FORESTER
ABOUT FORESTER:
Forester is another developer of roulette computers. Despite the extensive material Forester has published about me, there is one very simple false claim of his that his claims revolve around. Whether or not the false information is intentional, it is nevertheless false. This single issue clearly dealt with in Episode I, and it's really all you need to focus on.
Select your preference to learn about Forester's claims:
After having recently met Forester, I believe while at heart he is a good person, but extremely "hard-headed" and stubborn. On many occasions I've called him ignorant, but I do not mean this in an offensive way. An example of what I mean is I offered to test my device right in front of him, and he declined saying it wasn't necesarry as he already knows the results - I just don't agree with that logic. Specifically what happened is we went to court over his publishing of private information about me. Anyway to cut a long story short, below is a forum post from me about that day's events:
Today was the court case to finalize the intervention order against forester. The previous order was an interim (temporary) order. The judge ruled that although forester's behavior was unacceptable, it did not satisfy the requirements for the definition of "stalking". Rather than contest the decision and kick up more shit with a private lawsuit, afterwards forester, two of his associates and I had a few coffees to discuss all issues and reach an amicable agreement regarding where we go from here. But before I get to our agreements, I'll explain in detail how the overall day went before we reached our agreements. We did not agree on all points though, but those will naturally sort themselves out in time.
Prior to the hearing, when I saw forester had arrived, I spoke to the court staff and asked if we could arrange mediation prior to the hearing - just like I had attempted via phone with forester, but with someone neutral to apply the brakes when needed. This is a process where you try to work things out like people. Forester seeing the different diamond test would have been part of that mediation. Anyway I spoke to the mediator woman while forester was off seeing what I think was the duty solicitor. I was assured forester would speak to the mediator woman before court, then I'd speak to the woman again, but before we knew it we were both called into court. As I've said, I never wanted to harm forester in any way - only for the truth to be told - I never wanted any "bad blood" between us.
The hearing was pretty straight forward - I showed what forester had done, and forester had the chance to state his case. I most certainly did not agree with many of his statements, which are too many to mention, but it does no good to focus on all that now - it'd be like picking a scab.
While the judge was making his decision, forester, his associates and I argued about many issues. There are many things I could get into, but what I wanted to focus on with him was the fact that predictions from my devices are not random. I suggested what should be the simplest and most obvious thing - that we just do the different diamond test in person, then that'll be the end of it. I asked him if he'd like to do it, but he refused saying he doesnt need to see it because he's already done the test. Of course I dont at all agree with that reasoning, and like I said we didnt agree on all things. Forester's two associates were equally "set" on their opinions, but I still tried to reason with them, initially to no avail. Anyway while we were off to a bad start to the day, it got better.
In our discussions, Forester said he was most upset because I called him a "liar". Whether or not he agrees on this point, or whether or not he was aware of it, he was making false statements about me and my technology. In fact he made many, many statements that indicated he really didnt know what he was saying - it is my technology and me he talked about so of course I know better about it. But granted, false statements alone does not make him a "liar" - more accurately, "misinformed". If you've followed the entire situation, this was because he claimed he tested my device and determined it gave "random" predictions. Whilst even my earliest devices never gave "random" predictions, I have agreed to renounce my earlier statement that he is flat out a liar liar pants on fire. However he does not appear at all willing to consider his results were due to anything other than a "poor device" - to me this is an extremely "hard-headed" stance. On this note, while forester overall is a good person, his "hardheadedness" does work against him. Anyway, previous computer versions had almost all predictions within an 8-12 pocket arc (still good), whereas latest versions have almost all within a 3 pocket arc (as good as it gets). Previous versions did not deal as well as current versions with human clicking errors mainly because the algorithms we designed for the hybrid, but thats another matter - essentially it was a design choice to either have the full benefits of the algorithm while sacrificing some accuracy for manual clicking, or modify the algorithms for better error control but losing accuracy with the modified algorithms. Anyway the current standard computer has the best of both world's, with some exceptions, but that's another story. Because of many inaccurate claims about my computers, whether or not forester actually tested it at any point is uncertain, but I'm going to assume in good faith he did. As is explained on roulettewars.com, if anyone had produced random results, it almost certainly would have been the following:
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. 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.
