Tomorrow, Stefano demonstrates the ineffectiveness of his RC via webcam!

Hi all,

Tomorrow, Stefano will ridiculize himself in front of everybody. I will record the video and everyone will have a good laugh.
Anyway, he will just say he didn’t enable all the features of his RC or another excuse like that to explain the bad results.

I simply can’t wait this moment.

I simply can’t wait this moment.

Few months ago he tried to do same for viper5 and was caught cheating.
Anyway didn’t you have computer and system and tested it?

Anyway, i just checked my emails and he is saying he has not the time. He does not work past 5pm Australia Time.
As if he could not make this small extra work time to prove i’m an idiot. Moreover, he says he does not see me adding him on Skype, whereas i did.

He told me to find another day at 3pm, so i will but this time i hope he won’t find an excuse.


I can’t understand why you bother.
You have had his computer you’ve seen which kind of rubbish it is.
It can’t predict even single spin properly.
So what do you expect from him?

If he has computer that works and if he wants to clean his name why he doesn’t send you one to correct previous mistake. Why he doesn’t send one to all other people I know who wasted few thousand dollars with him.

He can limit software for 30 days and if you like it you will change your opinion about him.
Mobile phone costs only $50
Instead he spends days and days on public forums, trying to convince everybody how his computer is improved how he is not a scammer.

I am not interested in childish games from scammers.

Well it’s over anyway,

He asked me when i am available to do the webcam demo of his RC. I replied to him today at 4pm.
He answered he could not because he does not work after 5pm.
In this email, he said: Anyday at 3pm.

So, after receiving this email, i replied to him: ok then Firday May 11th at 3pm.

I just received an email of Stefano telling me: Thursday.

So, as everyone can realize, i am not the one trying to avoid the challenge. He is so pathetic and has not changed.

So, as everyone can realize, i am not the one trying to avoid the challenge. He is so pathetic and has not changed.

really :o

Didn’t you notice that he did not go for holiday for past few years? Don’t you feel responsible for that? :’(

Stefano is fucked up in his head, completely retard, he has serious damages.

Here are the chronological emails exchange, for everybody to see how dumb liar he is:

“Bago” to :“[email protected]
date :07/06/10 06:08
objet :Re: LOSER!!!

I’m available tomorrow (Tuesday) at 4pm Australia Time, you will see me adding you on Skype with the address mentionned. We will discuss also the online casino challenge because you are lying.

See you tomorrow my clown.


From :“[email protected] To “Bago”
date : 08/06/10 01:33

“As for your offer of 4pm today: I dont have time today, but we’ll do it soon. When I set a time, it is set. Also can you do 3pm my time on whatever day, because at 4pm it only gives us an hour and I’ll need time in the day to do some “finishing up work” for players - I dont work past 5pm unless it’s urgent. If you have work to go to, we can work around it.”

“Bago” to “[email protected]
date : 08/06/10 08:10

As if you could not take 1 hour of your time to prove i am a stupid lying kid in front of anybody!. That’s a bad excuse, i saw you more than one time on your message boards on week ends.

Anyway this is my last offer: FRIDAY JUNE 11th 2010 at 3pm.
I added you on Skype, you are in my contacts already: i see, rouletteanalysis and location: Yarra Glen, Australia.

My skype name is: bago_bago_bago
My full name is: Tony Duhamel

Hope to hear you soon, without reading another bad excuse.


From :“[email protected] To “Bago”
date : 08/06/10 08:25

Listen you silly clown, I have actual important things to do before bothering with you. I will prove you are what I saw you are, and like I said you will see it in parts - for reasons you wont know until the end. How does thursday 3pm sound for the first part? Agree, then see if I break the arrangement, and see if you really are stupid.

As for the $30k online challenge, ok let’s get the ball rolling, or are you going to run again with excuses? Start by depositing the $5000 into a new moneybookers account.

As for weekends, the limit of my work on weekends is answering urgent emails from programmers. When I’m online i sometimes check the boards out of curiosity. Whoopie. You really are a dope.

So, as everyone can realize, I have offered to the fat scammer Tuesday at 4pm. He backpeddled, pretexting 1 hour is not enough for the webcam demo, and despite all the circus he makes for this demonstration, he can’t take extra time to do it.
So, then the big crook told me to choose a day of the week at 3 PM. I said no problem, on Friday 3pm i am available.



Poor Stefano someone always attacks him he believes with no reason and all people around somehow refused to see his RC in real test. He believes all people are lying, people who bought his computer they are laying; I am lying because I am a competitor, and you are lying because you are arrogant French.

