FORESTER
EPISODE I: Only what counts
Go to Forester's Episode II: The nitty gritty
Forester's False Claim: |
The Truth & Proof: |
Forester claims my computer produces random predictions. He claims that if my computer is applied on the same spin releatedly on DVD, if you use a different reference point each time, the predictions are virtually random. The idea of this test according to Forester is that if the computer was capable of accurate timings and if the algorithms were accurate, the computer should give predictions in much the same area of the wheel.
Forester claims that mobile phones are simply incapable of producing adequately accurate timings.
|
Never have predictions been virtually random. Even in the earliest models, predictions were all within a 8-12 pocket arc, which is considerably better than having at least 50%+ predictions on the same half of the wheel. Additionally, considering with Forester's FFZ you can only determine the first number within about 10 pockets accuracy (when the ball is early enough in the spin), even IF Forester's algorithms were 100% accurate, you realistically couldn't get better than 10 pocket accuracy - this is just with the first number too, not where you actually bet. See Forester's computer review for more information: I was sent it for free by an unhappy purchaser.
Regarding my computer, in recent models, improvements have led to almost all predictions being within a 3-6 pocket arc and it doesn't deal with ridiculous zaps that are near impossible to use.
I released videos of myself conducting the "different diamond test" at www.roulettecomputers.com/videos.html. After the initial videos of this test, Forester claimed I probably merely manually inputted the predictions into the computer. So in new video, I conducted the same test without ever moving the computer from the screen. Then Forester claimed I probably set the computer to only predict specific numbers. Bare in mind this exact test is done at the start of all of my public demonstrations specifically to refute Forester's false claims. But unfortunately many attendees of public demos are not well known on forums. Additionally, anyone who actually has my computer can do the exact same test to confirm my claims, but still my players are not well known on forums, so any comments from them may be criticized - some people may state that the players are simply myself under fake names. So now my computer has been sent to three well-known forum members to do this test for themselves. Progress of these public validations are at http://www.rouletteforum.net/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1220826187/
Would I be proceeding with such a public challenge if I were confident the testers would validate my claims? No, of course not. But no matter what the outcome, Forester will never admit to being wrong. Why? Because in all probability he knows the truth, but the truth would only embarass him - the truth does not suit him at all.
Essentially, when this single and very simple claim of Forester's is proven to be false by the independent testers, virtually 90% of all Forester's false claims about me will fall apart. |
Could there have been any truth to Forester's claims? Could this perhaps be some kind of misunderstanding?
Firstly, I've corrected Forester many times, and I've called him personally to correct him, but he's not even prepared to consider the possibility that he may be wrong. To me, this seems like he's not really interested in the truth. However, IF Forester really had tested my computer and found predictions were virtually random, below is a possible reason:
- The ball sample did not have enough data points: This means ball sample clicks did not begin early enough in the spin. Especially with higher polynomial orders, too few data points will mean the curve is wavey, and this will lead to inaccurate predictions. Based on Forester's claims about my computer, it was clear he had either never even seen my computer, or had an extremely poor understanding of it. For instance, he had no idea at all how to disable the computer's risk feature, or how this feature worked - it is the most basic setting, and comments he made about it showed he really had no idea what he was talking about, yet he professed to be an expert about my computer. Regarding the data points, see the below examples:
TOP IMAGE: Too few data points, so the polynomial curve is wavey.
BOTTOM IMAGE: Adequate amount of data points, so curve is smooth and stable.
So IF Forester was telling the truth, he needed only to begin clicks earlier. But if the ball simply didn't complete enough revolutions, he needed only to set the computer to a lower polynomial order, which can be done in the computer's settings.
However, I still don't believe Forester made an honest mistake. That's because he has been unwilling to even consider the possibility that he is wrong - he is clearly not interested in the truth because it doesn't suit him.
NOTE: Current versions of my computer automatically set the polynomial order based on the number of data points, so the player doesn't need to check the curve. This ensures it is virtually foolproof.
Go to Forester's Episode II: The nitty gritty