to determine with statistical significance what the average or median would be.
Don't think hundreds but thousands of spins on a specific wheel.
It's simply not only a matter of adding up the distances measured and dividing by the amount of trials.
This would give you the average distance measured but on a smalll sample this average would fluctuate enormously,
resulting in a false prediction based on flawed presumptions (a not significant sample space).

There is much more at play that "average distances". That is a layman's way of looking at it. And you dont need thousands of spins to determine whether or not results are statistically relevant because the deviation is rather strong.

So I can only wonder why the MYTH of anything to do with visually predicting where the ball will end up is so persisting.

Myth to whom? Someone who has no idea about it?

As a matter of fact:

There is until now NOT ONE player who was able to demonstrate this in a scientifically valid experiment.
We can safely assume this would have happened already because a player who would be able to do this in a proven way would end up in the Guiness Book of World Records and could travel the world showing his skill in game shows and be 'the hero' of the gambling community. I can safely estimate if people would have already achieved their riches playing roulette, some of them would be happy to step into the limelight if only to prove their point.

Many have tried, at one point we even tested 3 contenders but only a couple of hundred spins on a non biased wheel were enough to state without any reasonable doubt these specific players were not up to the challenge (see the Roulette Fact and Fiction guide).

Basically proving this is very simple but NOT ONE player was able to do this.

Read my other post.

I consider it in the same realm like astrology, tarot card reading and 'psychic' ability.
It always works when someone who has knowledge of psychology and statistics is NOT present.

Incredible.

The great magician and academic James Randi managed to debunk all kinds of claims,
Readers who are interested in this can watch his video' on You Tube.
Just watch the great Randi at work to show how easy it is to fool people.

Using only proper science he was able to show not one contender
managed to demonstrate his supposed ability in a controlled setting.
Some of them, even today being payed top dollar for abilities that were proven false when examined properly.

I'm sure if anyone would have stepped up to him proposing a bet one would be able to visually predict the outcome of a roulette spin, he would have gladly accepted the bet. If I'm right his foundation is still offering $ 1.000.000 for anyone who can demonstrate outrageous claims. No succesfull contenders yet.

See my recent post about him too.


Of course Steve, there are some claims you make on your website which also sound plain unbelievable.

Predicting an accurate result 50 spins in a row, even if you only manage to predict where the ball will land on half of the wheel.
Indeed very impressive (if it is true). Concerning your question: if you would have taken the time to read the guide you would have seen all the probability calculations needed to calculate such a result are in the guide. It's under the section sequential probability.

If it is true? So you dont even know. You havent even seen the video, but still you rant on about how you know this and that.

But basically I see the problem proving your roulette computer works like this Steve:

I agree it would be time consuming to scientifically prove your roulette machine is really working.
But I see no reasonable arguments why you would NOT choose to do this if you are convinced your roulette computer is really working.
Your name is already exposed online, so this would be no argument.
The conditions needed to do this I already stated in another post so I will not repeat them here.

But already the first condition is not met.
You only need an independent qualified statistician to measure if your wheels are not biased
(or not biased enough rather, this would interfere with your claims).
There is simply no proof of this what so ever on your entire website.

Failing to do this would be the equivalent of walking into a contaminated labo situation.
while the first step is always to determine how contaminated the labo is before you perform any experiments.

Also, I would urge you if you have indeed consulted a qualified physicist concerning your results he states his credentials.
This is the only scientific way to verify all sorts of claims and this is basic conduct in science. if you indeed consulted a qualified physicist he knows this as much as I do. If scientists believe they have examined a certain claim using scientifical tools, they wiill simply claim their credentials.

Simply claiming 'a physicist examinated and confirmed the results' is simply not the way scientists work.

If a qualified scientist is invited to research some kind of hypothesis for instance: 'this roulette computer is accurate enough to be used on a professional wheel in a casino environment' (this is your claim) he will simply observe you in this setting, count the number of hits versus misses on a sufficient amount of trials, deduct the probability you would achieve this result by chance only, playing x amount of numbers and finally determine if your claim is false or positive. That's all it takes really.

See earlier post.

Note I do state 'casino environment' after all it's the idea the device is build accurately to perform is such circumstances.

When I asked Howe to do this, he declined stating he was 'banned'.

