EPISODE II: THE NITTY GRITTY:
Go to Forester's Episode I: Only what counts
Essentially Forester's single false claim in Episode I accounts for over 90% of his reasoning for claiming I'm a fraud. If you focus only on this one aspect, every other claim Forester has made fades away. Below are the finer points for consideration. Much of it may be considered to be completely irrelevant. Expect to read some of it and ask yourself why on Earth any of it would be brought up.
EXAMPLES OF FORESTER'S MISUNDERSTANDINGS:
- Forester claimed that on almost all occasions, my computer announced "risk" and failed to give any prediction. He claimed this was because it could not deal with different wheel speeds. This is absolute nonsense because my computer can be set to give predictions or announce "risk" when the wheel speed is within any speed range. For example, it can be set to announce "risk" when the wheel speed timing is not between 3000 - 4000MS. Why? For many reasons, but primarily because some wheels produce far more predictable ball bounce when the wheel rotor is within a certain speed range. If a computer is announcing "risk" too often, then you only need to widen the acceptable wheel speed range. This is an absolutely basic feature of my computer, and Forester had absolutely no idea what he was talking about. When I attempted to correct Forester's misunderstanding, he ignored me for whatever reason. Forester's computer is incapable of isolating wheel speeds, or adjusting predictions based on specific rotor speed, and his assumptions about my computer are incorrect.
ADDITIONAL NITTY-GRITTY POINTS:
- Forester claims he wanted to meet me to return 6 of my computers from customers who were apparently unhappy with my computer. In other words, he claimed to be representing 6 players of mine. I agreed, and only asked WHO those players were. After all, wouldn't it be reasonable to know who I was going to give refunds to? But Forester refused to give names. Why? His reasons for that was that he was concerned I might refuse the players ongoing access codes for the computer, which is a ridiculous claim because if my computer was so poor like he claims, these 6 people wouldn't care if the phones were locked - they'd only care about the refund. Besides, of course I would need to know who I was refunding. I told Forester that if he wants to meet me to return the phones, all he had to do was let me know who these 6 people were, then we would speak via the phone to arrange the meeting. But forester couldn't even specify WHO he represented. He even refused to speak to me on the phone - his excuse was that I might record the call and edit the audio. Forester's eventual reasoning for avoiding the meeting was that he claimed I couldn't give him my address. What's the story behind this? . . . I had clearly told him I recently moved offices, and I would not meet him at my new office because I didn't trust him to keep my new address confidential. However, as my previous office was at the time vacated, I could have paid the landlord a small fee to book the vacated office for a day, OR I would have simply hired another room for the meeting. The previous office was convenient as it was nearby. But who on Earth cares about the venue though? A venue is just a venue. We could have met just about anywhere we wanted. Forester completely backed out of the meeting. Why? Because he was lying. Forester tells people believe that I made excuses to avoid the meeting and that I gave him a false address, which is absolute rubbish. While Forester and I could argue all day about the finer points, let's try and stick to what counts: By all means, he is STILL more than welcome to arrange the meeting for these refunds, as has always been the case. All I ask is exactly the same thing, which is for him to specify who he represents, then call me to organize the meeting. I will then demonstrate the computer on any wheel he wants. If the demonstrations are successful, no refunds will be issued. Perfectly reasonable requests indeed. In doubt of this? Ask him for yourself to proceed with the meeting. Any venue can be used. CC all emails to yourself so you can see the correspondence. You will see he will make any excuse to avoid it. The bottom line is IF someone wants to meet someone, they will do it. They will not argue about venues and petty rubbish, they will not refuse even a simple phone call to organize it, they will not make every excuse possible. Arranging a meeting is very simple. I'm still waiting for you Forester.
