I know you are slow and desperate fighting to find even the most remote shred of information that would make you not like a stupid kid, but please TRY and understand:
Chart 1: This is the combination of all diamonds for same reference point. While it is true use of different reference points results in human errors of inadvertently clicking either too late or early, the results are mostly within a 3 pocket arc. Count.
> Chart 2: 3 of 4 predictions are in the SAME pocket (0 pocket difference). Count.
> Chart 3: Oh darn, 4 pockets apart for two predictions. No slap.
> Chart 4: The two spins are in the SAME pocket. Count.
Let's get the facts right. See the picture at the end so that I can teach you what is wrong with your computer.
In any event, would you expect the hardware to be capable of numerous times getting the same pocket with 0-3 pocket variation, especially when the difference between 1 revolution to the other is only 92ms instead of the typical 180-200ms or so?? Do you understand a smaller time window is harder to predict? Yes you are stupid, so you probably dont understand. Imagine if we tested on a secondhand wheel with more severe deceleration, and with slower ball speed. The results would be twice as good, but even with difficult conditions, they are still excellent and well within my claims.
Then you admit yourself that your computer cannot be accurate against a modern level wheel. Forester at least acknowledge this is a very difficult task. You, because you are a scammer, are promoting your shit with a 1 in 15 hit rate and other impossible and ridiculous claims.
NO, i don't expect a device needing a manual input to be accurate when the time frame is very small, but at least, i expect the device notifying the user that his clicks were not accurate, and obviously there is a big bug in your device concerning this issue. Please re-watch your webcam demonstration. When you clocked 9 o'clock vertical diamond, you get prediction 6, then Risk, then Zero. But obviously you are very happy with this. If your risk feature worked, it would have rejected this number 6 prediction, but it gave it, proving your computer still has serious problems, 4 years later the version i had, so everybody can imagine what sort of shit i had between my hands.
You cannot debate this Stefano. Even a child would understand, don't bullshit and accept your mistakes, be a MAN.
> Now consider the below important considerations as posted at my forum, which you probably dont understand either:
> * Predictions were made about 13 seconds before the ball fall, so the ball wasn't exactly slow when clicks were made.
> * The wheel used was the new MK7 Velstone Huxley, where the ball very gradually decelerates. It is important to understand that the quicker the ball decelerates, the more more accurate predictions are. I did not opt to choose an easy wheel. For this new wheel, at the time of prediction in the tests, the difference in timing between one revolution and the next was 92ms. On an average secondhand wheel, it is about 200ms difference between revolutions. What does this mean? Excellent results were achieved even predictions were quite early, and at a time where the ball deceleration was very small.
Yes Stefano, i am accustomed with this sort of pathetic excuses. You claim your computer is having 1 in 15 hit rate on this wheel, but now the contrary has been proven thanks to your webcam demo, you are actually CRYING, stating that if the predictions sucked, it is because of the difficult conditions, wheel too modern, deceleration difficult, keypad on the phone not accurate etc etc. You controlled everything from the test, you chose EVERYTHING.
Even when i asked to delay the wheel clocking by one revolution, you REFUSED, pretexting it was irrelevant etc... whereas it was. It's like saying delaying the ball clocking is irrelevant. But you refused because you knew the predictions would have shifted even more, and you would have been even more embarrassed than now.
> How does FFA do with testing on an older wheel? Well, see a comparison on the same spin. See below - errors are constantly called, and predictions are widely spread over around 18 pockets.
I already tested FFA and it is better than what i saw during your webcam demonstration. Forester is your competitor and i don't expect you to use his device correctly that would show better results than your phone.
> I'll add that this rotor was quite fast. The total errors include both ball and rotor timing errors. Rotor errors are fatal. Anyway my point is my results are twice as good. And hey look, one of forester's predictions was like around the wrong side! Does this mean his arc is 27 pockets? No, we look at the concentration of points, which is spread mostly over 15 or so pockets.
Idiot, you didn't get only 1 prediction in the wrong sector, but actually three (21,25,6), which is not a coincidence that there is a problem with your phone.