Mark has never been banned from a casino, ever. We know because some of my players are ex-casino staff who have friends in the industry with access to databases shared between casinos. Mark is just trying to sell a product.

I'm sure any one of the happy customers would volunteer to do this if only for testing before buying
(especially if they could only keep the winnings -which are tremendous I do presume if you have really 'an edge').

I think many physicists or statisticians would be willing to do this,
so I can only wonder if you are so convinced of the ability of your machines,
why this confirmation is not on your website already.

After all, the MIT-students never declined to prove their claims they could beat Blackjack in a casino environment.
So I wonder why not roulette vendors have stepped forward in all this time?

Until such a proof is documented, I consider (short) video demonstrations of roulette computers working in the same realm as magicians flying or cutting people in half on stage .

It seems all the above was already addressed and I've just elaborated in this post. What a waste of time. Again I've done this once, but not again. You can educate yourself.

[john_solitude]

Okay Steve, now we have really reached The Twilight Zone.

Your latest ramblings have finally given me the chance to bring some humor into this boring and repeating discussion.
Readers who want to have a good laugh, continue !

I must admit I pulled a few psychological tricks to let Steve show his real face, but here we go:

In cursive red I quote from Steve:

James Randi is a fraud. Maybe you missed it, but I contacted him for a challenge to prove mere human emotion and attention can affect the decay of boiled rice. No touching, just thought.

Okay now, calm down, can you do this also with eggs or does it only work with rice? (laughing my pants of).
And if I sing 'Burnin Love' to the rice does it start to fry?  (rolling on the floor laughing at your expense)

I can now understand from your previous statement it's only one small step to think you can figure out where the ball will be landing by only looking at it. You must be thinking: if I can do it with rice, why couldn't I do it with balls (visual ballistics only using your perception).

Now, let me enlighten you Steve. (I think at this point you are starting to loose it like Howe many years ago).

Of course you must hate Randi.
I think you probably believed in a whole lot of fraudsters until Randi made them make a fool of themselves in public.

Oh wait, the next thing is probably you'll show me a link to a You Tube video with another video 'proving' your point of people affecting rice with only their thoughts.

The whole CRAZY idea of affecting rice or water by mere thought was already scientifically DEBUNKED more than 5 years ago.
The idea in origin came from the Japanese Masaru Emoto (you only picked up on this crazy idea which shows how easily you can be influenced by sheer nonsense). I guess you saw it on You Tube or you read an article in a pseudo science magazine.

In the end when Randi invited Masura Emoto to prove his point in a proper science test
(which could have won Masura Emoto $ 1 000 000 only to prove his idea),  this is what Masura Emoto himself responded:

'My theory and research is not yet reached science and I should say it is more like fantasy.'

There is a lengthy decent article debunking the flaws in the pseudo science experiment of affecting rice with your thoughts but it is in Dutch.  nolinks://nolinks.skepsis.nl/emoto.html

But anyone who wants to read more about Steve's 'psychic ability' to change rice,
just look for the properly conducted tests on the internet or on the Skeptic forums
(so I do NOT mean paranormal or pseudo science websites).

Well I guess Emoto did not want to reach a massive audience and be exposed for what the is: a fraud.
But hey, why should he: he is rich now, having sold all these books (and you probably bought one Steve, haven't you).

I can already see how you are trying to change the structure of rice by looking at it.
It must be hilarious. 

By the way: did you also try bending spoons like Uri Geller?
Another simple magic trick that won Geller a fortune until Randi stepped in to expose him.

I guess at this point it's proper to educate readers about James Randi, just explore it for yourself.
Steve is obviously not a a big fan of him, because Steve still believes he can affect rice with only his thoughts.

nolinks.randi.org


Now, you also seam to have a questionable way of proving your roulette machine works by referring to others (Mike Barnett) or rather by disproving others (Mike Howe).

This only means and I repeat for the readers:
THAT STEVE HIS ROULETTE MACHINE IS NOT PROVEN TO WORK IN A SERIOUSLY CONDUCTED SCIENTIFICAL EXPERIMENT.
There is simply no acceptabel scientific proof of this what so ever on his entire website.

I have stated the conditions to conduct a proper scientific experiment already early in this post, being in a short:

- a non biased level wheel (properly tested on bias before the experiment),
- on a sufficient amount of trials,
- in the presence of an independent qualified observer.

I actually did take the time Steve to read the pdf documents your have put in an attachment in a previous post.

To avoid that readers would come to the wrong conclusions, take your time to read the final summary of a test on a roulette machine that was performed in 2005.

(the document was send by Steve - I can not confirm it the origin is genuine or not, but readers who want to invest further should contact the organisation mentioned in the document, see previous post by Steve)

I quote from this document:

However, the testing at stage 3.3 shows that the effectiveness of such a device could be
negated (minimised) by eliminating bias from the wheel as far as possible, i.e. ensuring that
the wheel is levelled correctly and is not worn. In addition, wheels having a sufficiently
random scatter pattern, i.e. using a light ball with shallow pockets, would also reduce the
effectiveness of the device. This is demonstrated by the results at stage 3.2 which show that
even with a significant bias on the wheel, the scatter appeared to produce a constantly
changing offset (although with fairly tight limits), i.e. the wheel supplied was not suitable for
predicting due to the scatter being too random.


Again, without adjusting the offset to coincide with the peak, the
average number of wins per 50 spins (6.6 wins) is comparable with the randomly generated
numbers.

So in short the computer (provided by Mike Barnett, not by Steve) worked on a deliberately NOT LEVEL wheel.
When the wheel was set level the wheel was not good anymore at predicting.
And if the device was not constantly tweeked (just imagine doing this in a casino),
the result was NOT BETTER THAN RANDOM CHANCE.

This exactly proves my point I've been trying to make from the beginning:

- In the best case given optimal conditions (a specific BIASED wheel with a specific type of ball), may'be with a lot of tweaking you could get this computer to work in the comfort of your own home where you can optimally set the conditions (like Steve does obviously).

But now, just imagine doing all this tweaking in the casino and asking the casino to create the proper conditions for you,
so you could beat the wheel using your prediction device.

Just imagine saying: 'Excuse me dealer, could you switch to another ball, there is too much random scatter now.' 

Hell, it explains why Steve is so much in gambling forums and doing so much promotion for his machine.
What are you doing Steve: you could be making tons for yourself in a casino? 
Just imagine not having to deal with these silly customers like the sales person you are.

So to summarise:

Steve can throw all kinds of impressive numbers, statements and video's at you, the reader, but this does NOT prove his computer works. In fact, he refers to a computer of a competitor (Mike Barnett) that didn't score that well on a leveled wheel and then Steve says: my computer is better.

What kind of argument is this you are building up Steve?
It's obvious you dropped out of physics classes too early.
You surely have missed the classes about how to engage in discussion using logical arguments.

You send me a document about a test that was done on the wheel of a competitor (not your own predictive device)
and then you say: mine is much better (but without such a proper test).

At least Barnett had the guts to try and prove his point in a properly set up experiment.
(to avoid mistakes: I have NO connection to Barnett what so ever).

But if I would ever buy such a device to use it as a party joke on my toy wheel roulette,
I at least would buy the one of Barnett, because he did actually go so far to have it tested.

By doing so he even warned casino's already more than 7 years ago
they should take care of levelling their wheels and checking it statistically for bias.


Steve also likes to refer to John Huxley wheels as a reference.

Well, this is another great service John Huxley offers to casino's along with it's roulette wheels:
nolinks://nolinks.tcsjohnhuxley.com/en/gaming-systems-and-security/gaming-floor-live.html
Yes, software to automatically check for bias so this actually means to find a biased wheel in a decent casino is slim to none.
If you want to know how the calculations are done to find bias just read the free Roulette Fact and Fiction guide.


Okay, I do not have so much time as you Steve to spend in gambling forums (as you obviously need to do to promote your product), but I'll pick some other arguments of you.[/b]

"Spy camera or not, it is illegal here to film anything like that. Many of my players have sent me such footage though."

What is this nonsense argument?

You try to convince your buyers to walk into a casino with a prediction device (what use would it have otherwise),
but filming it with a small spy camera would suddenly be a problem.

So, walking in with a hand held hidden prediction device can be done,
using a spy camera to prove your point can not be done.

The chance you would get caught by a small button camera to film the event is much less than using a predicting device itself which obviously needs a lot of tweeking if the result is not what it is supposed to be.

