Roulette Scams WARNING: The owner of the Top Roulette Forums, Steven George Hourmouzis, is a Convicted Scammer

Why you guys are getting crazy over Steve H, who has been jailed for scamming? He is a changed man now. He bought forums to just have fun with people and not to sell his cheating devices. His reviews of roulette computers are out of world and most accurate. He likes that green T-shirt too much and indeed he may apply for Sainthood soon.
His deputies and pseudo support group always back him and going jail for scamming indeed works as his certificate of good character. He readily brands everyone as "scammer" while himself being in jail for that by a court of law. What an irony!!!!!!!!

 

Tat`s a 10 Kleenex sob story. My boots for that bull shit are not high enough.


This Steve cat is fucking the duck either way.

Well I had joined that forum when Victor owned it. Well it`s time for me to do a "Brexit" from that R. forum cc.

 

This thread has more views on the page of threads than all but 2 other threads (both concerning my methods lol).
Can this be moved to some BS section of the board since it's obviously some personal flaming war nonsense that is going nowhere - or the biggest and most complex advertisement for roulette computers that I've ever seen.
It's not even roulette related anymore - trash it or move it ?
Waste of time on everyone's part.
If person A hates person B so much - go to HIS forum and air it out, stop wasting our time.
We are here for a purpose, and this sh*t isn't it.

 

Amen, this forum can be better than a scammers paradise.

 

Yes Ken, and I could easily have it removed with a DMCA request, but it serves better to show how desperate he is. When losing an argument, people tend to get personal. I could post photos I have of Angelo here too (the real "Kavouras"), but why?

Let's recap. Iheartroulette is Angelo Attoni (fake names Ionnis Kavouras, & Marko Diaz). He's a system seller and casino affiliate who's just upset I removed his spam from my forum. He wants childish revenge. Antonio, the rubbish you just posted is a copy of the website from Tony Duhamel. Full details are at [Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.] and [Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.]

The Short Story:

• Tony was never a player of my system and he knows almost nothing about it. He only purchased my computer. Although I did teach him a free system which profited him a few thousand dollars at an online casino.

• Tony claimed the computer gave "random predictions" (with no accuracy at all). He refused to accept my support call, claiming he didn't understand English well enough. He refused to accept any support to determine what he was doing wrong. A bit suspicious, right? Why refuse help? Later we found he used incorrect settings, but he refuses to accept he made a mistake. Maybe a deliberate mistake. It later became apparent he wasn't interested in using the computer because he was concerned about legalities. He just wanted a refund and needed any reason to justify it.

• His claim that predictions are random is easily debunked. You need only look at my public demonstration videos, test the free roulette computer for yourself, or see a private demonstration (in person or via live webcam).

• I challenged him to witness a live demo (see results of the challenge) in which I would refute his claims. He lost, and published an edited copy of the results. I published the unedited version which embarrassed him, and he has a very personal vendetta.

• He refused my other public challenge, and suggest an alternate challenge which I accepted. Instead of me completing the challenge, one of my players did for me. But he doesn't accept the result because I didn't complete it personally.

In the end, I refunded Tony simply because I wanted nothing to do with him. He argued with almost everyone on my player forum when they tried to help him, and explain his mistakes.

His website is a mess of misunderstandings, desperate manipulation and personal attacks with plain rubbish that has no truth. Doesn't the fact that he even criticizes my favorite color (green) tell you something?

1. A bit over half of casinos. So however many casinos, divided by 2.

2. If you are not breaking laws, the device cannot be confiscated as it is private property. But even if it were confiscated, it could not be loaded by anyone else. And it would be replaced at cost price of the hardware which is not expensive. It's the development of the computers that costs money, not the hardware.

3. One player of mine has been caught, where it was illegal. I was not happy to hear this because the contracts forbid illegal use. The police said he would not be charged if he discarded the equipment, which he did. But he discarded only a few irrelevant pieces and kept the main part. The police didn't know the difference. He was not charged. To be caught in any case, you'd need to be doing something wrong like winning too much too soon.

If you are caught where it's LEGAL, then the casino doesn't touch you or say anything. All they do is call no more bets earlier until you leave. That's all. But its very easy to win large amounts without ever being detected, if you follow simple rules.

4. The computers that use phones have java software to do calculations. It is nearly impossible to remove the java software because of modifications we've made. But even if you could, it would take a lot of skill, time and resources to reverse engineer the software to have it work on another phone. Because the firmware is paired to the software, and the firmware in combination with a custom timing chip is needed to fully utilize the computer. Even if anyone managed to do all that, you would need to uncover all the software traps that deliberate cause dysfunctional behavior of the computer. There's more to it. I'm not worried about it. It would be much easier for someone to create their own computer from scratch.

As for my best computer (the Hybrid), all the player receives are phones and a few other pieces like wireless earpieces. They never receive sensitive software because it is all on a server outside a casino. The phones stream live video to the server, which analyzes the video and returns predictions to the players at the table.

5. There are no laws that prohibit the sale of the devices anywhere, that I'm aware of. I hired a solicitor to do the research, and she advised that as long as players sign a contract agreeing to use it only where legal, I'll have no problems.

Actually there is nothing visually obvious about a roulette computer player or team, which may set them apart from any other player. You could have a group of 8 players and if simple rules are followed, the casino would have no idea.

I have answers for everything because the truth is very easy to explain. And actually it's a condition that players never play illegally. I dont know of any roulette computer that has been jailed, ever. The largest profile case was the Ritz casino players. And they were allowed to keep 1.3M GBP because they didnt break any laws. See here:

[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own commercial videos which violated our rules.]

