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

[Steve]

1. I've never heard of people making millions with your method, but certainly have from people using computers and visual ballistics. Simple truth in one line, right? However you post pages of useless unsubstantiated "opinions" based on no experience.


2. Your document clearly states your system increases the player's chances of winning, and now you say otherwise. Maybe now you understand how silly your claims were and want to hide it? John, people can read it themselves. There are many parts I could point out with contradictions everywhere, but let's look at one in attachment. Sorry John, you say it right there. You are telling people the odds change based on previous spins. Your whole method is based on the "imbalance" principle that only works in your head. You can post all the bold text and personal rants you want to try and convince people you didnt just make a fool of yourself. It is ok to admit mistakes.



These are YOUR claims, not mine. If you dont like it, then make sure your own backyard is clean before criticizing others.


3. Regarding computers, you already changed from "you cant get timings accurate enough.." to "um yeah but that wheel was biased".. but to ascertain how common the required conditions are, have you assessed wheels like dublinbet as I suggested? No. Instead you backpeddle. I'm not bothering to explain the differences between basic algorithms from barnett and my computers, specifically regarding diamond targetiong, scatter minimization and dealing with dynamic changes of ball deceleration. Read for yourself at nolinks.roulettecomputers.com/comparison.htm although you already struggle with basics.


4. Regarding Rice, complete his quote: "I have received some critics and I am still receiving them now. Most of the cases are from scientists and materialists. But I don't think what they are claiming is wrong. My theory and research is not yet reached science and I should say it is more like fantasy. Therefore I hope they will fill up the gap between them." He did not say that to Randi. You took his comment out of context. Maybe learn something from his honesty. His research and testing continues to validate theories. All scientific fact begins as a theory. When you consider the amount of successful replications, that alone is significant. Even one skeptical person on the forum did the test, for himself, and got the same results. He was still as skeptical as you. Usually people dismiss what they dont understand... gee, a round earth, what rubbish. Or "conveniently" invisible radio waves, yeah right. You have a long way to go. You still dont even understand the remedial science of predicting where a little ball will fall.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
- Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860)

5. In the gaming industry, it is common knowledge that VB and computer players take millions. That is why casinos apply countermeasures to minimize damage. It is much harder to have a wheel produce truly unpredictable spins than it is to beat a wheel with a roulette computer. You struggle to accept what is to others plain fact, because of limited experience

John I could say a lot and further reveal your inexperience, but I dont care. You are just another guy who wrote a document full of garbage. My roulette technology does what it does and if you have trouble comprehending, it makes no difference to me. Sales is not my focus, and besides people can always see my live demos and see whatever they want. That's why I do them.. whatever they want to see, because there are no tricks and nothing to hide.  But if it makes you happy, I admit it, the devices and everything I do is a scam.

[Steve]

-