PJ made the best description of his experience with Stefano,692.0.html

And this is the best part

“I think he has a highly inflated view of his abilities and intellect and will probably go to the grave with those same beliefs. We see them jump from buildings flapping their arms every day… then we see the mess they left behind.”

What I do not understand is why do you bother.
You’ve had his computer and genuinewinner system, you know exactly what it is, you made your say. You know him for few years and all stupid things he did and talked, you also know that he was already jailed for scam and that he has no any qualifications, so what do you expect from Stefano if you already know what he is and does.

I believe he blocked you at his forum same as tens of the others I know, who talked about his product. But it doesn’t make sense. He is writing over there how you are an idiot and wants to argue with you in front of public, so why doesn’t he let you talk over there at least until two of you say to each other everything you want.

The guy is sinking very low:

Today, he posted screenshots of Skype windows talking to me, pretexting i was avoiding the challenge because i was not answering.
As he has shit in his eyes and in his brain, he didn’t see my status was: AWAY since i was at work.
And i never said i would do the webcam demo on thursday, never. The guy is blowing a gasket, why i don’t know, maybe he is crazy because he cannot stop people downloading his system for free on my website, or perhaps intentionally i forced him to have a job since his scam business is over, if it is not that, then it is very close.

Anyway, i will see if he is there at 3pm tomorrow and if he is not, i won’t brag at him writing that he does not answer, i expected it, he is running away etc… I am not a child like him.

As for the online challenge, several times he avoided, pretexting he didn’t want to make money on a child account, something like that. And recently, he said he didn’t want to play at, whereas he admits himself that they never refuse payouts and are honest with strict rules.
So i deduce that he simply can’t win at online casinos, but that, i and others already knew.
I told him recently to answer me only if he did buy balls.

I finally caught him on skype this morning, and this idiot really tought he would embarass me with his RC test, but the contrary happened: He showed clearly that his computer cannot deal properly with human errors and different reference points on the same spin.

I asked him to delay the timing of the ball revolutions and rotor, but he didn’t do it since he was using a version of his computer that needs a lot of clicks and then gives a prediction. His computer didn’t work that way when others and i had it, it was setup for 2,3,4,5 balls clicks, but now he changed it to “a lot of clicks until you receive a prediction”. It appears clearly that he stole this idea from Forester, but he obviously didn’t get the proper algorythms since FF is getting much more consistent predictions with different reference points.

But for Stefano, he succeeded the test because his predictions are in the same half of the wheel, around Zero. As you will see in the demo, he is getting predictions from number 29 to number 6, which is a 17 pockets error yardage (DRAMATIC), for a single spin predicted, with home conditions, and the possibility to do all he wanted with his risk feature activated and all the ball clicks he wanted.

What appeared clearly is his RC predictions SHIFT when a different reference point is used, and that his RC still does not deal well with human errors since he got until around 10 pockets difference on a prediction made on the same reference point.

I let you judge yourself. My ego was left outside when the demonstration occured, and objectively, my opinion about Mr Hourmouzis has not changed.

Ps: sorry for my english, i don’t speak well, but i didn’t want to let this conman repeat again and again that his computer is getting a 1 in 15 hit rate on the most modern wheels. With his demonstration, you will see the big difference between his claims and what his RC really achieves (which is NOT impressive at all).

Also, the quality is not good but i had no choice since the original video is 1,5Go and cannot upload it on any website.

And what did you expect?
He’s just trying to get attention.
Only recently he did same with viper, it was reasonable until viper told him I want you keep both hands and the phone all the time so I can see them. After that it was disaster for Stefano, to save him from embarrassment vipers rating is published only in private section. Of course Stefano described it on his way. Then he throw more dust to peoples face claiming how Laurance will test it how Snowman will test if, of course nothing of that happened. Same rubbish past 5 years.

"It appears clearly that he stole this idea from Forester, but he obviously didn't get the proper algorythms since FF is getting much more consistent predictions with different reference points."

Yes he did, but that can’t help him because mobile phone doesn’t have accuracy of FF system. All what he is doing trying to predict it as an tilted wheel on a classical way. Clocking ball constantly until it comes to particular speed range. If computer can measure it with 20-50 ms accuracy (plus clocking errors 20-30ms) he still can have reasonable results and predictions will shift only based on errors in rotor clocking which is only few pockets. You simply can’t compare it with power of FF system which measures time in nanoseconds and processes data in resolution of one millisecond.