- Forester claims he has been sent my roulette system for free by many different people. In reality, all Forester has received is the primordials document from people that didn't even understand the most elemental principles of advantage techniques (legitimate methods to beat roulette). What is the primordials document? It is the introductory document that players receive at the beginning - it is essentially the most basic of basic techniques, which is precisely why it's called the "primordials" document. Forester ignorantly believed this introductory document was what players received for $2500. I have explained to him that the primordials document is scarcely 10% of what players have paid for, but he chooses to ignore this. Forester doesn't have the vaguest idea of what my players receive - all he knows about it is what he reads on my websites, what is in the introductory document, and hearsay from others that similarly have no idea what they're talking about. The primordials document is only the introduction because there are countless legitimate methods to beat roulette, and what may be perfect for one wheel may be impractical for another. Rather than create one enormous document that covers every detail of every technique, which would be an obvious secrity risk anyway, players are gradually introduced to my techniques. This is also because merely dumping a huge document into a player's hands would confuse them to death. Although it is rare, some players cannot even seem to grasp the primordial document. You can download a free evaluation copy of the primordials document from www.genuinewinner.com/gw.zip
- Forester claims visual ballistics is an effective method to beat roulette. Visual ballistics has always been part of what I teach. There are many different types of visual ballistics. If Forester were the expert he claimed, he would have immediately recognized that what I call "primordial charts" is what other professional players often call "correlation charts". Such charts are merely representations of distance between one reference point to another. It is the most elemental pattern type possible, again which is why I call them primordial. Primordial charts can be used in many ways. Specifically with visual ballistics, which Forester highly praises, primordial charts are the basis where an initial reference number is taken while the ball is still rolling, and the second reference number is where the ball actually lands. This gives numbers in the format A,B. This is what I call format 3, as explained at www.genuinewinner.com/custom.htm - so basically Forester is calling me a "scammer", all while saying visual ballistics is great, but ignoring the fact that visual ballistics is indeed a part of what I teach. Forester well and truly knows this, but he doesn't dare publicize the fact because if he did, it would only work in my favour. What visual ballistics methods do I teach? Everything he may already know about, including crossover methods which even he acknowledges are effective. Beyond this, Forester doesn't have the vaguest idea about my visual ballistic techniques, or that there are approximately 10 different visual ballistic techniques I teach. It just doesn't suit Forester to acknowledge this. Why? Because he wants to compete, and telling the truth will make him lose sales.
Recently one of my computer purchasers advertised one of my roulette computers on ebay. Forester saw the ad and published it all over his site like a rash, making out as if my computer was junk which is why it was being sold. Forester neglected to state the player's reason for selling was he was in a financial bind, and could not afford to travel overseas to apply the computer legally. It had nothing to do with computer effectiveness. Forester also neglected to state the listed price is not the reserve price. He also forgot to mention I was sent his computer for free by an unhappy purchaser, I have been offered others, and Forester's computer has been sold before too.
Mark Howe of course had a similar reaction. Mark blasted out an email to his mailing list, telling people that no-one would sell something that worked (I wonder what that says about me being sent his computer for free).
Although I knew the player's reasons for selling, I emailed him asking to confirm whether or not the sale had anything to do with my computer's effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness. I also told him about what Mark and Forester did. Keep in mind the player has both Forester's and Mark's computers. Below is a excerpt from his response:
"I immediately berated Forester for mentioning that ad, and told him the device worked and his did not. I will forward you the email i sent him his morning when i saw what he said. As I mentioned, I only tried to sell due to financial burdens, not because of the device, which i believe to be accurate."
In Mark's Howe's broadcast email, Mark said:
"see attachment why would someone sell a roulette computer if it worked or had worked, they simply would not!"
Upon receiving Mark's broadcast email, the player emailed Mark saying:
"The computer works fine, your computer was much less effective. I am just low on money and cannot travel to casinos to use it. I don't appreciate you spreading gossip like this."
The player's response to me after I informed him about Mark Howe's and Forester's claims about the ebay ad is:
"But they are both full of shit, and missing the point, and you can feel free to post my response, or refer anyone who has questions to me. Both their systems sucks, yours seems to work, just that I am in dire financial situation and needed to to raise some money."
I should also mention this purchaser has conducted forester's suggested test to demonstrate the accuracy of any computer, and he found for himself my claims are accurate. This means he knows himself that Forester has lied, but he certainly is not the only person that knows this - many people have both my device and Forester's device. Certainly the more you read about Mark Howe and Forester, the more you see their dirty little tricks to discredit me.
- Forester claims that his FFZ computer is a superior method of delivering predictions to a computer merely telling you the prediction. It was a ludicrous claim. For a detailed explanation of how very poor Forester's zap method is, see Forester's computer review and use your common sense. Is this really something that is practical or even possible in a real casino environment? No. Forester's claims were clearly just to defend an inferior product. Now Forester's latest computer actually "speaks" the prediction, so now according to Forester, the speaking of predictions is actually better. While this is a big step forward for Forester, he has quite a lot of developing to do before his devices are anywhere near as sophisticated and effective that what my team has acheived.