> Isnt it laughable? I mean all Forester's talk about mobile phones being bad, and my results are twice as good - even with earlier predictions. I'll give him that unmodified phones cant do it, but I've tried to explain to him my phones dont use java timers. The videos of these tests where the above two charts are generated has already been published. I'll fish around for the link later but it's on this forum.
You are lying, when i tried to extract your phone, it showed that the software in it was called: tictactoe.jar This is a java program so it uses java timer.
> * The "Risk" feature where my computer rejects spins that the computer considers likely inaccurate was almost completely disabled. So I got all predictions, good and bad. With forester's FFA testing, so many spins resulted in error being called, and STILL the results from my computer were twice as good - even with predictions a bit earlier than FFA - again it's all on video. The only time risk was called was when I used the right diamond (as explained in the audio, because it was close to the edges of the ball revolution being learned), or if I did something like missed a click completely.
Risk feature almost disabled? What does it mean, can you setup the risk feature to 10%,20%,30%,40%....100%? Are you stupid or what?. Your risk feature was ONLY for the wheel speed when i had your computer, if the wheel speed was outside the range entered in the computer.
Moreover, you get risk when you clocked 9 o'clock diamond, it was NOT a missed click, in the video it is very clear. You got risk because of bad ball clicking, but what is funny is when you got number 6 prediction, the computer considered your clicks accurate. LOL
> * So the phone and everything done on it was visible, I did not use a typical clocking switch. Clicks were made directly on the phone. This reduces accuracy because the clicks arent as "sharp" as the normal switch.
You forgot this excuse: I talked to you during the webcam demo, it disturbed you too much. Poor imbecile.
All your excuses show only one thing: THAT YOU ARE ASHAMED WITH YOUR RESULTS. IF IT WAS SO ACCURATE LIKE YOU CLAIMS, WHY WOULD YOU FIND ALL THAT EXCUSES TO EXPLAIN THE BAD RESULTS? DON T YOU FIND THAT CONTRADICTORY?.
> * Predictions were made roughly 1 second before FFA is even capable of giving. The predictions were made when the ball speed was 900ms. FFA has three settings that define the time/speed window that it locks on to. The fastest setting on FFA for level wheel prediction is 1000ms. Why? Because if predictions are made when the ball is any faster, and you will have significantly reduced accuracy for clocking.
> * Notice how on some of the diamond/ball reference point combinations have predictions "spot on" right in the same pocket?
Yes like the 1,1,1 predictions. Constant but not accurate at all. I don't consider 1 as a number opposite to Zero. If you had predictions: 11,11,11, you would have said it is OK. I say it sucks. But of course, if you look at a large sector like 12 pockets, then yes, number 1 is opposite to Zero.
Also, you don't talk about the predictions at 6 oclock diamond (25,21,26) and 9 oclock diamond (6,risk,0) which are not "spot on" at all, despite the fact you used the same reference diamond....... Very very bad my silly scammer.
That's from a totally random computer.
Random in current casino conditions yes, you are right. That's what i always said, and unfortunately for you 4 years later, the same result.
Tony was rather quiet after such spins. But he jumped up and down like a fool when 2 particular predictions were a bit wider than the others which mostly varied bu no more than 1-3 pockets.
Again you are sticking to particular diamonds combination, not looking at the overall picture that shows that clocking different ball revolutions would mean shifted predictions with your computer to a degree that is not acceptable. The delay was not very different with the 4 diamond tests, it's not like clocking the ball 13 seconds before it falls, and then clocking it again 4 seconds before it falls. Only minor changes in ball clocking time and until 12 pockets difference. And you are happy with that!.
The reason why the same reference points for ball/rotor had better results is because we as humans are not perfect, and with different reference points we tend to inadvertently clock slightly too late or earlier when we go from a top to a bottom diamond. Like for example, when using the top and right diamonds, I had predictions 32,15,32,15 (right next to each other).
No, this is because the diamond are close to each other, then the ball speed are much the same.
And with another combination I got 1,10,1,1. And with another I got 12,12. As you can see, totally random.
