Exposing False Claims about "Dealer Signature"
The most common claim that Mark Howe, Tony Duhamel and Forester make about my roulette system is that it is based on "dealer signature". They really don't have the vaguest idea about my system - they just speculate from what little they know.
I teach every globally recognized method to beat roulette, including dealer signature - download this document for a list of what I teach. Any of the "three stooges" will tell you the methods I teach are legitimately effective, unless I teach them. That's your first clue. Nevertheless, even if my system was based on dealer signature, there wouldn't be anything wrong with it because it's a perfectly valid method. Moreover, Forester recently has only begun to realize what can be done with "dealer signature". Even some members of his forum are re-inventing ways to use it in combination with other methods including visual ballistics and bias analysis, albeit incorrectly. Nevertheless, I've been combining pattern types into singular methods for years. I call such applications "custom variants".
There are different definitions to "dealer signature", but in the context the "stooges" use it, they claim the accuracy displayed in my videos are the result of me apparently spinning the rotor and ball the same speed all the time. So let's get straight to the point. Below is a chart that shows the number of ball revolutions for each spin. If what my "friends" are saying is true, there would be little variation in the number of ball revolutions. But do we see this? NO. In fact the variations are substantial.
Download the video they refer to, and check for yourself.
(Well that was a difficult one to debunk now)
Their false claims are mostly because they have personal vendettas, but also in part due to complete ignorance and lack of knowledge.
Click here to see a video Mark Howe published with various nonsense claims. Mark only shows a small segment of my video, because he doesn't want you to see the variation in spin speeds that expose him. Fortunately, truth is on my side, so it's easy to expose his lies. Surely Mark would find his attacks against me to be frustrating - he appears to attack me as his full-time occupation. But it seems his attacks against me continue to result in him falling on his face. This is probably why he's so persistent; somewhat obsessed. Nevertheless I do admire his tenacity, as misguided and pathetic as it is.
Points for Consideration:
- The "Number of Ball Revolutions" is the number of times the ball passes the diamond on the right of the screen. I count only FULL revolutions. If I counted partial revolutions (for example, 12.2, 14.5 etc) the variation would be even greater.
- Ball speed variations is one thing, but I don't even take rotor speed variations into account. Slight changes in rotor speed make an enormous difference in where the ball lands. When you consider the variation in ball revolutions, and rotor speeds, you can understand why most people consider roulette completely "random" (but it never is - they just don't understand it on the correct level).
- Dealer behavior does play a role, as is clearly stated at the beginning of the video (the text). But not in the traditional sense. How do you know this? Just have a look at the ball revolution variation. The poor knowledge of people like Mark Howe contribute to his ridiculous comments, but as he's proven countless times, truth is irrelevant to him anyway - he truly is an incredibly sick and obsessed person, but I'll try and keep it relevant here.
- This part is important to understand: For a wheel to be predictable, about 90% of the variables and requirements are to do with the wheel and ball combination. Only about 10% have to do with the dealer. In typical conditions, the dealer makes comparatively little difference, although they are still a consideration. In other words, what you see in the video has almost nothing to do with the dealer (me). Because dealer still has some influence, I clearly state this at the start of the video. The variation of the amount of ball revolutions in my videos, and rotor speed variations, can be verified by anyone. Whether my "admirers" understand it yet or not, certain patterns are exhibited on any wheel and ball combination regardless of dealer, provided the dealer spins within reasonable limits. When I say "reasonable limits", I mean if the dealer spun the rotor with an enormous variation in speed, then the particular simplistic approach in this video would not be effective, although other methods I teach would. When considering just the ball, a reasonable limit of variation is between 7 - 15 ball revolutions which is a greater variation than the average dealer. So you can see even with such variations, one of my simplest methods still beats the wheel. An "unreasonable" variation for this simple method is roughly 6 - 25 ball revolutions, although an edge is still achieved with my advanced methods. You will only ever be able to utilize my advanced methods with software I provide to my players, and even then players are not privy to the inner workings. It is never published in any document or video for security reasons. The only methods I "publish" in documents are traditional "advantage play" methods which aren't anywhere near as sensitive. It makes no sense to demonstrate sensitive methods in a public video, so I demonstrate only very basic approaches that still show clear proof of effectiveness. I have personally never come across a wheel design that is completely unbeatable with my advanced methods, regardless of ball and rotor speed variations, and with bets BEFORE ball release. However, there is a difference between a wheel being "beatable", and "practical to beat". An example is sometimes a wheel may simply not spin frequently enough to be practical to obtain enough data. My "official" claims are: "every wheel can be beaten one way or another, but a wheel in the home or casino are very different things. Approximately 30-50% of "casino" wheels globally are both beatable AND practical to beat. Of those wheels, typically you will achieve at least a reasonable edge. Sometimes it is easy, sometimes it takes a lot of time and effort that is not suitable for everyone."