You could also see that before any different position clocking him turns phone screen and makes some adjustments. That is probably reason why he did not use the switch. When you asked him to shift timing of prediction he simply couldn’t. Even if he have had good results how such device can compare with FF which predicts in any ball rotation.

Bottom line is Stefano should not insist on predicting video spins, claiming he is doing my 4 d test. We all know that test can be manipulated it is designed for you when you re testing the product same as you did when you purchased his computer. Why he at that time didn’t help you to get proper results. Instead he called the test invalid, now he is struggling to prove but of course on not accepted way.

He has that roulette wheel, if he wants to show you computer improved why he doesn’t predict live roulette spins. Even better on one of his sites he claims that the is casino supplier why he doesn’t show you brand new wheel and predicts it. Just showing 30k wheel instead of empty talks would mean something. We all know it is only his scamming marketing strategy.

And what now, he will write his way you will write your way, nothing has changed and nothing will ever change. Such test even if he have had 100% predictions is pointless and is not prove if you are not doing it by yourself, and Stefano will always avoid proper test.

-Just to remand you few years back he refused to give me address to return 6 of his computers, at same time he way lying claiming that nobody wants refund.

-When I was in Melbourne together with PJ and solicitor I accepted his offer to seer the test, he refused and said eh can’t take me to his home. Bragging on internet that I insisted that he takes me home. I only accepted his offer and wanted to see the test, expecting him to have an office and company as he writes on internet. I was prepared even to reschedule my flight just to see it.

-we agreed that PJ will visit him and see test the computer.
He was delayed it for 4 months on the end instead of real test he offered to show to PJ on portable did player how he predicting with his computer. Of course PJ is not stupid and refused since the deal was a real test that can mean something. Stefano claimed PJ did not want to be embarrassed, which is nonsense, he is a player he wants the best computer why he would be on my side if Stefano can prove his computer works.

-Michael Barnett, casino consultant and investigator. Tested bot of my systems, while at Stefano’s fraudulent RSR where he was pretending to be someone else giving false reviews my system was described as scam Michael tested it and described it as very accurate device. Stefano run away from challenge claiming he doesn’t want casino know how good his computer is. It just doesn’t make sense since he writes all over public places how good it is but when comes to point to change words to action he never proved anything. It is mobile phone nobody asked him for anything else, he shoul simply load program and he would save himself from all trouble he have had and 100 web pages he wrote justifying it as he is defending himself.

-Then he found Viper, which turned in to disaster for him.

-You are special case since you bought his computer and have had if for few months.
If he has workable RC he would send it to you so you can try it for one months, then if you have problem he can help you if that was the issue last time. If computer is so good as he claims nobody would be stupid to refuse it just to write bad about Stefano.

We spent to much time with something that is so stupid and not worth discussing.
I suggest you forget the clown until he decides to do right thing, instead just arguing over the net.
Spend your time with something useful.
Check this,940.0.html
any ideas or suggestions?

Hi Forester,

As you can see in the video, i start laughing because Stefano was embarrassed to have suddenly predictions around 8 pockets clockwise Zero, and to defend himself he was pointing those numbers and said it is not far off zero sector, that the computer relies on long term, like his genuinewinner system that needs averages with 600 spins, which gives nothing more than a random graph at the end.

His risk feature obviously does not work since his computer succeeded to give rubbish predictions, there is still room for improvement for him. And as you can see in the video, a lot of times he is getting “risk”, so he has tighten it and despite that, his predictions are in a 18 pockets sector.
The predictions he would have to get were around Zero sector, and using opposite diamonds number 10. He got number 10 and two times number 1 prediction, which shows again that the predictions are shifting, 5 pockets clockwise the expected area.

I read he said it is because of his phone, the keys are too small and he struggled to make clicks. Excuses after excuses as usual with this individual.

So i wonder who on earth would spend 7,500$ on a device that gives no precision in the predictions on a single spin.

Only for the prediction phase, he is having a 1 in 17 hit rate. So, how can he obtain a 1 in 15 hit rate on the most modern wheels for the final result, after ball bounces erratically and different diamonds striked on a level wheel!!!

And he says i am not good at maths!!!

We can’t see all of that on video.
With few buttons pressed, how hard is to make computer to say any number from particular group which could be next to each other. Why he didn’t show you 1:6 as he claims on real wheel with live predictions.
If you have predictions within 18 pockets on a single spin that is only theoretical prediction, on top of that is coming what will happen on next spin, also after prediction the ball deviates in traveling distance, therefore even if we predict 100% accurate we do not get same accuracy because of imperfections of the ball land ball and track under the ball. With that added he can’t predict even with 1:30 and it’s still without ball jumping scatter.