- I contact both Mark Howe and Forester asking them if they wanted to form a team together to apply computers in casinos. I did this in the hopes they were serious players, as I was wishing to expand my teams. Throughout these conversations, I clearly told Forester that his algorithms are simplistic, and my algorithms were more appropriate. I did not wish to insult him - I was being perfectly honest. I also said that his algorithms deal very well with clicking errors. In fact at the time, it dealt with clicking errors better than a previous version of my standard computer. I told Forester that if we partnered, we would collaborate and share information to see if we could develop an even better computer - as partners, of course we would. I said if he visited me personally, I would demonstrate the Hybrid Roulette Computer to him, to teach him how it works and what it can do. Here's how Forester blatantly manipulated this information to suit himself:
|
i. Forester claimed I offered to BUY his algorithms from him which is absolute rubbish. Initially he only made this claim in his private forum, but when one of his members told me he claimed this, I realized how deceptive Forester really was. I even told Mark Howe we would collaborate IF we became partners - does it mean I wanted to buy his algorithms? No. |
|
ii. Forester claimed I openly admitted his algorithms were better than mine, which is an enormous lie and distortion of my statements. I clearly told him my algorithms were better. I told him the only aspect of his algorithms that were better than mine at the time was dealing with timing errors, but this was with regards to a much older version. Why was this aspect of his computer better? Because my algorithms were designed for the Hybrid Roulette Computer where precise timings were obtained. Indeed even older versions of my standard computer still dealt with timing errors very well, but just not as well as Forester's computer at the time. Only a small adjustment was needed to make my algorithms better suited to manual clicks - the small change was made, then my computer dealt with manual timing errors as well, if not better, than Forester's computer. I even told him this too. Forester completely twisted my comments around to deceive his forum members. |
|
iii. Forester claimed I offered to send him the Hybrid Roulette Computer for free. This is another huge distortion of the facts. I merely asked him to visit me so I could demonstrate it, and that IF we decided to become partners where he would use my Hybrid, then he could take one home with him. I also told him he can return the 6 roulette computers of mine he claims to have. But Forester refused even yet another offer to meet him. This time he claimed he was basically too "small-time" for what I wanted to do and that if he wanted to do what I wanted, he would have done it already. As already explained on this page, Forester continues to avoid meeting me all while lying and claiming I'm avoiding the meeting. |
- At roulettesystemreviews.com I published a review of Forester's computer, which was reasonably positive - the review was NOT based on me having his computer. It was based solely on the concept of visual ballistics being a valid principle. The review clearly stated this, and that at the time, I didnt even have his computer. Then I was sent his latest computer for free by an unhappy purchaser, and I found what nonsense it was. For a year or so, I didn't care about updating the review on roulettesystemreviews.com because I had better things to do - if I really wanted to harm Forester, or if I was concerned about him being a "competitor", I would have immediately updated the review. Only when Forester started making false claims about my computer, I decided to update the review and reveal the truth about his computer. Forester wants people to believe I changed the review from positive to negative as if I wanted to lie for revenge. The reality is his lies about my computer encouraged me to reveal what I knew about his computer, since the initial review when I had never even seen it. If Forester had not been lying about me when I wanted nothing to do with him, the older review would probably still be on roulettesystemreviews.com.
Forester claims you need a camera to setup my computer (60FPS camera). This is absolute rubbish. The camera I sell on my website is for studying ball motion. On some wheels that are extremely difficult to beat, the computer may take 30 spins to fully learn the ball deceleration - that is to achieve maximum accuracy. What's the difference between accuracy after the first spin, and maximum accuracy? The accuracy you achieve after the first sample may be a hit rate of about 1 in 18 on modern wheels. When full accuracy is achieved, the direct hit rate on the same wheel may be 1 in 12. The more you play, the greater the accuracy. Generally the more skilled you are, the fewer spins it will take for maximum accuracy to be achieved. However, if a 60 FPS (frames per second) camera is used, even an unskilled player can be achieve maximum accuracy after the first spin. Can this be done with Forester's computer? NO. His computer can only learn the ball behavior during play, which my compuiter does too, but at least it has the added option of the 60FPS recorder, which is particularly benefical when spins occur very infrequently. In such cases, the 60FPS recorder can mean the difference between 3 hours in the casino, or just 30 minutes.