Again, this was not the goal of the diamond test. The diamond test goal is to see if the predictions are within the same sector, whatever diamond is used for the clocking. Your computer does not pass the test, since changing reference diamonds (meaning clocking the ball at a different time during the spin) your predictions SHIFT. And it shifts until 12 pockets. So, yes, for me it is random when you apply your computer for the final result on modern level wheels, that's cannot be disputed, accept it or not.
> * In REAL play, you must use the same diamond, level wheel or not. This means human errors in timings are much less. Easily if you used the same diamond, most predictions are within a 3 pocket arc if you were to repeat the same spin.
Will you stop telling the same bullshit again and again whereas you have demonstrated the contrary?. Same diamond used, and different ball rotations clocked with your device: 12 pockets yardage on the same repeated spin.
For example, as per the last point above, many of the predictions are right on top of each other of very close to, like 32,15,32,15. Then with opposites, 1,1,1. Then with the other diamond combination: 12,12.
Again 1,1,1 is constant because you are using same diamond and same ball rotation detected but NOT ACCURATE regarding the main predicted sector which was ZERO. If your computer was accurate and didn't have problems with different ball rotations clocked, it would have given: 5,5,5 or 10,10,10 or 23,23,23 or 24,24,24. Outside this sector i consider it not opposite to Zero, otherwise like i said, you also consider number 11 as opposite to Zero!.
> Now finally to answer your question:
> "Explain to people how your computer is getting a 1 in 15 hit rate on modern level wheels whereas it obtains a 1 in 12 hit rate at the prediction stage."
> 1. At about 13 seconds before the ball falls, where the ball is about 900ms per revolution, and next revolution is 992ms, incorporating both human errors in timings for rotor and ball, the computer will accurately measure the ball speed so that if you repeated the same spin, the prediction will be the same within about 3 pockets MOST of the time. But let's be conservative and say it's within 6 pockets.
No, in your webcam demo it is 12 pockets.
Imagine if we predicted towards the end of the spin with a slower ball, but let's not make it too easy. We are looking at very early predictions - earlier than you need, not predictions with 4 seconds before the ball falls.
I told you to do it "can you clock the ball at the end?" You refused. The result would have been catastrophic.
> 2. Sure there may be the occasional clicks you stuff up, which will result in a bad prediction. Let's be conservative and assume we are NOT using the risk feature which prohibits prediction and announces "risk" when the clicks are outside a certain tolerance, which indicates bad clocking. So to get an idea of error spread, see below:
> It will be (ignore text in middle):
> NOT as you assume (ignore text in middle):
> The above chart is your first incorrect assumption. You really do have a lot to learn, about roulette and life in general. Understand so far??
Sorry but you are completely wrong. The chart you are showing is the chart you would get by applying your computer on the same reference diamond, with the ball clocked always at the same time during the spin.
You seem not to admit that your computer predictions completely shifted when the ball was clocked at a different time during the spin (6 o clock diamond and 9 o clock diamond). 12 o clock and 3 o clock are close to each others, that's why you get close predictions (32,15), but when we clock a little bit later, then the prediction peak moves to sector 21 to 6. So the correct chart of your device applied on the same reference point for the wheel and ball would be:
So again i repeat because repeating is teaching and imbecile like you NEED to be educated on the matter. Your computer have constant predictions when clocked with the same reference diamond 12 o clock and 3 o clock diamond because they are close to each other and therefore ball speed is roughly the same at this part of the spin. Result: 32,15.
Now, when you are clocking the ball at a different time in the spin, later in the spin, not at the same time during the spin, because you are now clocking the ball at 6 o clock and 9 o clock diamond, the predictions ARE SHIFTING TO THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE PREDICTIONS PEAK LOCATED AROUND NUMBER 25 (see graph) PREDICTIONS 21,25 AND 6 ARE THE PROOF OF THIS MAIN SECTOR. These are not accidental predictions, it is the result of your algorythms.
I do not respond to his other garbage that his computer can predict ball scatter on different wheel speeds and predict the part of the diamond the ball is striking, whereas he demonstrated the unability for his computer to deal with correct predictions on different ball rotations.
He cannot get the basics right, and then tell us his computer can do more complicated things.
So funny and so enternaining this Stefano. Put him a red nose on his big face and he would be a perfect clown. At least, he would succeed making something accurate.