Tony's False Claim:

The Truth & Proof:

Tony claims he tested my computer on the same spin repeatedly on DVD, and that predictions were virtually random. He claimed this was proof that my computer did not have any error control for timing errors, and therefore could not possibly be effective.

When he returned the roulette computer, he sent me a link to a video of him doing this test. Contrary to my advice, it was clear he used a PC DVD player, which are notorious for skipping. I advised him of his mistake, but he refused to believe it was a likely reason for his poor results.

1. In Tony's video, you can clearly see his test is conducted on a PC. DVD players inside PCs are notorious for skipping. It makes sense to not apply precise timing equipment on a skipping DVD player.

2. See the roulette computer videos where I conduct the same test.

3. On the main page, see the results of public testing where a neutral and very well known and respected forum member received my computer for free to conduct testing. The result was the tester validated my claims, and demonstrated Tony was lying. What was Tony's reaction? He claimed I must be the tester under a fake name. At this point, Tony flipped and intensified his efforts to discredit me.

4. I demonstrated my roulette computer doing this test with Tony live via webcam. The test validated my claims and further embarrassed Tony. Click here to listen to the recording. Tony also released a recording of the event, but:

i. he edited the recording and cut out parts, and

ii. he made my voice is barely audible,

iii. and at first he completely misunderstood the results, because of his inexperience. When I corrected him, he corrected his statement but of course did not apologize. He then twisted the relevance of the results in attempt to reduce his embarrassment.

Click here to see a detailed explanation of the results, and some of the correspondence between Tony and I (you'll have to do some reading, but the results are clear and conclusive).

Tony published a video of my roulette computer with myself applying it (one of the videos I sent him), and a chart which displays the distance between the prediction and where the ball actually landed. This is called a "scatter chart" and it is a method to evaluate the effectiveness of a roulette computer for specific spins, and with specific settings.

He claimed the scatter chart is very poor and proof that predictions are virtually random.

To the layman, Tony's claims may appear like irrefutable proof that I'm the "scammer" he claims. To understand how manipulative he is, you need to carefully review the following:

1. He showed only HALF of the video, which is about only 50 spins. Why? Because the other half has a more favorable scatter chart, and he doesn't want you to see it. In particularly he shows the FIRST half of the video which is the "setup" DVD - it is the period in which the computer is merely learning the wheel, and bets are not made. Why would Tony do this and hide the second half of the video? To manipulate people into believing him.

2. In the half he did show:

3. Tony doesn't tell you about the freely available roulette computer videos already on my site. Why? Because they are conducted over 100 spins, double the amount of spins he shows, and the scatter chart of the computer is shown throughout the demonstration. To prove it is not merely coincidence, in one of the videos, half way through the video I reset the scatter chart and continue play. The footage is uncut. Continued play shows the peaks emerge in the same place, plus in both halves the direct number hit rate is 1 in 16. That kind of proof is nearly impossible to fake which is why I do it. Of course Tony doesn't want you to see it, or the other half of the video, or the other videos which have far more spins. Tony doesn't care about the truth because it doesn't suit him.

Now let's have a look at the chart that Tony calls "random". I added the blue line and red text to the chart:

Again while keeping in mind all the points raised above, such as the wheel being level, teflon ball is used, only basic computer settings being used, and Tony choosing the video half with the least favorable scatter chart, have a good look at the chart. You will notice the ball lands significantly more at points that are closer to the actual prediction (left and right sides of the chart). Additionally, the center of the chart has fewer values, because this is on the opposite side of the predictions, and it is no coincidence. Tony simply doesn't understand what he published. It's both his lack of inexperience, and that he wants to attack me relentlessly without a consideration for accuracy of statements. To anyone that actually understands the data, they can see Tony publishes data that supports me.

Tony claims that the chart is "random" because you need to focus on only about an 8 pocket arc. The reason he says this is because if this were true, the results would appear less favorable for me. In reality, covering 1 number is technically the highest "edge". If we looked at only 1 number, the exact number hit rate would be about 1 in 25, and again keep in mind he deliberately chose the least favorable video possible. But in reality, to assess computer accuracy, you need to look and HALF the wheel, which is about 18 pockets. After all, what occurs over 18 pockets is more than twice more relevant than just 8 pockets. When we look at 18 pockets, we find the following tally of hits on each half:

You will notice that on the opposite side of the predictions, there are 20 hits. On the side with the predictions, there are 33 hits. This is not a coincidence. Once again, also consider the various points of this video, such as it being a level wheel, the least favorable video he could find, only very basic settings are used with minimal accuracy etc.

Tony claims that I claim you need to cover 18 numbers for an edge. I never said this - he likes to take things out of context, or perhaps he just doesn't understand. Your edge is maximized by covering 1 number, which is the center of the high point (0 on the x-axis above). But covering just 1 number can result in losing streaks, albeit they are relatively short IF they occur. For example, let's say we bet at +1 along the x-axis. You can see there are no wins, despite having higher bars on either side. But if you covered a larger area, the edge is very clear, even with so few spins as in this chart.

When you consider points like this and what Tony does to try and discredit me, you have to wonder WHY he has to rely on manipulating people. He is fully aware of his manipulation too. I could give many examples but one of my favorites is when he attacked my roulette forum under a fake name, his fake name was "STOPMAKINGSENSE". Tony, I'm sorry if truth makes sense - you are not just attacking me, you are attacking truth, but truth wins every time, eventually. Not surprisingly, when Tony announced his new web page, Forester and Mark Howe jumped on it like flies on excrement - more specifically, Forester published the link on his forum, and Mark emailed it to many people he had contact with. They either didn't bother to check the scatter chart, or they just didn't care. It is certainly not uncommon for these clowns to jump on anything that may even remotely discredit me. To me that suggests desperation.

You can freely download a larger video with much more spins (100 spins) by clicking the image below. You can clearly see the scatter chart at various parts throughout the demo. Also bare in mind in this video too, a teflon ball is used, the wheel is level, and only the most basic settings are used. Accuracy is far greater with the more advanced settings, but still you can see even the basics settings produce high accuracy:

NOTE: You can either order a DVD or download even higher quality footage for free from the roulette computer videos page.

Tony claims that the genuinewinner.com roulette system is a scam. He claims that it does not work.

The genuinewinner.com system consists of numerous legitimate methods to beat roulette, including but not limited to bias analysis and visual ballistics. The casinos call them "advantage play". They are legitimate, and Tony knows this very well. Consider the following:

When I confronted Tony via live webcam chat about why he calls the techniques a scam when he clearly knows they are legitimate, he could not answer the question. When asked the question other times, he made various excuses like claiming I stole the techniques from other people, which is utter nonsense.

My point is Tony knows the techniques are legitimate. In attempt to discredit me, he takes the most elemental parts of the system (the primordials) and claims it's a dealer signature approach that doesn't work. He neglects to tell you the "primordials" and what are typically called "correlation charts" that almost every legitimate technique uses, including roulette computers and visual ballistics. You do not use them on their own. Tony has said himself he doesn't even fully know how to read such charts. Most recently, he published a chart on a forum claiming there was "no edge". But again he was wrong. The chart showed a +600 unit profit in 300 spins. He made yet another colossal mistake. He tried to discredit me and yet again fell on his face. This is the kind of reason why he is so mad - he blames me for his own stupidity.