This was not a bug in the device, just a setting and potential pitfall for the computer being used incorrectly - ie a mistake that was too easy to make. Accurate predictions for the different diamond test is very much a matter of using the correct polynomial order to correspond with the amount of data points, but it was an issue most users would not have been aware of unless they sought adequate support. If you have too few points with a high polynomial order, the predictions wont be accurate. The computer permits polynomial orders of 2,3,4,5 or 6.
To make the device "less likely to be used incorrectly", in current models, the computer automatically adjusts the polynomial order based on the number of data points. This ensures the curve is smooth as it should be. Time is indeed running, and even forester corrected issues with his previous devices in time. It would be arrogant and ignorant for either of us to assume there is never room for improvement with either device. On this note, forester and I discussed what we believe to be possible on a roulette wheel with regards to accuracy - we did not agree what was possible. Specifically he stated no computer can accurately predict spins on certain wheels - I completely disagree, and we pretty much agreed to disagree on this point. He argued scatter on some wheels cannot be predicted. It seemed our definition of scatter is different. I consider scatter after the point where you have defined where and how the ball will fall, whether it hit a diamond or whatever, and then you adjust prediction based on rotor speed - so for me the scatter starts when the ball actually hits the rotor. Forester is only looking at the ball's fall off point from the ball track, irrespective of wheel imperfections, then considers the rest a broad term of "scatter" including diamond hits. So he is basically arguing only the point at which the ball will fall from the ball track is predictable, and I disagree. So we did not agree on this point, although I believe after my meeting with forester associate he'll believe otherwise (I'll get to that later).
In addition to discussing everything with forester, I also discussed it with one of his associates who was also there. I wont name his associate, but he lives in Melbourne too, and has agreed to meet me to witness a demonstration of my devices, which will include the different diamond test to validate my claims. Of course among other things I'll also show him accuracy of predictions regarding which diamond will be hit, and after the predicted diamond, that the computer can also adjust predictions based on wheel rotor speed. If you've been following the discussions, you'd know the different diamond test alone would confirm 90%+ of forester's false claims about my device, whether or not he was aware they were false. Given that forester has previously distributed copyrighted material of mine, I'm not prepared to simply send him a computer for testing - yes we have made progress, but we are not getting married. I'm more than happy to demonstrate to him in person, but as he lives on the other side of Australia, it is more practical for me to demonstrate to his trusted associate. Forester's associate has agreed to report what he witnessed publicly on forester's forum. To me, this is one of the most positive things to come out of today. His associate assured me he will give a fair an unbiased report, and will maintain an open mind - that's all is needed.
We also discussed the hybrid (www.hybridroulettecomputer.com) which I'll also demonstrate to his associate. Forester did not believe especially my claims about using reflections to obtain predictions was possible. All I have to say about this is a reflection is a reflection - it is still light. Some reflections are distorted, but each version of the hybrid has the ability to adjust in some manner. One version doesnt need clear images - it relies on the green pocket, and the motion of the ball so the image can be completely distorted without making any difference. Another version would need to adjust to parameters based on whatever reflection you can obtain because it uses image recognition. But this is another matter. Forester just didnt believe it is possible, although it was clear his disbelief was because he didnt know what the hybrid could do - a zoom lens is really a very basic thing and it allows the hybrid to see things that are far away. That part of it is nothing new at all. You can get countless types of lenses with the hybrid and what you use is inconsequential to accuracy - it just depends on what you need.
On the matter of material on forester's site, I have agreed to the republishing of various information, and forester has agreed to remove particular information. Especially as I'm confident of a positive report from forester's associate, I'm not concerned with false information permitted on forester's site. While the associate agreed people would probably accuse him of being me, forester will no doubt confirm this is not the case. So I just need to be patient for the truth to be published - I have every confidence it is inevitable. Idiots like bago will continue but I'm not concerned. As for forester, I'm sure he'll believe what his associate has to say. Anyhow, I have agreed to remove a lot of information about him. We will both respect the boundaries. I may be publishing a statement on forester's forum in addition to this statement, but it is not really required. We agreed it wouldn't do much good for me to publish the statement myself, because forester's forum members already have a strong negative opinion about me, which will change if they keep an eye on things. In relation to this, I can only say they should simply hold their opinions until i personally demonstrate my technology to forester's trusted associate who will publish his findings. As i know my technology well, I already know what the findings will be.