Where is all this footage?
You provide us with footage on your biased wheel,
while the real stuff that would actually proove your point is not shown.
It's easy Steve to blur out faces.
Only add an independent qualified observer to confirm the result and there you have it: your scientific experiment.
You would be the first to prove in the entire world that predicting roulette numbers can actually be done in a casino.
I'm sure you could sell this footage to magazines who are always ready to publish a major casino bust.
I'm sure by now you have a proper understanding of editing video's so this can not be a problem.  


"I never say there is no risk involved so please get it straight.
What I provide are tools, nothing more. As with any tool, they can be used correctly or incorrectly."

Oh, I see your line coming already, right.
If the machine works on a demonstration in your home environment roulette wheel the machine is used correctly.
If the machine does not work on a wheel in casino environment you'll state the tools were not used correctly.
So either way, if it does not work out it's the users fault.
Well, I guess they would be to blame because no one in his right mind would buy your machine in the first place.


"It has NOTHING to do with "reaction" speed. Again you dont have the vaguest idea of what VB is."

Ok, you have enlightened me Steve.
I guess it's the same principal as with the rice, right.
You do not even need to look at the wheel ( = perception and reaction speed),
you only have to have good thoughts just like the crazy Japanese man.

Really Steve, you crack me up.


Then finally Steve concludes:

"It seems all the above was already addressed and I've just elaborated in this post."

In fact you really didn't add something new.

You failed to present proper scientifical evidence your roulette machine is working.
If anything you managed to make a fool out of yourself by stating you are able to change the structure of rice only using your thoughts.


Oh, and before I forget, concerning all your criticisms about the Roulette Fact and Fiction guide:

You obviously did not read the guide itself otherwise you would know in the guide we even criticise our own method.
In the guide the difference between gambler's fallacy and probablity theory / statistics is thorougly explained.
Any player can evaluate his changes making a bet on a sequence of spins using probability theory.
There is no fallacy what so ever about this, the real question is: will it be enough to beat the house edge.

In several posts on this forum and in the guide itself it is stated it is NOT the so called 'holy grail'.
So in fact, in the guide we even debunked our own method (which you obviously did not read in the first place).

Anyway, it didn't stop us to walk out of the casino,
after doing a hit on a gambing parlor which had obviously set their limits on automated roulette tables far too wide,
so even with the house edge we managed with a team of 5, playing at the same time on roulette terminals for € 150 a pop on a straight number and hitting it more than the gambling parlor could afford to loose.

Was their magic involved? None what so ever.
Machines? None what so ever.
VB? None what so ever.
Bias? We didn't even bother with it, knowing the chance was far higher we were playing a properly maintained wheel. In the Roulette fact and fiction guide you'll even find the manufacturer of the wheel.

We only used just plain sequential probability theory on a single zero wheel on an automated roulette wheel with the limits and the spread far too high for the place.

Anyway, those were the days and they were in fact boring as hell, but I do agree we could also have gone bust doing this.
There was certainly luck involved. The outcome was NOT granted.
We took a chance on a negative outcome game (meaning: the odds were against us and we knew it) and managed to pull it off.

Wisely, like any good gambler we moved on to games that are a lot easier to beat:
poker and the stock market.

These days in our region, gambling parlors don't use single zero wheels anymore.
They switched to all kinds of variations which increase the house edge.

Readers didn't see me rambling on about our method in gambling forums for several years.
(like you obviously have to do Steve to sell your stuff).

But I must agree Steve, it has been fun doing this.
Nothing has changed really :-)

It's even funny how Howe, you and your competitors all are trying fiercly to attack the others stating their computer is rubbish.
From a business point of view it undermines every thing you are trying to achieve.
You would all be better of to combine thoughts then trying to discredit the others.
And in the end, when any one of you would finally make this thing and have it scientifically tested,
you know what would happen?

The casino would simply take no more bets at the time the ball is set into action.

If the casino didn't do it so far, this proves one thing:
they are not even so worried about the risk someone is 'clocking' the wheel.

They are really far more afraid of the use of handheld devices for Blackjack.
Such a device is easy to make, all the proven probability calculations can be found in numerous books and it involves only having two foot sensors and a read out device. A simple vibrator is enough really.

Maybe you can switch to such kinds of devices when you find out in the end (before going crazy Steve),
the last was actually ment as good advice (before you end up like Howie).

[bombus]

I can see angels.

[bombus]

-