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”. I conducted a live and recorded challenge with Tony to prove he was wrong. Tony then edited the recording and lied about the results, so I published the full unedited recording, and the true results which proved he was the problem, not the roulette computer. He has an ongoing vendetta against me.
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. I found his refusal of support suspicious. Later we found he used incorrect settings, but he refuses to accept he made a mistake. It also 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%.
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.
See http://www.roulettephysics.com/demonstrations/ 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:
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.
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 http://www.genuinewinnerroulettesystem.com/results-of-my-challenge-to-bago/. 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYUc3gGctNk. 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.