Kelly says
The only one who has ever produced statistical sound and trust worthy proof of a computer test is Mike Barnett with the NWML test.
Kelly past few months you like to talk rubbish. Deliberately ignoring facts, and I really do not know why. Whatever I do you simply ignore.
You start talking about 2 pin game as America is discovered.
Just go back to video and watch it for 5 min, and you will see explanation about 2 pin game. It is not my problem if from video you couldn’t understand what I was talking abut.
For you no matte no matter how much something is explained, you have problem understanding it if it is outside of you frame of thoughts.
Yes Barnett’s computer is ok, did I ever say is not? He never claimed that it is for leveled wheel prediction.
But how can you say I is the only one if even Barnet tells you that FF can gain advantage on tilted wheel but and on leveled wheel as well. Not sure why you can’t add 2+2.
FF computer will perform the best possible in both cases, and in reasonable conditions it can produce huge advantage.
There is no much difference in functionality between his computer and FF , when we talking about tilted wheel prediction.
Except that FF is capable to measure time more accurately, it uses error correction in ball timing, it has automatic settings while Barnett’s computer has to learn from experiments so that time window can be properly adjusted.
But that’s not all, you are here long enough knowing that all people at forum are real, with your public statements you are ignoring their opinion and really discrediting this suite.
Through the stock market I got in contact with a guy in London who is willing and capable to pay up to 50.000 £ for a computer if he can have some evidence that it actually works top notch and that he can get some sort confidence that it will not be confiscated if he is caught with it. But as he says, the market seems pretty empty for his wishes.
***Really, interesting two requests.
50,000 is not required but 1,000 so is it a problem?
For the other request is up to him and his confidence, nobody can guaranty him that. But eve if it does get confiscated, if he used FFA with such money he still can buy another 49 units so problem is solved.
I won’t argue with him.
Well I would, since his statement and your approval of that is very unjustified.
My friend says: "If the roulette computers use algorithms to calculate where the ball lands, why do they then need to click 4 - 8 times on the computer and then relate to the outcome number?"
It is not your friend but you, since you also think that way.
Simply you need few ball rotations clocked so system can get something from it, and more accurate ball timing. FFA 2009 will predict exactly where the ball will hit if used on tilted wheel.
On leveled wheel it can’t be done and there is no point for me to explain it since anyway you wouldn’t be able to understand. If you would then you would already know it from one of previous posts where it was explained.
He has a point there, the computers relate the clicks it received from the ball revolutions and relates those clicks to the outcome number. Now that's a pretty basic mechanical way to sort out received data and I must agree, the algorithms for that, can't be that complicated.
Truth, if we are talking about basic tilted wheel prediction.
But even Fife’s TILT 2 program is not complicated, did I ever say it is.
With IQE6 and leveled wheel prediction is very different.
To reduce possible errors to minimum computer doesn’t calculate function for duration of all spin. Large part after prediction is considered as a constant. As such it doesn’t need calculation but only time length. If that part is not reasonably constant then there is no point of predicting. If it is a constant then there is no point of calculating it. That shouldn’t be hard to understand.
I will not write on VLS since three is no point.
I asked genuine questions about the test and nobody answered it.
Also I noticed that my questions were not welcomed.
.