If you want to have an advantage in real game you need to have ball drop point predicted with accuracy at least 1:12 80% of time. Better hit rate you have, easier you can spot what is really happening on the wheel. Stefano doesn’t understand because he never plays, and he doesn’t have any schooling finished. (3 months jail doesn’t count)
I couldn’t really hear what he is saying but I can imagine his excuses when you asked him to show you prediction in different rotation. FFA can do it at any time no excuses.

Soon I will finish new program for FFZ /FFV
It can use ball as an indicator or rotor, it can predict at any rotation.
On top of that it also zaps every time when ball is passing over predicted number.
Wooooo :wink:

By the way, you have a nice voice with sweet French accent; it remains me on some people I met in France.

Just forget about Stefano, he has nothing smarter to do then to argue on net.
Recently he start sending emails, selling his computer on special for quota of normal price.
Hurry… do not miss it, offer is available only for short time. hehe

My answer to Stefano about the webcam demonstration that he claims is a success:

[b]Your results showed clearly that you lied big scammer. You wrote that the predictions of your computer for the different diamonds test were within a three pockets arc. That’s what i expected to see, as per what i said in the beginning of the video. Your alias Ronjo confirmed this in your so called independant test. Let’s not mix the results you get since it your excuse for the bad results.
Look at your column A. You are getting predictions spread in a 12 pockets sector. Number 26 to 6 like i said at the end of the audio file. It is not smart and proves that your computer does not deal well with human errors.
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. In your mad brain, ball scatter on modern wheels is only three pockets then? (Supposing your computer is 100% accurate with the right ball drop point, which is not).You are an idiot, you are the one full of shit with your impossible claims that can only convince someone who has no idea about roulette.

You’ve made a lot of upgrades. Your computer didn’t use Forester’s feature when i had it. It was setup for 2,3,4,5 ball clicks. It didn’t spot a particular ball speed. Therefore, it is certain that the version i had obtained like a 1 in 18-20 hit rate for the different diamond test, since now it obtains a 1 in 12 hit rate.
So, how could it obtain a 1 in 16 hit rate for the final result on modern wheels, as you advertised on your website, and it is one of the most important reason i purchased it, but it was a lie, like i’ve just explained.

So make your public apologies Stefano. The computer i had could not get any edge on modern level wheels. Now, i doubt it is any different, because a 1 in 12 hit rate for the prediction stage with the same point used for the clocking is too poor.
Even with advanced VB that does not get so poor hit rate on the prediction stage (roughly 1 in 3 hit rate), it is not easy to get an edge on modern level wheels.
If you are man enough to admit your mistake, then i will forgive you. I will stop adding evidences that you are a scammer on my website, but i don’t expect that from you. Scamming is your business, and even with hard truth like this one, you will always try to deny the evidence.

I am ready for the online casino challenge. I just ask what will happen when you will have burnt my 5,000€. Even your computer applied against dublinbet wheels would lose, so we know what will be the result of your paper system.

Will you reimburse my money?, and how can i be sure you will?. I had a lot of difficulties to have my money refunded, and a lot of others didn’t get that chance.


And why you are writing here and directing it to Stefano?

Just ask him to unblock you at vls and you two can argue as much as you want.

For me it’s clear, he couldn’t demonstrate prediction in next or previous rotation.

There is no point of arguing could he predict 1:12 or 1:1 when all he does is clocking until computer detests particular rotation, when he selects another clocking point, observer has no idea did he made any changes to the computer.
If you two want to argue then at least do it properly.

  1. Use clocking switch so he doesn’t have excuses (mistakes are because I couldn’t clock properly using phone keys).
  2. Make phone screen and switch visible all the time so he can’t change offset when moving to another clocking point. [/b]

Then repeat same but predict in different ball rotation (without any adjustments) to check for linearity during the spin.
Of course what Stefano claims is nonsense.
As I told you earlier even if he does all you want on video and all properly you still wouldn’t trust him simply because it is video, you are not doing the test and because you talked with many people he scammed.
So what is the point?

If he has confidence in his phone as he describes it on the net, be sure he will send you one so at least someone can confirm his claims.
It wouold be much cheaper and less time consuming then having empty discussions on the net.

every time i search the net I come to another
scamming site from

Has this man any conches ???