- Mark Howe's main intention of making his false claims is to convince you to buy his competing product, all while getting "revenge" for a petty vendetta - he blames me for his failures, and accused me of ruining his life (his girlfriend kicked him out because he refused to get a job, and then he ran off with the babysitter of his children, literally - but let's leave that one alone!). In this case, he is making desperate unsubstantiated "excuses" to explain the effectiveness of my system and computers. The prediction methods for my roulette computer and systems are very different and only share some similarities by exploiting wheel physics. If you think the ball revolution variation is enormous in the video explained above, then you should see the variation in the roulette computer videos. As if Mark already had no leg to stand on, it gets worse for him. Try the below for example:
There are also ample videos at www.roulettecomputers.com/videos.html and anyone who truly does proper research is left in no doubt that Mark is indeed "screwed up". As for my other "friends", they aren't far behind and have equal consideration for the truth. Again, Mark simply has no leg to stand on. While his manipulation is rather sloppy, he relies on people not actually digging deeper, or ignoring the fact that he impersonates my players under fake names. For every one of my videos, Mark comes out with the most incredible excuses to explain the obvious effectiveness. Some of the excuses are listed at www.roulettewars.com/markhowe2.html with my favorite being that I must have used his roulette computer to obtain predictions. I think in this particular case, with my videos, Mark is probably trying to get revenge for me pointing out his roulette computer demo video was actually cut and joined in the center. This is a fact, that you can verify if you have the original video. Now he only shows the first 10 minutes of this video. It is much like how he was exposed as being nearly broke, and lying about his assets, so he's doing everything conceivable to convince people I'm a "broke scammer". Nevertheless, Mark's computer is a scam, and rather than waste time explaining it, anyone can get it free from one of Mark's unhappy customers (click here) - test and see for yourself. But I'm not really interesting on exposing a scammer - I really only want to expose lies about me.
Anyway my point is that investigation into ANY of his claims reveal he manipulates any information any way conceivable - in short, he's beyond full of it. He's desperate - literally obsessed. You can read this site to better explain why he is considered by many to be literally mentally ill, but I'm trying to ignore his problems and focus on what matters: the facts, supported by data.
Regarding spin speed consistency:
I'll just elaborate on this point. Never will spin speed be "consistent", regardless of dealer. Specifically there is "degree of variation". No matter what variation of spin speeds, it is absolutely inevitable that a wheel will generate long term predictable patterns. It is an absolute certainty. Generally the lower the variation, the easier spins are to predict, and the simpler your system can be. What amount of variation is "acceptable" for achieving an edge? . . . it all depends on the wheel and ball combination, and the specific method (pattern types) you use. Say if we are talking about only one specific wheel and ball combination: With very basic methods, the variation must be relatively small for you to achieve an edge. Now on this same wheel with more advanced methods, a very large variation of spin speeds would not at all be a problem (even with bets before ball release). Herein is a closely guarded secret of my roulette prediction methods.
So how do my methods work?
I teach many methods - some are traditional "advantage play" such as "visual ballistics", and some are several steps beyond traditional methods. An outline of what I teach is in this document (click to download). Some of the methods utilize the same principles, and some do something very different. Without giving too much away, a summary of my most powerful methods are as follows:
The fixed physical properties of a wheel inevitably cause long term and predictable patterns - it is absolutely inevitable. Where the ball lands is never random. The ball lands where it does due to cause and effect. Properly understanding the relationship between cause and effect permits predictions that are not perfectly accurate, but accurate enough to overcome the house edge (unfair payouts). Traditional advantage play (such as bias analysis) utilizes variables in a static relationship. They are effective in certain circumstances, but changing conditions render such unidimensional approaches ineffective. An analogy is where most wheel bias is actually dynamic - you can have temporarily biased wheel sectors. If you understand the "triggers" that indicate shifting bias, and analyze correctly, you can predict temporary bias all while the casino has no idea about it. This is just one of many scenarios though. My methods model the dynamic relationship between the variables, their relationship with other variables, and the spin outcomes. Like everything, roulette is dynamic. The only way to maximize accuracy of predictions is by modelling the dynamic relationships. To do this, I use principles of "self referencing" which is something I learned in my time as an energy researcher. Related principles are disclosed in the book "Living Energies" by Callum Coats.