Forester's computer is far cheaper. However, his computer simply cannot beat modern wheels, and even he has said so himself. So while you pay a cheaper price, you either lose money at the table, or make such a small amount it is not worth your time. Even casino consultant Mike Barnett who tested Forester's computer clearly stated that on a modern wheel, Forester's computer produced results that were next to random. Indeed you get what you pay for.
Forester's computers are smaller than mobile phones. Is there really a difference between small and a bit smaller? No. Additionally, if you are searched while using Forester's device, casino staff will find a small black box and they'll know exactly what it is. Forester claims you can simply tell casino staff it is a defibrillator for your heart . . . a defibrillator that just behaves exactly like a roulette computer - how peculiar casino staff will find that. But with my computers, all casino staff will find is a mobile phone, and they won't be able to find any roulette computer software on it.
Forester claims mobile phones are thousands of times slower than the microprocessors he uses for his computers. Forester claims that this creates about a 1 second delay before the prediction is actually announced. Is this true? NO. Predictions are announced immediately after the final click with no discernable delay. With all Forester's ravings about how microprocessors are so much faster, he forgets that there is so much more to predicting on modern wheels than accurate timings - even Mike Barnett said this about him.
I had told Forester numerous times that my development team had developed numerous microcontroller roulette computers, but the hardware has too many limitations to beat modern wheels. Forester said I probably didn't have the resources to build a microprocessor computer, which I found particularly amusing especially since I'm the only one to have developed a competely automated roulette computer (Hybrid Roulette Computer). Rather than get into a big debate about it, I published a photo of the microchip programming hardware. Forester didn't say much after that. Truly, microchip computers are so much cheaper to develop than my standard computer (modified mobile phones), and if they were better, all my computers would use programmable microchips.
Forester claims I refused Michael Barnett's testing of my devices, and that I "ran and hid with excuses". This is absolute nonsense from a man who will obviously say anything to make himself look superior. When I heard Barnett was testing devices, I called him (Barnett) personally to ask what on Earth he got out of it. After hestitating, Barnett admitted it helps him do his job better. Do I really want a person that helps casinos catch professional players do his job better? Apparently Forester does, so he sent his device for testing, and what was the result? After full testing on a level wheel under realistic casino conditions and on a level wheel, Barnett stated the following about forester's device: "When the device did produce predictions, the results were close to random." yet forester has lied saying the test results were positive on level wheels. I did offer Mike Barnett the opportunity to attend one of my public demos, and he said he would consider it. This would not have stupidly revealed any of my secrets, because public demos only demonstrate basic effectiveness.
Forester claims that Bago told him that my computer can predict red/black numbers - this was a clear breach of contract, but this is not the point. Forester claims a computer cannot predict red/black, which is true for how his computers are designed. Bago himself did not know exactly how the concept worked on my computers, and full details were only released to a few players. So Bago was unintentionally giving Forester distorted information. So how does the red/black feature work on my computer? It is experimental and never really used, but here's an explanation: firstly, the computer checks for bias of individual numbers and cross references the number colour. Secondly, red or black is never bet alone. Only when the prediction is near zero is a prediction made, then zero AND a colour is bet on. Which colour? Over an arc of X pockets either side of green zero, there is a red or black dominant zone. The predicted colour is determined by the side of zero that is predicted. Bago never knew about the bias analysis feature, but eventually he disclosed to Forester that never is a colour alone bet on, and that zero is always included to ensure an edge. However,Forester chooses to ignore this information as it doesn't suit him. Instead, he claims that I claimed my computer can predict solely red/black which is outright false. Forester simply wants to twist information to discredit me, and even when he has been corrected, he chooses to ignore any information that supports me.
If Forester wants this page removed, he needs to only correct his statements. But no matter what proof slaps him in the face,it is unlikely he'll never admit he was wrong, because he already knows he is wrong but it does not suit him to tell the truth - the truth will mean he loses sales and looks like an idiot, so he wants to avoid this.
Go to Forester's Episode I: Only what counts