Here he claims that he supplies roulette wheels to casinos and he still spins one 20 y old
but talks how he predicts new modern wheels :o

Oh so now you admit you made a mistake? You admit you were just stupid? And in your email below, you do it again.

Where do you see that my imbecile scammer, you are hallucinating, stop the drugs.

You lost and are still fighting which I understand, because you’re a young idiot fighting for his pride, but I have said you cant invalidate truth. Perhaps in your own head though, because you dont know any better. Honestly you are without a doubt, for the most arrogant person, you are the most stupid person I have ever known. Remember when you told me yourself you had mental problems and tended to “jump the gun” then later realize you were wrong?? YOU HAVENT CHANGED. My advice: slow down Tony. Get your head out of your arse.

Mental problems?. I never said i had mental problems, again a fabrication, you are completely toasted and cannot do anything else than lying.
Truth is YOU are the one having mental problems. You said it to the judge at court with Forester the second time that you again LOST. You said to the judge that you are psychologically damaged, for once, i agree with you.

> You of course didnt admit your mistake, you just changed from saying 17 pockets to 12 pockets,

Yes, because you are saying i am melting results which is untrue but i let you post some charts that you are saying yourself are correct and accurate. Again, very untrue and i will prove it below. Continue reading my fat pig.

 but you STILL misrepresent the results because you dont understand. I just wonder why you dont publish the information at my forum on your site... I guess it wouldnt help you to publish information that shows you are stupid. I'll explain again:

It shows I am right. See below imbecile.

> Yes my claim is that predictions are mostly within a 3 pocket arc, and the test demonstrates this as I'll explain in detail below.

With the same point (column A), your super drawing that you want me to put on my website, that denigrates your silly person, it shows you are having predictions from number 26 to number 6. I will count for you because you obviously does not know counting: 26,0,32,15,19,4,21,2,25,17,34,6. That's TWELVE POCKETS my silly pig. You do not like the truth. How can you twist this truth that slaps your big pig jaws???. Everyone saw the video and hear the audio, this is undisputable so you are actually ridiculizing yourself by TRYING to avoid this hard fact.

> But first, to answer your question directly. You asked "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."

> As I explained to you but you are thick, we deal with long term advantage.

You are flagellating yourself with this information. It proves i'm right and you are wrong.
You are saying that you are looking at the long term to see if your predictions are stable, in other words close to each others. If you need long term analysis, like your genuinewinner system that does not work, if you need a lot of averages, to see that your computer gives precise predictions on the same spin, then your computer is a shit like i've always said. You only need to repeat the same spin few times (short term) to know that the predictions are very precise and accurate. But indeed, for a computer like yours that gives, WITH THE SAME POINTS FOR THE WHEEL AND BALL, Predictions 26, 25, 6, 21, IT IS HARD TO SAY AFTER FEW SPINS THAT THE COMPUTER PREDICTION MAIN AREA IS AROUND ZERO.

 It is impossible to say within 100% certainty that 100% of spins are within 3 or so pockets 100% of the time. It's different with things like the hybrid though, which can get predictions on the same pocket almost every time (occasionally it may be 1 pocket off).

Here’s where you go wrong: When you look at a scatter chart like the below, exactly where is your edge, the yellow or the blue area?:

HAHAHAHA. Why don't you post the real chart of the results you get with your computer, even with the same point used for prediction, it does not show a peak like that. Again, manipulating people with lies and fake graphs, fucking scammer, THIS IS NOT WHAT YOUR COMPUTER ACHIEVED IN THE DEMONSTRATION.

What you are telling me is the blue area.

On this graph NO, of course, but again, this is a fake graph, your computer didn't achieve this, even with the same point used, what a shame for you.

 If you use VB prediction and only calculate ball drop time and first reference number vs where the ball land, and say if the wheel had 2+ dominant diamonds, then you would use the yellow area because you'd get multiple peaks (vis a vis - remember how I had to explain it to you before when you thought Pierre had something new??

Never said that, again your ill brain. Pierre explains much more useful informations in his books that only cost around 60$, and you only bullshits informations for 2,500$ like VB based on approximations, peaks that move, shift, die, grow up, like waves in the sea all bullshit that ashame you at a high point, that's WHY YOU WANT TO STOP ME DISTRIBUTING YOUR EBOOK, NOT BECAUSE IT IS COPYRIGHT!.

 At that stage you had a pathetic understanding of the gw system as you do now even though you only knew about the basics). But when you consider other situations that you wouldnt understand, you consider the blue area or more specifically an 18 pocket arc.

It is hard to understand something when the author keeps changing his story about his system because he has been exposed. Read your PDF seriously. You are saying yourself that your system is Dealer signature. (checking for consistancy of the wheel and the ball)...Do not chart spins blindly otherwise the peaks would not form.
And then later we learn that the peaks obtained by charting have nothing to do with ball and wheel revolutions counts. That we have to follow the peaks, trying to predict their behaviour, like wave in the sea. You even emailed me one day telling me that your system is not dealer signature, it is a "Self-Reference system", trying to find patterns found in nature in a primordial chart.

So sorry my imbecile dumbass, but I am a person with some logic, i can't understand someone who say WHITE and just after BLACK.

My point is, with the diamond testing, sure there will be variation. But the variation is a partial dilution of edge, not the actual edge. Your calculations are wrong, and based on the spread being something like below:

HA, finally you admit that there is variation in your predictions. If you were more honest, you would say: IMPORTANT variation. Your edge is considerably lower if you get predictions in a 12 pockets sector than a 3 pockets sector.
As you obtained your predictions in a 12 pockets sector (DRAMATIC), you are saying to defend your butt, that it is only of minor consequence for the edge, WHEREAS TRUTH IS IT IS HUGE. Common, predicting 6, and just after 26 on the same spin, WITH THE SAME REFERENCE DIAMOND (9 o'clock diamond) IS A HUGE FAULT, 12 FUCKING POCKETS DIFFERENCE AND YOU ARE CLAIMING YOUR COMPUTER IS ACCURATE?????? FUCKING BITCH YOU ARE!!!!.

Is it really like that? Is the spread really even? No, you just dont understand the concept of “edge”.

Not far from that yes. It is because i know what precision a ballistic system needs to be effective that i know without a doubt that your computer cannot obtain even a slight edge on modern level wheels, with such rubbish predictions. No doubt it can have an edge on tilted wheels with prediction spread in a 12 pockets sector, but not on modern level wheels, stop your circus please, you are sinking more and more by telling such bullshit.

Now let’s look at the results:

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.
> * 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.

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.

This tells you how much he doesn’t understand.

If you are repeating same spin and clocking at same point and getting prediction at same time computer gets same ball speed. If you use same diamond during the play it doesn’t mean you will always get ball with same speed. Sometimes it can be 900ms sometimes 980ms or 950ms… If computer is more advanced as FF it can have all range of ball speeds within x amount of rotations. With test we actually simulate different ball speeds even if we use single spin so that we can see how well computer will detect and predict according clocked ball speed.

So if 1:12 is what you get when clocking on 4 diamonds that is what it is. Clocked ball speed in casino will never be always same, compute needs to measure it and handle it appropriately.

In addition to it real prediction of 1:12 will also be worst because not all spins have identical ball deceleration and that will inject more errors. Let’s say 1:18.
Add to it deviation in ball traveling distance from prediction until it drops it may be 1:25. Is predicting ball drop point with 1:25 good enough? I do not think so because after that ball have jumps and parameter on wheel may change. When we have accuracy of predicting 1:25 we simply can’t notice any changes. We may play 20 minutes with positive advantage and next 20 with negative. It also means that building graph with such errors as Stefano is doing combined with ball jump scatter is totally useless.

Basic 1:12 is still improvement for Stefano, because few years back when you have had computer and when we tested we consider it random, perhaps it may be 1:28 or something like that, but it is useless.

I do not trust even his 1:12.

Only few months ago Viper was doing the same as you did, but he insisted that Stefano shows computer and both hands on camera then he told him which diamonds to clock. Results were completely random. Also interesting was that Viper insisted that phone beeps when the ball is due to drop. According to Stefano most of the time he forgets to switch that feature. You need to activate it with every spin you want to predict is nonsense.

With you Stefano refused to predict in different ball rotation. He is holding phone and playing with keyboard sometimes he removes it from screen. If at least he did proper test more convincing without excuses, even for 1:12 I would give him some credit.

If he wants to prove something on camera then he should do what observer asks him to do and in most clean way, Stefano definitely couldn’t do it. Obviously he was manipulating the test and he will brag for next 6 months how he proved something when actually he did nothing.

Now stop attaching stupid pictures and writing discussions which are not worth discussing.

Ask Stefano to do proper test record proper video and to give you permission at vls forum to discuss it.
Sorry, we can’t take sides about the test which has no grounds of validity.

Now I will lock this thread and please do not start new one because it is waste of time.