And actually my Hybrid roulette computer beats almost every wheel. I've personally never found any wheel design I cant beat with it. The edge typically ranges between +20 to 125%. The wheels it can beat are far from rare. They're everywhere.

We can keep going in circles, and I could waste time responding to the horde of desperate junk you're posting, but it's really simple for anyone to know the truth.

1. See the free trial roulette computer and test for yourself ( [Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.] )

2. See a personal demo either in-person or live webcam ( [Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.] ) or attend a public group demo like the one below (+120% edge demonstrated on 2016/current model wheel):

[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own commercial videos which violated our rules.]

ANGELO, this is who you are? Reduced to attacking me under fake names because I removed your spam on my forum. You have no experience in my technology, and don't care about truth. Your intentions are purely malicious. I'll tell you the same thing I told Mark Howe before he imploded:

The truth is very simple, and on my side. It's easy for anyone to find the truth. You throw mud because it's all you have. It's not me you are fighting - it's truth. Good luck with that. Perhaps cut your losses and stop your obsession with me, or you'll do more damage to yourself than me.

He didn't listen. It ended with him being kicked out by his girlfriend, fleeing police to Norway, and claiming I ruined his life. The most it did to me was cause inconvenience and waste some time.

Anyone who's looking to spend $80,000 will do proper research by visiting me. And besides, there's the free trial, and option to pay $0 up-front for my best computer and just PAY WITH WINNINGS. You're doing the same thing Mark Howe and Bago did - throwing mud because that's all you have. The truth doesn't suit your agenda. Your behavior is more likely doing me a favor, while showing people your true colors.

Turbo, Angelo's childish attacks were posted here, so I'm responding here. That's all they are. It's not my fault if it reads like a giant advertisement. Really i'm just responding and I need to provide the information to back my claims.

Anyway I'm not going to waste time explaining it all again. It's already at [Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.] but I can cut and paste in the next few posts.

"Competitors" spread blatant false information about my Roulette System and Roulette Computers, including fake negative reviews on various websites. The manipulation is extremely elaborate and I (Steven Hourmouzis) don't have time to address everything. Here I've addressed the most relevant false claims.

A very simple way to know the truth is see a demonstration on any wheel or get a free trial of my roulette computers. Otherwise you can read this site and make up your own mind. But simpler is always better.

Before Continuing, Understand This:

• The vast majority of negative material about me (Steven Hourmouzis) is written by one incredibly dishonest competitor. The manipulation is extremely elaborate, which makes knowing the truth difficult for you. Some other people simply recite what they've read, or give their opinions without knowing anything. If you believe the first thing you read without validating claims, you'll be easily misled. Again you can visit me for a personal demonstration and see anything you want

• I do not need to sell anything to live comfortably. I created this website is so the truth is known, by whoever wants to know it. And if you prefer to believe surface junk without researching, and without seeing a personal demonstration for yourself, it's not really my problem.

• I'm not interested in addressing personal attacks or discrediting anyone. Some of the nonsense written about me is so brazenly false that it shouldn't even require a response for you to know better. For some time I ignored the manipulative material before I decided to address it. Besides the public testing I conducted, and this website which addresses only the most important points, I don't intend to waste more time. But you are going to need to fully read all pages to properly understand matters.

If you have any questions, call and ask me personally during the specified times. I have nothing to hide and answer questions directly and in detail:

Phone (Steven Hourmouzis): +61 3 9018 5395
Skype: rouletteanalysis
(See my blog so you know my schedule and best times to call)

• Players on the player forum can verify my technology's effectiveness. But I have over 1,000 players, and some are bound to not understand what they've purchased. Less than 1% of players (less than 10) have ever made baseless claims that my computers or systems "don't work". Most of these players have since apologized to me after learning more, but their unjustified claims remain on competitor's websites.

• If you're a new player and just found the nonsense about me: naturally you're concerned you've wasted your money. Every experienced player went through the same process of thinking I may be a scammer, then eventually learning better. So I have been through this situation many times before. My integrity has been openly discussed on my player forum many times before. If I was running a scam, the last thing I'd do is create a forum for "victims" to collaborate. Other players will openly give their opinion about me and my systems. If you properly learn and apply them, and get to know me better, you'll understand I'm one of the most honest and fair individuals you'll ever meet. But if your knee-jerk reaction is believe "competitors" and panic without actually finding out for yourself, you've already made up your mind.

• If you arrived at this site just looking for ways to win at roulette, try the free resources: how to win at roulette (what works and doesn't), free roulette tips for all types of players, free roulette systems and advice, how to beat roulette consistently, Learning how to play roulette (for beginners).

• Because I'm honest with nothing to hide, I conducted the numerous public validations listed below.

Public & Independent Test Results
To once and for all set the record straight on relevant matters, I conducted the various public validations explained below:

1. Public Demonstrations of my Roulette Computer
2. Roulette System Lab Testing
3. Independent Testing from Well-known and Respected Roulette Player
4. Providing Part of My Roulette System for FREE Evaluation
5. Live webcam testing with Tony Duhamel (Bago)
6. I already have every other system that works

1. Public Demonstrations Of My Roulette Computer

IN-PERSON PUBLIC DEMOS: In this public demo with numerous witnesses, I demonstrated a 93% win rate betting 15 numbers on a modern wheel with bouncy ball, with predictions much earlier than most roulette computers are capable of predicting. I achieved a win on almost every spin and in difficult conditions. Full data is shown to prove the accuracy is not luck (NOTE: Betting 15 numbers is the ideal situation, although we could have easily bet only 1 number).

[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own commercial videos which violated our rules.]