Although the judge's ruling did not go my way, we mutually agreed the resolution we came to was better for everyone. Forester and I did not agree on all issues though, and he certainly is a stubborn man, although I have every confidence in time the truth will be abundantly clear, and he will state it as it is.
My personal opinion of forester is much the same as previously, which is that he is a very intelligent and skilled man, although very hard-headed and stubborn, which works against him as I'm sure his friends would probably be aware. I felt very strongly he wasn't open-minded to some issues. My previous attempts to resolve matters amicably (for example calling him) failed, but this time in person we reached an acceptable conclusion to all this. As for mark howe, I wish I could say the same, but I would still like to see us at least get along - although personally I feel mark is not the type of person to reason with. My attempts to resolve matters with mark have failed dismally, time and time again. Like with forester, working things out with mark is not a matter of needing to do it - I just don't want bad blood - who does?? But people like mark and bago are in a whole different league - I sincerely believe mark is sick, with bago not far behind.
Irrespective of what forester believes about me and my technology, as his associate said, "the proof is in the pudding", and he will have a good taste of the pudding in due course. This in addition to Ronjo's findings, and the public webcam demo, will make the truth abundantly clear to anyone who cares to review the information for themselves. I also intend to send forester a video or two so he can see the prediction of the unpredictable, provided he keeps it to himself. And that should be the end of it. From there, anyone can choose for themselves what they consider to be the truth. Forester says he will praise to bits anyone who develops a computer that beats wheels with what he calls random scatter. Hello Forester, I am here.
Does all this mean forester and I going to work together? No. We do not "need" each other, we are still going separate ways, although we are both on the same team. He is convinced my computers cant predict at all, his mind will change shortly - especially when his associate reports that my computer predicts what forester calls "unpredictable scatter". And I am convinced his computers cannot beat many modern wheels - but he agreed to this with respect to specific cammegh wheels saying the "scatter" is too unpredictable. Barnett feels the same, and they both have different definitions of "scatter" than I have. This is why Barnett only tested to the point where the ball fell from the ball track. I see many issues with forester's algorithms, but likewise he is convinced on many wheels what happens after the ball falls from the ball track cannot be predicted accurately enough. Like I said before, we simply disagreed on this point. Whether I'm right or wrong will be reported by forester's associated after I demonstrate to him.
If I did work with forester, I would first demonstrate the faster processing speed is not much of an advantage with the microchips. While one is much faster than the other, the difference is still less than 1ms so it is insignificant. Microprocessors and phones both have their own set of advantages/disadvantages. The "ideal" situation would be using a microprocessor to handle the timings, then transmit the data to the phone for the rest. This can be done wirelessly with virtually instantaneous predictions. If there were a problem with the hardware I use, this is what I would have done already, but it really is not needed. It should also be noted I had developed microprocessor models, but abandoned development in favor of mobile phones. Perhaps forester doesnt think i have the resources to do this (create microprocessor versions despite them being simpler to develop), but when his associate reports on the hybrid he'll have a better understanding of my resources, and that I'm just not "full of it" like he once thought. Anyway, like I keep saying, forester and I didn't agree on all points, but enough for the shit between us to be pretty much over.
With forester's technical skills, he would be valuable in the field of energy research. As one of his associates said when I met with her, we should both use our intelligence for something good. Forester if you are interested in this field, let me know. Otherwise, irrespective of all the crap that happened prior to today, it was a pleasure to meet you and your associates, and I wish you the best.
PS - We took a photo of forester and I shaking hands. Let me hear you all saw awwwww... But at least at this stage I don't think we should publish it.
PPS - Forester I'll start removing material I said I would shortly (xox)
Select your preference to learn about Forester's Claims: