RONJO'S ROULETTE COMPUTER TEST RESULTS
Years of lies exposed with basic testing from a neutral member of the public
To refute the blatant lies spread about my technology, I sent a free roulette computer to a very well-known and trusted roulette forum member. The idea was to have a neutral "tester" determine once and for all whether or not my claims about my technology are true. But the tester couldn't be just anyone - it needed to be someone who is experienced, and that everyone knows and trusts. The individual selected was "Ronjo" as he is very well known and trusted on numerous public forums. Ronjo's testing of my roulette computer is now complete, AND HE VERY CLEARLY PROVED MY CLAIMS ARE ACCURATE AND HONEST. The results and full details are below:
I sent Ronjo a DVD of approximate 100 spins from a current model roulette wheel. He selected one diamond, then set the computer to give predictions only when that diamond was predicted to be hit. Of course the computer can give predictions when any diamond is predicted to be hit, but for testing purposes it is best to just focus on one diamond.
The wheel used is a mk7 huxley (current model), and there are 4 dominant diamonds as shown left. The red diamonds are the dominant diamonds. Three of them are vertical diamonds, and one is horizontal. It is important to note the dominant horizontal diamond is right between two dominant vertical diamonds. This ensures things aren't easy like it would be if there was a single dominant vertical diamond because when a horizontal diamond is hit, the ball is typically deflected to the other side of the wheel where the ball may hit another diamond. This condition perfectly represents not merely "average" modern roulette wheels, but wheels that many "experts" consider to be impossible to beat.
An ivorine ball was used, which is quite bouncy, especially since the plastic from the pockets was removed - this means the ball bounces on metal, not plastic. The mk7 wheel is John Huxley's current model wheel. You can see photos of the wheel design at http://www.tcsjohnhuxley.com/en/live-gaming/roulette-wheels/traditional-roulette-wheel.html - as this page says, it's the world's most popular wheel.
Ronjo was able to adjust the tolerance levels so accuracy can be maximized. The tighter the tolerance, the less predictions he'd receive, but the more accurate the predictions would be. This is because the computer would reject any spins where it calculates the ball will not hit the target diamond. Again the computer can give predictions 100% of the time and for any diamond, but we stuck to only one diamond in this case to keep things simple. This resulted in 15 predictions out of about 100 spins. Below is what Ronjo said:
"Steves claims are correct about the Diamond hits and I had predictions within a three pocket arc several times and within a six pocket arc as well,and hits more than 50% on one half of the wheel. I did not have a direct hit on one number, but I had a hit on the next pocket to the predicted number three times in fifteen plays,in my opion that is close enough. As personally I would not play one number in the casino as it could cost you if you are on a losing streak. So to recap in fifteen spins I had a three pocket arc hit three times, a seven pocket arc hit five times the rest were losses or they were out of the three and seven pocket range but in half the wheel. This pattern kept on repeating in my testing." |
So for all 15 spins, the ball landed on the same half of the wheel as the prediction. That means the ball always landed within the predicted 18 or so pockets, including all factors such as diamond hits, scatter etc. While 15 spins is not a large number, you have to keep in mind the computer was set to give predictions only when a specific diamond was predicted to be hit, within whatever tolerance range he set. In a real casino environment, if you bet on every spin, it is too obvious. So it is better to make small diversionary bets to stay at the table, and on those 15 spins when a prediction is given, you bet large.
In the tests done by Ronjo with the ball landing on the correct half of the wheel every time, the results are very clear. Additionally, Ronjo verified the computer announced "risk" when the target diamond was not hit. This is an important part of the testing because it was done over approximately 100 spins, so clearly the results are not due to luck. Ronjo has confirmed my claims about the diamond hit predictions are true.
The test with diamond isolation (predictions only when a diamond was predicted to be hit) verifies my computer is capable of determining which diamond will be hit, and that it is capable of accurate timings - his findings have obliterated the false claims about my computer. The computer can give predictions for any of the diamonds, but for testing purposes it was more appropriate to just choose one diamond and focus on testing for that diamond alone. With respect to the equipment's ability to deal with human errors, Ronjo confirmed my claims about virtually all predictions being within a 3 pocket arc (maximum accuracy) for the different diamond test explained by Forester.
So this is what we have learned from Ronjo's testing:
1. The computer is capable of determining which diamond will be hit clearly the majority of the time. On the mk7 wheel it can predict exact diamonds, but on the mk2 wheel it can predict within 1/3rd of a diamond.
2. Out of the spins where the computer determined a particular diamond would be hit, on all spins the ball landed on the same wheel half as the prediction. This is not a minor thing - others may be happy when the rotor strike point alone is predicted within 18 pockets accuracy. With Ronjo's results, it is with scatter and all incorporated. I know "experts" like Barnett will say it is impossible, but then again he hasn't seen any of my computers, and certainly not my latest computers - especially he wont see it whether he purchases under a fake name or not because I'm not selling them anymore soon. Of course not always will you get all predictions that close, but in this case that's what the result were. Even if we just considered 15 spins without consideration to the total 100 or so spins, the results would still be statistically relevant because of how close to the winning number the predictions were. But again you also consider the diamond hit predictions over the 100 spins.
Putting the results into perspective, since all predictions were in the correct half of the wheel, on average this is the equivalent of approximately a 1 in 10-15 exact number hit rate. This means if you bet on just 1 number, you can expect to win approximately 1 in 10-15 spins (on average). As per Ronjo's statement, of the 15 predictions he received, he may not have gotten any direct hits, but on 3 from 15 spins the ball landed directly next to the predicted number. You can expect much the same results on modern wheels in casino conditions, where other computers achieve near random results. |
None of the above would be possible if the hardware and software wasn't capable of accurate timings. You also need to keep in mind various factors such as the wheel and ball used, the ball track distortions which decrease accuracy, and the general layout of dominant diamonds including the dominant horizontal diamond. It's not like we used an easily beaten wheel - it is a wheel that others say cannot be beaten, yet as per Ronjo's testing the wheel was more than just "beaten". Plus for the dominant diamonds I deliberately had a dominant horizontal diamond - it was intentionally made more difficult, and still the results are what they are.
All up I'm satisfied with the results, even without using additional features to better manage ball bounce on different rotor speeds. All Ronjo looked at was the basics of accuracy for diamond hits and end predictions. The end predictions part is most relevant of course, but again you need to consider accuracy of diamond hits which tells us a lot about computer capabilities. There will of course be people that claim Ronjo must be wrong somehow, or that he is me under a fake name etc, but we expected that from the start. There are more than enough well known and trusted forum members, from various forums, to back Ronjo up with respect to his identity and credibility.
In addition to Ronjo's official statement, he also said:
"Steves explanation is correct on my testing. The different diamond test was done and is correct and that the prediction was within a three pocket arc, the first spin and several others as the sample spin gets updated and deals with errors, as below as per quote that there were no predictions as the tolerance got tighter which is better than getting a poor prediction. I tested the whole DVD and as the sample was updated I got the same results. I was very impressed with the accuracy of the predictions, where I got predictions in a three pocket arc and a seven pocket arc and over 50% of half the wheel within the three pocket arc." |
On a final note if anyone believes Tony Duhamel's (Tony Duhamel from France) desperate claims such as Ronjo is me, ask around at any forum, even at VLS - there are plenty of well known and reputable forum members who know Ronjo personally, and know for a fact he is not me. Ronjo was chosen because he is reputable, well-known and trusted. When I asked Victor (VLS roulette forum) who on his forum would meet the criteria, Ronjo was one of his suggested people.
Click HERE to read the entire thread detailing the public challenge, including Ronjo's comments - it is a very large thread, and anyone who reads it entirely would clearly know fact from fiction. Despite the findings of the challenge to be conclusive, this has not deterred my attackers because truth is irrelevant to them. However, now that the challenge is complete, anyone can decide for themselves who and what to believe.
To the people who are still trying to discredit my technology: sorry, but I told you from the start you can't invalidate truth, no matter how much of a personal vendetta you have. Truth always wins.
Immediately after the results of this public challenge was released, Tony Duhamel demanded I remove his name from this site. It appears he wants to avoid the embarrassment of being exposed as a liar. Nevertheless, his name will remain for as long as there is a need to mention his name, which is to expose his atrocious lies. Additionally, Tony publicly claimed that Ronjo must be me under a fake name. The roulette community who know Ronjo very well basically laughed at Tony.
What did the other 'morons' say? Mark Howe remained silent. Forester was a bit smarter than Tony and knew Ronjo was too well known to claim he was just me under a fake name. So what did Forester do? He aggressively attacked Ronjo on the roulette forums claiming that Ronjo is incompetent. What other excuse could Forester give? Like I said, these morons will never, never lay down and admit they are liars.