OTHER PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS: I conduct many public demonstrations, but not everyone can travel to visit me, so I also conduct live webcam demos. See one of my live webcam demonstrations. which was witnessed by 40 people live. In this demo, predictions were about 15 seconds before the ball falls. The calculated edge was +28% although much higher is possible with more advanced settings.

See roulette strategy and computer demos, and learn more about roulette computers. Winning roulette is not as impossible as you may assume. Read my article about how to win at roulette here which explained some common sense facts.

2. Roulette System Lab Testing
[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.]
Part of my roulette system was tested by a qualified physicist with a background in gaming. Although you don’t need formal qualifications to know my system is effective, a qualified physicist is best suited to assess the significance of the results. My roulette system is the only one to ever have been properly tested in real casino conditions:

Download the test report (PDF)

The application of the system produced positive results. But most importantly, the analysis of the wheel analysis itself indicated my methods are effective. So this is not just a profit/loss test. It is an investigation into whether or not my wheel analysis method actually assists to predict where the ball will land. If we considered the profit/loss result alone, this doesn’t prove much because any system can win in the relative short term. So we needed to consider the effectiveness of the analysis and how it correlated to the actual spin results.

While the results are clearly positive, the reporter doesn’t conclusively say whether or not my methods are effective. He simply states the probability that the results were due to coincidence. And the probability is clearly in my favour. Such test reports don’t get more conclusive.

This testing was primarily done because I trade as a corporation, therefore I must adhere to strict ethical trading practises and be honest about my products. This is why scammers almost never trade as a corporation. So I had this testing done in case the legitimacy of the [Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.] roulette system was ever questioned. Government authorities have asked me to verify the accuracy of my claims once, and the matter was promptly settled once I provided relevant material. Because I run an honest business, my corporation has existed since 1999.

3. Independent Testing From Well-known and Respected Roulette Player


Not everyone is able to visit me for a personal demonstration. So I had my roulette computer openly tested by a well-respected, trusted and neutral member of the roulette community who everyone knew would give an honest evaluation.

The requirements of the person doing the test were:

• Competent and knowledgeable enough to conduct testing. The tester needs to understand how to conduct proper testing
• Well known and widely trusted. The purpose of the test is for a widely trusted individual to report findings.

Initially the roulette community chose two particular individuals who were both sent a free roulette computer for testing, but neither had time to do the testing. So the computers were sent back, and everyone selected another individual named Ronjo.

The full forum thread with all details of the public demonstration is at [Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.] – it is a long read but you can read the summary of Ronjo’s findings below:



Ronjo’s Comments About The Testing:
[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.]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 opinion that is close enough. 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.[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.]

[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.]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. [Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.]

[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.] facts are facts and some people find it a problem to accept them.[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.]

[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.] everything Steve says in his explanation is correct.you guys need to read his post carefully as it must be kept in mind that we only focused on one particular diamond and we are getting a 1 in 5 hit rate and it was not only the fifteen spins that has been mentioned, this pattern repeated over the 100 spins and was consistent.

[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.] everyone, Steve is no scammer and has contributed a lot on RR a few years back and helped me a lot. [Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.]



Competitors attacked and attempted to discredit Ronjo on public forums, to which Ronjo responded:
[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.] I do not want to get involved with discussing Steve’s methods and it is very simple to answer your question above, even if you had the spins there is nothing you can do to prove anything, as you are going on hearsay and not on personal experience with Steve’s material, and a possibility of incorrect application of certain methods by so called users of Steve’s material. I can assure you that what I tested was legit, and keep in mind that I was testing on one particular diamond for testing purposes, I could have tested any other diamond but we tested only one,and the test was not to test predicted numbers but only a diamond,and sorry to say the test was accurate.[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.][/I]

[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.]And to cap it all, Steve Hourmouzis put me in contact with one of his players here in my country and we met up and discussed the computer and he was getting very good results. I can not let out what we discussed, but I can tell you that you would have to be very serious about playing this way and if applied correctly with timing in placing your bets you would do very well, thats all I can tell you.[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.][/I]

[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.]So unless you have had first hand experience I think it would be wise and best to stay out of the politics concerning Steve’s computer. So guys let’s let the man get on with his business,and unless you have the computer let’s get on with this challenge. Jackal check this out my testing is there read it carefully.[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.]

[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.]I just wish people would get their facts first before attacking people, just like in the case with Steve, a number of people have asked me for the spins Steve supplied me,but I have done what Steve asked and I am not going to say anymore about the testing as that has been finalized already, I have been insulted by being called stupid. As I have said I have met up with one of Steve’s players and he is not this imaginary player we have created, he is for real, and we have results from real casino plays and discussed the computer in length and I am satisfied if applied properly we have a good edge against the casinos and that is final. [Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.]

Basically Ronjo verified that my claims about my roulette computer are accurate. His testing settled the matter for just about the entire roulette community who attended the roulette forums.



About The Testing That Was Done
I sent Ronjo a DVD of approximately 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.

[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.]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 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:

[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.]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 opinion 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.[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.]

The probability of this merely being coincidence is literally 1 in 10,000. So for all 15 spins, the ball landed on the same half of the wheel as the prediction. This 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 clearly refuted the false claims about my computer being unable to accurately process timings, or that it gave “random” predictions. 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.



This Is What Ronjo’s Testing Proved:
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. 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. This is the main point that clearly refuted false claims that mobile phones cannot process accurate timings. Also if you consider the wheel and ball used, the ball track distortions which decrease accuracy, and the relatively even spread of diamond hits, then you’ll understand it’s not like we used an easily beaten wheel – it is a wheel that others say cannot be beaten. Yet the wheel was more than just “beaten”. Perhaps most notable is the target diamond was right next to a dominant horizontal diamond which made targeting the correct diamond much more difficult than real casino conditions, and still the results were clear.



