Forester claims he did this test with my computer and found he got predictions in different parts of the wheel to the extent that predictions appear virtually random.

The point behind Forester's claim? He says my computer does not at all deal well with human errors in timings, and that is it's biggest problem.

Real wheels can be categorised as one of the following:

A strong tilt makes a wheel very easy to beat, and a perfectly level wheel would still be relatively easy to beat with the right technology. But the problem is just about every wheel is somewhere between level and tilted. That is in order for most roulette computers to produce predictions that are accurate enough to overcome the house edge (and be profitable), most wheels are not tilted enough to be treated as a "tilted" wheel, and not level enough to be treated as a "level" wheel. Most wheels are "semi-tilted".

Because of this, the ball's speed will actually appear as a wave, such as in the chart shown left. The greater the wheel tilt, the more "wavy" the ball speed curve will be.

Even on a so-called "level" wheel, there is still a degree of tilt, and you will still see the "wavy" effect. If the wheel was perfectly level and symmetrical, then yes the curve would be smooth. But it is almost impossible for such a perfectly level wheel to be achieved to the extent where there is no discernable wave effect.

This is because as the ball approaches the wheel's low point, the ball's deceleration will be marginally less than when it approaches the high point. In other words, when the ball travels up hill, it will slow down more rapidly than it does when travelling down hill. We are talking only slight variations in deceleration rates which are not noticeable with the naked eye on a so-called "level" wheel, but they do indeed play a major role on where the ball will actually fall. Combine this with the fact that various parts of the roulette wheel such as the ball track are subject to slight variations, making symmetry virtually impossible, and you understand Forester's test has little merit on real roulette wheels.

Forester claims his test is appropriate because the computer doesn't know what diamond is being used to establish timings. But it should! His test assumes the wheel is mechanically perfect and perfectly level, which no wheel is. Almost always is the slight tilt relevant (95% of the time), and it must be accounted for. I understand what Forester's test is intended to achieve, but he doesn't appear to fully understand the physics involved.

Observing his algorithms for heavily tilted wheels, they are fine although beating such wheels is extremely simple, and a computer is not even required. But his algorithms for so-called level wheels incorrectly assume the wheel is perfectly level. Furthermore, his device has absolutely no algorithm to deal with semi-tilted wheels - instead, it leaves no choice but to accept the effect of discrepancies, which is a dramatic reduction in accuracy to the point where play may not be profitable. For now neglecting the fact that his device is completely impractical to apply (as explained later), what all this means is even IF you find application practical, you can only apply his device on heavily tilted wheels, which are extremely rare. This combined with the impracticality of his device makes it no better than visual ballistic techniques. More about the impracticality of his device is explained later on this page.

Forester doesn't appear to understand that my computer has settings for all three types of wheels - heavily tilted, semi-tilted, and level wheels. When you compare the features at www.roulettecomputers.com/comparison.htm you also understand how simplistic his device is, and that a player would be better of using perfectly legal visual ballistics instead of his device.

Here's a more appropriate test:

Apply the computer on the same spin again and again. Instead of using different diamonds to establish timings, use the same diamond, but take timings at different points in the spin. And that's exactly what I've done in the video below:

Download Video (www.genuinewinner.com/forester.wmv) - 73MB

Anyone can see for themselves from this video that Forester has been spreading blatantly false information about my computer, for whatever reason. I had hoped it was due solely to his ignorance. However, he has taken unmistakably deliberate attempts to harm me, and has spread blatantly false information that cannot be blamed on ignorance alone. He is also completely unwilling to listen to reason as the truth as it does not suit him. Every attempt I have made to correct him has resulted in an immature and unreasonable response. This leaves me with little doubt that he is merely seeking to dishonestly boost his business, and does not at all care about the truth. But if by some small chance he is merely ignorant, I will accept his apology, and will not pursue legal action if he corrects his statements.

NOTE: The accuracy of predictions in the video is irrelevant as the computer was not tuned. It is only a test to confirm predictions are in the same area of the wheel.

More specifically, I applied my computer on the same spin repeatedly. The wheel timings were taken at the same point, but the ball timings were taken at different points in the spin. The idea behind it is no matter "when" we take clicks, the predictions should be much the same.

Timings of the wheel rotor: On every spin, I took timings of half-revolutions of the wheel rotor. This is because the wheel rotor is quite slow, I wanted to receive predictions early in the spin, and because I wanted to show the computer's accuracy with one of the less accurate settings (which is still extremely accurate). The clocking was done at the first possible opportunity for every spin (25 spins).

Timings of the ball: For each prediction, there were 5 clicks for the ball. My computer can take 2 - 8 ball clicks depending on the user's preference. There are 5 groups of spins as explained below:

NOTE: I could have improved accuracy by increasing the number of clicks taken, but I wanted to show early predictions with fewer clicks. However, even with the settings used, the predictions were still extremely accurate.

As you can confirm from the video, the chart shown left displays the actual predictions for each group.

You can clearly see the predictions are in the same sector, and that Forester is lying. Understand he is a competitor, and a dishonest one trying to get you to purchase his product instead (just as Mark Howe does). Yes this is dishonest. I have tried to contact him to correct his lies, but he does not appear to be interested in correcting his statements because the truth does not suit him. As I have said many times, there aren't a lot of honest people in the gaming industry.

This is Forester's biggest lie very easily exposed. Mark Howe has made similar lies based on Forester's lies, so this video exposes Howe too. Yes, indeed they are a charming couple of competitors. The only difference between them is that Forester appears more calm and rational, but a liar is a liar no matter how they behave.

NOTE: This test is a basic test of the algorithms in combination with the hardware's ability to take timings. However, like Forester's test, it is not a good overall test of a computer's accuracy because there are many other essential factors (and features) that contribute to accurate predictions. This part constitutes little more than 20% of the prediction process.

Additionally, I have done Forester's suggested test as per below:

In this test, I used the computer to predict the same spin repeatedly. I used 4 different diamonds as pointed out in the footage. There were 20 spins in total done - 5 spins for each diamond.

Download the footage below:

Medium Quality (38.8MB) - Click HERE

High Quality (77MB) - Click HERE

You will notice the accuracy is even greater than the above test. This is because the software version is different. In the most recent videos, version 11.6 is demonstrated, where the algorithms that deal with errors in timings have been further improved.

Importantly, note that every prediction is in the same octant of the wheel. It cannot realistically get any better than such results. The algorithms of my computer are just about as close to perfection as they can be.

About Forester's Device and its Impracticality:

Forester claims his computer deals with human errors in timings very well, but what he doesn't say is you need an enormous amount of clicks to achieve this, and that the ball is practically in the pocket by the time you determine the prediction. But irrespective of whether or not Forester's algorithms deal with human errors, it is not at all a big deal because reducing errors is more a matter of taking more clicks. My computer can be set to take any number of clicks you desire.

The biggest problem with Forester's device is as follows:

To know where to bet, you click a button until the device gives you a painful electric zap. When you receive the zap, you then observe which number on the wheel is under the fast moving ball - call this the "first number". Determining the "first number" alone is almost impossible to do with any kind of accuracy because the ball moves way too quickly (AND the wheel spins the opposite direction), plus half the time you'll receive the zap when you can't even see the ball. Bare in mind you almost never see the whole wheel in real casino conditions - usually you can only see about half. But even IF the ball is visible at the time of the zap, and even IF you can see the number under the ball, the "first number" is not even where you bet. To know where to actually bet, you need to find a "second number" which is a certain angle from the "first number" (the second number is where you actually bet). To find the angle, you need to test about 30 spins and take visible notes, further increasing unwanted attention from casino staff. And on every spin, you need to apply the angle from the first number to find the second number. So even IF you can actually see the ball when you get the zap, and even IF can accurately determine which number it was (the "first number"), chances are you wont even be able to see the actual prediction (second number) which may be on the other side of the wheel. Putting this into perspective, in real casino conditions where you only see about half of the wheel, you have about a 50% chance of seeing the ball when the zap occurs, and another 50% chance that at this time you can actually see the number you need to bet on. So over 100 spins, you will only be able to actually know where to bet realistically only on about 25% of spins. Combine this with the difficulty of the actual method, and you understand his device has has no real value in the actual casino environment.

Additionally, the electric shock emits an electrostatic burst that casino surveillance equipment can very easily detect. There are countless problems with Forester's technology but I truly have more important things to do than expose what's wrong with his device. But if you want to know more, see www.roulettecomputers.com/comparison.htm. It is not my intention to embarrass him - I only intend to expose his lies about me, not to turn this into a childish mudslinging contest.

Ultimately is Forester's device far superior as he claims?... NO, it's far from it. Anyone who observes real casino conditions, and understands how his device is applied, would know his device is virtually impossible to apply in real casino conditions.

And is what Forester says about my computer true? (that it produce virtually random predictions)... NO, as you can clearly see from the above tests.

You can receive 10%, 25%, 29%,100% of predictions - anything you want. The tighter the range you set, fewer predictions you receive, but the more accurate they are because the scatter is reduced.

NOTE: Despite the very big difference in wheel speeds, predictions are still given and "risk" is not at all announced - not even once. This lie of his is also very easy to expose. You would think if Forester's lies were purely from ignorance that he would correct his statements and apologize, but the truth doesn't suit him, and he only continues to post more rubbish. Also Mark Howe perpetuated this lie (and other lies), so this not only exposes Forester, but also Howe.

Anyone that truly has my computer and the instructions can manually enter data into the computer to see the exact output of the mathematics and algorithms. This manual test feature is specifically so anyone can verify the accuracy of the computer's algorithms. I would consider this an ESSENTIAL feature, yet neither Mark Howe's or Forester's computer has it. What have they to hide if their algorithms are accurate?

I told Forester about the manual data input so anyone can verify the accuracy of the algorithms, and his response was the feature was pointless because it doesn't actually tell us the accuracy of clicks on a mobile phone. That may be true, but the manual test feature is designed to test the algorithms (to ensure they have been correctly programmed). To test the actual mobile phone's ability to take accurate clicks, refer to the test done above (video). Forester claims mobile phones cannot possibly accept accurate clicks. This is nonsense yet again, and if what he said was true, I would not be able to achieve the clearly positive results in the above test. I even use clicks for half revolutions of the wheel, and the predictions are still clearly very accurate.

If what Forester said were true, virtually no predictions would ever be given by my computer, which is clearly not the case as anyone can see if they see any of my demo videos. This lie of Forester's was particularly careless and not well thought out. Just like the other lies, it is very easy to expose.

My system is a collection of every known effective technique to beat roulette, and many relatively unknown techniques. This includes but is not limited to visual ballistics, the primordial variants, dealer signature, sector targeting, bias analysis, and custom variants (9 different pattern types that are exhibited on roulette wheels). No "single" technique is relied upon. Where a particular technique can't be applied, almost certainly at least one other can to overcome the house edge on a specific wheel. The techniques have been sourced primarily from my own research (energy research similar to that in the publication "Living Energies" by Callum Coats), but also from that of globally recognized roulette professionals and organisations including but not limited to TCS John Huxley (yes, the roulette wheel manufacturer) and Steve Forte (although his particular publication "Casino Game Protection" is rather limited with regards to beating roulette), and even privately hired physicists and mathematicians that cost me a small fortune. My system does not deal with fiction - just genuinely effective and proven techniques that even the casinos themselves acknowledge are effective.

Forester himself has sold visual ballistic techniques - this is part of what my course teaches. So according to him, only such techniques work if he teaches them? His goal is obviously to say whatever he can to discredit me. If it worked in his favour, he would probably also claim that my wife's jewellery company is fraudulent.

I asked Forester to tell me WHAT THE PLAYER'S NAMES ARE, AND WHO HE CLAIMS TO REPRESENT - a very simple and reasonable request. But did he give names? No, of course not, because he is lying.

What is his excuse for refusing to tell me the names? He says its because if I knew who they were, I might refuse to supply these players with the ongoing access codes.

Firstly, why on Earth would my purchasers go through Forester to obtain a refund from me without ever contacting me? And secondly, why would it matter if I didn't supply the access codes to the purchasers if my computer were rubbish and these 6 phantom individuals wanted a refund as he claims? Wouldn't I at least need to know WHO I need to give refunds to? I don't think he realises how ridiculous his claims sound. But his claims are not intended to be directed at me anyway, so it doesn't matter how ridiculous it sounds to me. His claims are directed at people like you who want to purchase a roulette computer, and he merely wants to discredit me to boost his sales.

"the truth is that place where Stefano lives is one of worst and cheapest area, with highest crime rate."

I live in Australia's Yarra Valley Wine region, one of the wealthiest areas of Victoria Australia. It is surrounded by world class wineries, simply because my wife and I love wine. See www.genuinewinner.com/contact.htm and note my phone number starting with 9737 - this is proof I live in this area. Conduct a Google search of this area code.

Mark Howe has made similar malicious claims that I easily debunked at genuinewinner.com/markhowe.htm

Is there some confusion and that Forester has made an honest mistake? NO. It is blatant lies - he knows they are lies and just wants to harm me. Is he perhaps confusing my residence with my parents address? NO. But even if he were, click here to see a photo of the entrance to my parents estate. I even included the street sign in the photo so you can see it is the correct area. Does this look like a poverty stricken area with a high crime rate? You decide...

TAKE THE $100,000 CHALLENGE:

If someone (including yourself) believes my systems and computers are ineffective, impractical or cannot be successfully used in the majority of casinos etc, they can take up my $100,000 challenge as explained at www.genuinewinner.com/guarantee.htm and www.roulettecomputers.com/challenge.htm

If a competitor, a mysterious forum poster under a fake name, or ANYONE claims my systems or computers are ineffective, ask them to take the challenge. If my system and computers were NOT what I claimed, no person in their right mind would refuse such an easy $100,000. Remember it's all LEGALLY BINDING and proof of the funds is provided in writing, so do not accept pathetic excuses such as "he probably doesn't have the funds anyway" . . . You can ask Mark Howe or Forester to pursue this challenge, and I guarantee they will use any excuse to back out. Surely if they were telling the TRUTH about me, they wouldn't refuse. Common sense.

Now if anyone claims they've TRIED to take the challenge (the next obvious excuse to avoid the challenge), have them contact me personally with you as a mediator - for example, have the email CC'd so you can see for yourself progress. ASK FORESTER, MARK HOWE, OR ONE OF THEIR FAKE NAMES ON FORUMS TO TAKE THIS CHALLENGE. NO SANE PERSON THAT CLAIMED MY SYSTEM OR COMPUTER FAILED WOULD REFUSE THIS CHALLENGE.

NOTE: If any "challenger" really wants to make it interesting, I'm also prepared to wager US$2,000,000 in assets, although the challenger must also wager too. This is to prevent many people from wasting my time & taking "wild stabs" at the prize. I'll even provide full documentation to prove value of assets.