The results Ronjo achieved were also without using the most advanced features, such as those that 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.

In addition to Ronjo’s official statement, he also said:

[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.]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.[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.]

4. Providing Part Of My Roulette System For FREE Evaluation
I provide a free course that teaches visual ballistics roulette system and bias analysis to beat roulette. These techniques are globally recognized as effective. I teach them for free because I want you to see what I teach is real, and besides my system is far more effective and practical.

This below video is a only part of my free roulette system course. All my strategies use flat bets, so bets are all the same size. Betting progression (such as increasing bet size after losses) is never required. You can subscribe to the entire course from start to finish by submitting the subscription form on the right side of this site.

[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own commercial videos which violated our rules.]

Look if admin wants to remove the rubbish attacks from Angelo, then I have no reason to respond to them. Ok? But as it is now, I believe it's fair that I'm allowed to respond to make the truth known.

5. Live Webcam Testing With Tony Duhamel (Bago)
Tony Duhamel is a young man who purchased my roulette computer. He incorrectly used it at home in front of his TV, but would not accept the poor results he obtained were due to improper application. He refused my support calls to help him because he couldn’t speak English well enough. He never used the roulette computer in a real casino, although he profited $4000 from a non-electronic system I taught him. Nevertheless, he made public false claims about my computer that were refuted in a public challenge I conducted with him. Specifically we did testing of the roulette computer via live webcam. Everything was recorded because I expected he would misrepresent the results, as he did. Specifically he falsified the results and published an edited the recording of the tests. However, I published the full unedited recording so people can see the truth. This inadvertently embarrassed him, so he now has a personal vendetta against me.

Learn more about Tony’s false claims | See results of the testing with Tony

6. I Already Have Every Other System That Works
My “attackers” will praise some techniques from other system sellers (because they don’t also sell roulette computers), but they wont tell you I already have those systems and “could” simply replicate them. After all, if my system was a scam and didn’t work, why wouldn’t I just copy the better systems? I don’t need to do this because my systems are by far the most effective and practical for modern casino conditions. I have acquired countless other systems to see if anything can be learned. Below is a fraction of what I’ve acquired over the years:

[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.]

Not all have value, and in fact most don’t. Anything that could be learned from them has been applied in my systems so you know I always teach the most effective methods to beat roulette. But I can honestly say there is virtually nothing in this material that I didn’t already learn for myself.

The only methods from others that I have ever taught are a particular technique from Laurence Scott. I give him due credit in my written material, but the technique itself is not suitable for modern conditions and is taught only to give my players some background knowledge of visual ballistics.

My own research is far more extensive than that of any other roulette player, but below is a list of some of my resources from others:

Laurence Scott: I have both of his volumes and his software. His main technique is very similar to the free visual ballistics course I teach. The software is useful but does nothing my software cant do. I respect Laurence but the techniques in his material are unsuitable for modern conditions.

Pierre Basieux: Pierre is a VB player who charges $5000 for techniques I teach for free. His book is written in German so needs translation. Ultimately it is very similar to Laurence Scott’s material.

Casino Game Protection by Steve Forte: This is a very large book written for casino staff to “protect” their games from professional players. It’s an interesting book for both casino staff and players, but it deals with older techniques. The sections on roulette are mainly about visual ballistics, bias analysis and roulette computers, although very basic information is presented. My websites provide a much more extensive explanation.

The Romeo Project: This is a book that explains one group’s efforts to develop a roulette computer device. The algorithm they present is almost precisely the same as the typical roulette computer algorithm explained on [Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.] (click here for the typical roulette computer algorithm – it is basically much the same as visual ballistics). Every roulette computer uses much the same algorithm, with the exception of my Uber and Hybrid models (see [Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.] and [Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.])

Don Young’s Infallible System: A high profile system that will only ever work if the wheel is heavily biased. Ultimately it has next to no merit.

Various roulette computers from other developers: I currently have 5 different computers from other vendors, and every one of them relies on the typical roulette computer algorithm. You can see virtually any other device compared to mine in person if you visit me.

Again this is just some of the material I have acquired, and I have never found any other material that is suitable for modern casino conditions. My players have also sent me countless other systems for free, although I wont mention further product names.

While it should be expected that a vendor will claim their product is best, consider the following:

• I often acquire new and potentially effective systems, although every one of them to date is unsuitable for modern conditions. There is nothing that anyone teaches that you can’t already learn from me.

• Although other vendors may claim to have my techniques, they don’t as it isn’t possible. My system is ultimately used only by software that is accessible via [Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.], which is well protected as the program itself resides on a hidden server. The only material I publish is called the “primordials” document, which is essentially a collection of very basic methods that are used to teach background knowledge to new players. The primordials document is available free from my website, but the techniques within it are nowhere near as effective as my wheel analysis software. So if someone claims to “have” my system, you can be certain they are either referring to my “primordials” document, or are making dishonest claims. I have never, and will never, release the secrets of the software to anyone. It is the only way to ensure its security.

Again a very simple way to know the truth is see a demonstration on any wheel or get a free trial of my roulette computers. “Competitors” would rather you not do this.

Ioannis Kavouras (Angelo Attoni / roulette30.com)

Ioannis Kavouras is a “system seller” and member of my roulette forum (rouletteforum .cc). He owns the roulette30.com website. Because I removed his spam posts from my forum, he published material attacking me. The material is mostly reciting nonsense from Mark Howe.

His real name is “Angelo Attoni” but he uses a fake name for some reason. Because he’s a system seller, you could call him a “competitor” although his systems use typical gambler’s fallacies that don’t work. I don’t consider him a “competitor” because we sell very different things. He claims I “attacked” him which is not at all true.

How the Problem Started With Him
To promote his system and sell advertising on his website, Kavouras (Angelo Attoni) writes various articles about roulette. I noticed he was spamming links on my forum, so I removed them and asked him not to spam. He shouldn’t have taken it personally because any forum admin would remove spam. It is not uncommon for people to have a vendetta against me simply for removing their spam.

I explained to him privately in email that he shouldn’t take it personally because any forum wouldn’t accept spam. I also sincerely tried to help him by explaining why his system wont work. At this stage I had no real problem with him, and I explained everything in a sincere and non-condescending way. But he took great offence to removal of his spam, and my honest attempt to help him understand roulette.

Out of spite, he wrote material on his website (roulette30.com). His material about me is mostly reciting of nonsense from Mark Howe. More specifically he claims that although he has no experienced whatsoever with roulette computers, that my roulette computers are “junk” and “over-priced”. He reveals that his source is “Mark Howe“, and you can do your own research about Mark.

On his website, he lists his own strategy at the top of his “top 9 systems” page. Among the other top systems he mentions are the Martingale, and Labouchere systems which any professional can tell you fails. So I’m sincerely not trying to insult him, but really he has a very poor understanding of roulette. Nevertheless, he is a skilled writer and copies most of his content from other websites. This makes him appear knowledgeable despite his inexperience. He claimed my analysis of his system is my “opinion”, but mathematical fact is not an opinion. See my explanation of why his system loses.

Ioannis Kavouras is simply angry because I removed his spam links, and feels insulted by my honest explanation of the problems with his system which is at [Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.].

I'll stop there for now. There's actually a lot more to post. I'm sorry everyone, but you don't need to read this thread. I wouldn't have bothered cutting and pasting if Angelo (Iheartroulette/Angelo) wouldnt have cut and pasted whole sites too. And I wouldn't have bothered posting at all if Angelo didnt spend his valuable time trying to discredit me. Again if admin decides to remove the attacks, then I have no reason to respond. Really I have better things to do. I thought Angelo would too. I guess not.

Angelo, take this seriously for your sake. The energy you give out is what you get returned. Its a very real principle of the universe. That's why Mark Howe destroyed his life over me. Really I dont want you on that same path. I dont hate you at all.

Sorry I forgot the pages about Bago:

Tony Duhamel (Bago) is behind the Zyweb website. He's a young man from France who purchased my roulette computer, but never used it in a real casino because he was concerned about legalities. However, he profited $4000 from techniques I taught him. In his tests at home, he incorrectly used the computer and claimed he got "random predictions".

The Short Story:

• Tony was never a player of my system and he knows almost nothing about it. He only purchased my computer. Although I did teach him a free system which profited him a few thousand dollars at an online casino.

• Tony claimed the computer gave "random predictions" (with no accuracy at all). He refused to accept my support call, claiming he didn't understand English well enough. He refused to accept any support to determine what he was doing wrong. A bit suspicious, right? Why refuse help? Later we found he used incorrect settings, but he refuses to accept he made a mistake. Maybe a deliberate mistake. It later became apparent he wasn't interested in using the computer because he was concerned about legalities. He just wanted a refund and needed any reason to justify it.

• His claim that predictions are random is easily debunked. You need only look at my public demonstration videos, test the free roulette computer for yourself, or see a private demonstration (in person or via live webcam).

• I challenged him to witness a live demo (see results of the challenge) in which I would refute his claims. He lost, and published an edited copy of the results. I published the unedited version which embarrassed him, and he has a very personal vendetta.

• He refused my other public challenge, and suggest an alternate challenge which I accepted. Instead of me completing the challenge, one of my players did for me. But he doesn't accept the result because I didn't complete it personally.

Claim 1: Tony claims my roulette computer gave random predictions
Tony tested the computer on a DVD he played in his PC, as you can see in the video he shows on his website (he since removed it). He was advised never to use a PC's DVD player because they are notorious for skipping and playing at imperceivable but inconsistent speeds. Additionally, he did not understand a critical setting (polynomial order) that when used incorrectly causes inconsistent predictions. So it is no surprise his testing produced poor results. The problem is Tony refused to accept he made a mistake, and published many false claims about my computers.

To address his claims, I asked Tony to participate in a live webcam challenge where my computer would be tested. Tony accepted the challenge, but was the results did not suit him, so he published an edited version of the webcam recording and misrepresented about the results. So I published the original and unedited version which inadvertently aggravated him further. See the results of my challenge with Bago (Tony Duhamel) for full details. It was only my intention to address his false claims, not to embarrass him.

To support his claims, Tony publishes results of my computer being applied in a particular video I sent him. He claims the results are poor, but he neglects to state that it's a calibration video. This is where the computer is learning the wheel, and is not at full accuracy. During this period, you don't bet. He doesn't tell you this because he wanted to find the video with the worst accuracy possible to discredit me.

Unfortunately for Tony it appears to be more a matter of pride than truth. If you still have doubts and think my roulette computer may give random predictions, contact me and I'll send you the full unedited recording of the test. Additionally, the public independent testing provided by Ronjo clearly refuted Tony's claims. Moreover, you can clearly see from any of my public demonstration videos below that predictions certainly aren't random:

LIVE WEBCAM DEMO: I conduct many public demonstrations, but not everyone can travel to visit me, so I conduct live webcam demos. The demo shown below was witnessed by 40 people live. In this demo, predictions were about 15 seconds before the ball falls. The calculated edge was +28%.

[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own commercial videos which violated our rules.]

IN-PERSON PUBLIC DEMO: In this public demo with numerous witnesses, I demonstrated a 93% win rate betting 15 numbers on a modern wheel with bouncy ball, with predictions much earlier than most roulette computers are capable of predicting. I achieve a win on almost every spin and in difficult conditions. Full data is shown to prove the accuracy is not luck.

[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own commercial videos which violated our rules.]

See [Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.] to attend a public demo for yourself.

In the end I refunded Tony upon return of the computer as I could not tolerate his immaturity towards myself and even other players any further.

Claim 2: Tony claims that my "roulette system" is a scam
Tony was never my roulette system player and he knows almost nothing about it. I agreed teach him a basic method to beat roulette, at no charge. The method works but is only effective in rare conditions. And Tony won approximately US$4000 with it. Since his vendetta, he denies it, although a screenshot of his announcement is below:

[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.]



Claim 3: Tony claims I failed his challenge
After Tony's initial false claims were refuted, he challenged me to increase the bankroll of his online casino account by 500%. I accepted, providing that I received all winnings and that results be published with his apology to me.

To proceed, Tony provided his account login details. When I began to play, he immediately changed his password and made an absurd claim that I attempted to hack his account. So I created an online casino account specifically for this challenge, and a neutral observer was selected to witness the winnings. But as I did not have time to do it myself, one of my players completed the challenge on my behalf. This player is very well known on public roulette forums, and clearly stated that he made the required profits to complete the challenge, and published screenshots of his account transactions.

Tony does not accept this because I did not personally complete the challenge. It should also be noted that Tony himself completed the challenge with a technique I taught him, as explained above. He has since made many other claims, and publishes mostly his misunderstandings, assumptions and personal attacks, without regard for accuracy.



Ultimately I refunded Tony once he returned the roulette computer because I would not deal with him further. He was incredibly abusive to both myself and other players on the player-only forum when we tried to correct and assist him. My decision to refund him had nothing to do with anything Mark Howe did, contrary to what Mark claims.

Further Information:
Bago's website is full of terribly distorted facts. He takes fragments of truth and mixes them with rubbish in attempt to discredit me. But through his inexperience and desire to be "right", he also appears to actually believe some of what he writes. His mindset is a classic case of confirmation bias, where he twists any information to "fit" what he wants to believe. Ultimately though he doesn't care about the accuracy of his claims. He aims only to discredit me by twisting any information possible.

An example of how Bago twists facts:

The Truth: After a public challenge, Tony's false claims were clearly debunked and the results are all at [Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.]. Tony then released an edited recording and lied about the results, so I released the unedited version which embarrassed him further. Then he had nowhere left to go, so first he suggested another challenge (which my player successfully completed for me). Secondly, he tried to dismiss the test results by saying he has another computer that performed much better anyway. I have the computer he mentioned (Forester's FFA) and knew his claim was false, so I asked him to witness a live webcam test of both my computer and this other computer connected to the same clocking cable and predicting the same spins. Then we could compare results. He REFUSED.

Bago's version: "Steve is now furious about losing the challenge, he showed his rubbish product in front of everybody, so he asked me to repeat the demonstration once again trying to show this time an effective product. But it is too late, my point has been proven, he is a scammer"

When I first met Bago, he knew almost nothing about roulette. He struggled to understand even basic concepts. But he is incomprehensibly arrogant and believed he was always right. I dealt with him for months, and on some days he would praise and thank me, then the next he'd abuse me and call me a scammer. Then the next day he'd apologize and praise me again. The process constantly repeated, and he was clearly a young and volatile character. At one point he even sent me an email explaining he had the problem in his life where he would frequently "jump the gun" and later find he was wrong. He was clearly frustrated with his problems.

The majority of his website is to convince you my roulette computers give random predictions. But the backbone of his claims fall apart with some research. Perhaps review Ronjo's testing, the public challenge with Bago, and videos like the public demo at [Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own commercial videos which violated our rules.]. And if that's not enough, visit me for a personal demo.

Ultimately, Bago is a vile character with a clear anti-social personality disorder, who is more concerned with being "right" than telling the truth. He argues with just about everyone he has contact with. Even when other players of mine attempted to help him, he refused to accept he made any mistakes and attacked them personally. They are briefly mentioned on his website, although he misquotes and attacks them too. I'm not attempting to insult him, but Tony is not particularly intelligent. Unfortunately I don't have time to address every piece of nonsense he writes. So you can review the important parts and think for yourself.

Tony Duhamel is a roulette computer purchaser who incorrectly applied my computer on videos at home, then claimed me device gave "random" predictions. So I challenged him to conduct live webcam testing of my roulette computer to refute his claims. The test was subject to strict rules to ensure I couldn't cheat. The results were in my favour, which embarrassed Tony and he has since had a vendetta against me.



About the Public Challenge
Tony claimed that my roulette computer gave "random predictions" if it was used on the same video recorded spin. His logic was the computer couldn't be accurate if predictions were random. I explained to Tony likely reasons why he would achieve such results and the correct settings to use, but he refused to accept the issue was his misunderstanding of instructions.

I explained to him that if he used the correct settings, then "if you test on the same spin with level settings, and change the reference point, the predictions are mostly within a 3 pocket arc". This claim was proven TRUE in a public challenge, even with basic settings and intentionally difficult conditions. Tony has tried to hide the results, and refuses a similar test where my computer and Forester's FFA computer are connected to the same switch to predict simultaneously, to prove which is more accurate (this was done at [Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.]).


[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.]The actual results are left, and and what they mean is explained below:

For this test, Tony told me which diamonds to use as reference points (for timings) for both the rotor and the ball. He had full control over the reference points I used. For each combination of reference points, I've labelled the group in blue text. The two diagrams in the green box show COMBINED for the spins below it. One shows combined results for clocking the rotor at the correct position, and the other shows results for clocking the rotor at the opposite position so they are supposed to have dots on opposite sides.

A simplistic examination of the results would look at only these two charts (in the green box). But the reality is that much more needs to be considered as explained below. But even if we do analyze the results this way, still my claims are proven TRUE as detailed below.
[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.]Shown left are the combined charts with green areas showing 3 pocket arcs. There is a one pocket discrepancy because there are 37 numbers on the wheel, but it is insignificant. Keep in mind my claim which is "if you test on the same spin with level settings, and change the reference point, the predictions are mostly within a 3 pocket arc.".

Taking into account the opposite reference point for the rotor, the results are that 46% of the dots are within a 3 pocket arc. Is 46% close to 50%? Close enough . . . which is why Tony tried to hide the results.

Now let's look at a more detailed and more accurate analysis of the results . . .

First you need to understand how the ball decelerates on a real wheel. Click here to download one of the chapters from the roulette computer instructions. Pay particular attention to the part about the curve of deceleration of the ball, and how it is NOT smooth - it is wavey. This means if you use different reference points for the ball on a wheel with even slight tilt, you will find that when doing the different diamond test, using the same diamonds for the ball result in predictions being closer together than they are if you use a different diamond. Therefore is it impossible for the computer to maximize accuracy if you use different diamonds as reference points. After all, the computer will inevitably receive inaccurate or incomplete data. This is FACT. Anyone with good roulette knowledge can verify the reality of the ball's deceleration curve. Moreover, the results from my test are consistent with this fact which further illustrates the results are legitimate.

[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.]Thorough Analysis of Results:
*Vertical Column A is where I used the same reference point for both the rotor and ball on an individual group, although the reference points were different in each combination. The closer the dots are to each other for each group (combination of reference points), the higher the accuracy. You will notice that most of the time, for each group, the prediction is either the same or easily within 3 pockets of each other.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS:

Group 1: 100% within 3 pocket arc

Group 2: 100% within 3 pocket arc

Group 3: 100% within 3 pocket arc

Group 4: 66% within 3 pocket arc

Group 5: 100% within 3 pocket arc

Group 6: 50% within 3 pocket arc

Group 7: 50% within 3 pocket arc

Group 8: 100% within 3 pocket arc

So are most predictions within a 3 pocket arc? ABSOLUTELY and very easily.

In fact I almost got 100% of predictions within the 3 pocket arc, which would have been a near PERFECT result. Only 2 of 15 predictions were outside the 3 pocket arc. Either way, the list of 100%'s is clear enough.

* Vertical Column B is where I used opposite reference points for the ball and rotor, and thus we expect predictions to be opposite those in Column A.

* Vertical Column C is using reference points that are neither the same for rotor and ball, or opposite for rotor and ball. They are expected to be completely different from Columns A and B. The important point to note is each group has dots still close together. I explained it to Tony, but as usual he did not understand and thought Column C is related to Columns A and B. Forester would have known Tony's explanation of the results was wrong, but why would he correct him? After all, Tony's explanation suited Forester who is just as manipulative. I did expect this reaction though. He did the same thing with Viper's incorrect understanding, but the recording is published for everyone to see for themselves.



Other Important Variables:
It is important to note that the above clearly positive results were achieved in deliberately difficult conditions. See below for details:

• Predictions were made about 13 seconds before the ball fall, so the ball wasn't exactly slow when clicks were made. Specifically the target ball speed was 800ms (0.8s), which is much faster than the typical 1300ms (1.3s) that predictions are normally made.

• No consideration is given to the fact that we as humans introduce clocking errors when we use different reference points (top, left, bottom, right). This is another reason why using the same reference points resulted in predictions that were very close together.

• The wheel used was the new MK7 Velstone Huxley, where the ball very gradually decelerates. It is important to understand that the quicker the ball decelerates, the more more accurate predictions are. I did not opt to choose an easy wheel. For this new wheel, at the time of prediction in the tests, the difference in timing between one revolution and the next was 92ms. On an average secondhand wheel, it is about 200ms difference between revolutions. This means that considering this point alone, conditions were more than twice as difficult as usual. And still the results were clearly positive.

• The "Risk" feature where my computer rejects spins that the computer considers likely inaccurate was almost completely disabled. So I got all predictions, good and bad. With forester's FFA testing, so many spins resulted in error being called, and STILL the results from my computer were twice as good (see [Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.]) - even with predictions a bit earlier than FFA - it's all on video for you to see. The only time risk was called was when I used the right diamond (as explained in the audio, because it was close to the edges of the ball revolution being learned), or if I did something like missed a click completely.

• So the phone and everything done on it was visible, I did not use a typical clocking switch. Clicks were made directly on the phone. This reduces accuracy because the clicks arent as "sharp" as the normal switch.

• Predictions were made roughly 1 second before FFA is even capable of giving. The predictions were made when the ball speed was about 800ms per revolution. FFA has three settings that define the time/speed window that it locks on to. The fastest setting on FFA for level wheel prediction is 1000ms. Why? Because if predictions are made when the ball is any faster, and you will have significantly reduced accuracy for clocking.

• Notice how on some of the diamond/ball reference point combinations have predictions "spot on" right in the same pocket? Tony was rather quiet after such spins. But he jumped up and down like a fool when 2 particular predictions were a bit wider than the others which mostly varied by no more than 1-3 pockets.

Summary:
Again my claim was "if you test on the same spin with level settings, and change the reference point, the predictions are mostly within a 3 pocket arc."

Did I prove this?

If you take a simplistic analysis, without consideration to the difficulty of the conditions I created myself for the test, the result was than 46% of the predictions were within a 3 pocket arc. Close enough to 50? You decide.

As for the detailed analysis considering all variables and intentionally difficult conditions to prove my point, the results were:

Group 1: 100% within 3 pocket arc

Group 2: 100% within 3 pocket arc

Group 3: 100% within 3 pocket arc

Group 4: 66% within 3 pocket arc

Group 5: 100% within 3 pocket arc

Group 6: 50% within 3 pocket arc

Group 7: 50% within 3 pocket arc

Group 8: 100% within 3 pocket arc

Certainly well over 50%, and not far off 100%.

If you understand everything here, you will be in no doubt that Tony has been misleading people. He has made numerous other false claims that are petty. I have only bothered to thoroughly address the most relevant false claims. While Tony is unprepared to admit his mistake, you can review everything and decide for yourself.

 

PLEASE someone stop giving free advertising to this SCAMMING piece of shit! This forum is better than this.

 

Dear gamblers,

Wouldn't it be possible to each stay on there own ground ? All these long pages of personal assault. I think it's clear you don't like each other. And that is just fine. But let's be gentlemen about all this. And where I come from posting personal info about someone his family or home is low . So low the most gamblers here already know they never should listen to those story tellers.

I wish everyone a good and peaceful day
Lucas

 

Judge, thank-you and yes you are right. The problem is Angelo posted rubbish here and I'm just refuting it. I'm not attacking him at all. He's attacking me. I couldn't care less about attacking him. But really i don't hate him. He doesn't quite feel the same way. I just find him to be immature and petty. I'm sure he isn't done, here or elsewhere. If he stops posting rubbish, then i have no reason to respond.

Boz yes it is a bit like free advertising. It wasn't my intention. I was just explaining the false allegations.

 

No your intention is to try and find more suckers to buy into your bullshit. I am going to say "more" in the event there was some poor stupid sap who gave you or this other jackass even $1.

 

As far as I know, Kav is a consistent and serious member in all roulette forums since like 2004.
He has even posted his profile picture.
Who is Angelo Attoni you are talking about?
When you are cornered you don't know what you are talking about.

 

Oh and the original poster is also Kav, but the only link that is missing is the link to his site...
Beware the lies of Roulettephysics and its systems

Wait, maybe I am Angelo Attoni who is Mark, who is Bago, who is Tony, who is Kav and who in reality is president Obama... and we are all coming after you Steve...

 

I have had it with that computer sales pitch.


To hell with Steve`s computer crap. Here is a simpler and better way:


Any sharp player can chose a special number and then adds 4 consecutive ones on each side thus having formed a 9 number neighbor section .


For recreational purposes only. Play at your own risk .

 

Fully agree. It is fun and when it pays it pays good.

 

Christian Kaisan , one of the sharpest European professional roulette players is applying this strategy.



Just google in Christian Kaisan , roulette , you tube and you shall see.I


Interesting video with him at the Wiesbaden casino .
Christian Kaisan , one of the sharpest European professional roulette players is applying this strategy.




Interesting video with him at the Wiesbaden casino .

 

I think I was right on that one.

Followed by a MASSIVE post/advertisement.
This mystery "anti-Steve" person shows up.
Steve shows up to defend.
Now the thread is a huge advertisement for computers.
This smells bad, I'll refrain from coming back to follow this thread.

 

Smells bad indeed.
Now imagine how successful is someone who spends so much time promoting his junk on every corner of the web. This seems too desperate.

 

I'm cornered? Ioannis Kavouras (Kav) is not his real name - it's Angelo Attoni. He has other fake names like "Blue Angel" and "Marko Diaz". Does posting a profile pic make it really him? I know his real name and photos, because I've done proper research. Basically he's a sneaky casino promoter who also sells his Kavouras bet roulette system. He has other sites including roulette-bet.com. I know because I own [Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.] and [Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own site which violated our rules.] and can see his IP addresses. I've also done further research, but you can do your own research. He had me fooled too. I thought he was just a pleasant guy posting non-profile links to articles on his website. Then I eventually saw he was just spamming links, and removed them. That's why he's so upset at me. Years of his hard work down the drain. Anyway you can do your own research.

Kaisan is a German visual ballistics player. His technique was great 20 years ago, but old news today. To get this straight, you criticize my techniques and roulette computers, but praise Kaisan? Narthan, you have no idea what you're talking about. Visual ballistics is a simplistic approach to what computers do. I teach numerous visual ballistics techniques for free, with the below video being the most basic - for beginners:

PART 1:
[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own commercial videos which violated our rules.]

PART 2:
[Admin Edit (Nov 3, 2016): Removed URL to members' own commercial videos which violated our rules.]

Perhaps Nathan, you have no interest in the truth. I find it common that people who write rubbish about me will praise the same techniques I teach in one sentence, then call me a scammer in another.

I'll make this clear: I couldn't care less if people don't believe my technology works. I'm here to refute lies about me as a person, and will let the matter rest if there are no more lies to refute. As my technology is relevant to the allegations, I will inevitably post information to prove my claims.

 

Maybe this matter should be brought to the attention of the Forum Administrator .

 

Nathan, I'm sure the forum admin would agree that I have the right to respond to false allegations, which include the posting of entire websites here. I simply did the same to refute lies, not to promote anything. If admin removes the allegations, then I have no problem with him/her removing my posts.

 

Give up Steve, you can not win. You are flogging a dead horse here.

I defended you on Roulette30 even though you have blocked all 3 of my work IPs on Rcc. All of my roulette group are very happy with you. You forced us to make our own forum.