Anybody can play and win in sessions where his betselection either appears averagely or with minor temporary variance. Can anybody dare to win a perpetually under performer number?
If you are aware of Zumma Testers's book of American Roulette having 15k real spins, here is an open challenge for all those who say they are system creators.
In the attached sheet, I have marked the wins/losses of number 3 in entire 15k trials. It is pertinent to mention here that number 3 has won only 329 times i.e a hit rate of only 45.59 spins/Win.
I openly challenge that no one can beat it at last being under a reasonable limit (bankroll wise and maximum bet used wise). Will anybody ever beat it and prove me wrong?
Since I am not member of any other forum apart from this and mine, I request Victor and others to carry my challenge to other forums as well.
Potentially an interesting challenge. I hope you get some takers.
And their prize will be (select any one):
1 title deeds to your house
2 50% of your income for the next 10 years
3 A world trip with you in a shared cabin
Go on...Say 'yes' ;)
QuotePotentially an interesting challenge.I hope you get some takers.
I can see that even the most famous (so-called successful too) methods are still moving around Gamblers' fallacy and Martingale while they are proven failure concepts, in long run and they are bound to lose more and win less if you keep on playing those. I don't believe those who are still at kindergarten level can ever dare to even think of beating this. I would be the happiest person if someone proves me wrong.
That is why I said, I am not butterfly because there is no nectar available.
Interesting one here Al.
Albeit some folks claiming to /rock/ the 00 wheel.
I've heard it enough: it's just one extra number... :glasses:
Seems the casino math guys disagree.
It DOES make a huge difference... In the casino there are no zeroes to the left
Victor,
American Roulette has inbuilt double disadvantage to players with comparison to European. I have reverse engineered zumma to bring in the worst option. If someone can beat zumma with this betselection (playing number 3 only) with a well-defined system, he will be the best system creator of the world and he will be able to crush maximum possible sessions without any fear of losing money.
So--confused as usual--we bet only on the 3? All by its lonesome? Can't be part of a split, street or anything else?
Sam
If you win 15k spins betting number 3 as your sole bet selection, it proves that you have a strategy that can work in adverse conditions.
Only a very strong and stable method can work on this. All Kindergarten stuff will fall flat here. This is litmus test of any system.
Any taker?
You mean to bet nonstop on number 3 i guess.So if playing flat bet definitely a loss due to frequency of hits,but if with progression that is another story.I didn't go through 15k spins.But i bet(no pun intended) at one time number 3 didn't show for 100+ spins even 200 maybe.So it's a challenge really :nod:
Maybe like Winkel once post a thread on an old Forum,just play the progression. :-\
No progression that is ever written on any forum or in any system sold for money can do anything but losing on this data. Fake system sellers reverse engineer Zumma book to find suitable way to bet and prove they can beat it but what about beating such consistently bad bet selection?
Even bread winner progression 1 2 3 4 5 etc.. or 111 222 333
But i was thinking in the line of playing 111 till you play 35 times then 2 for 35 times,on a win go back 35 times.Just an idea
These concepts will be proved as kindergarten by this data.
Is there a way to try the last concept please for 15k,i will really like to know how bad it fails
bet 1 unit for 35 spins,if loss bet 2 unit for 35 spins etc..but on a win go back 35 spaces.But one problem though eg. 2 units at 33 spins a win we go back 35 spins,we go at 1 unit bet at 34th spin.We take from there,we don't regress bak to the beginning of 1 unit if you understand what im saying.
Hey Mervin,
These things won't work. I challenge all the system writers to show a single way where you can play and win a session like it.
If nobody can do that, it is time to think whether you have actually gained anything from reading so-called "systems" spread over hundreds of systems for sale or freely available on various sites or discussion forums.
Do not think that it is just a challenge to beat number 3 of zumma. Any betselection may have same fate as 3, be it a static one or a number that is being chosen by any hypothesis. Number 3 of zumma is merely an indication of getting worst probabilities on your chosen betselection. How will you cop that?
I am the author of Cracking PI Cracking Random. I have worked extensively with Zumma's System Tester. There is a near precise flat bet advantage: .08333 over the 15k trials. I discuss it in my site: CrackingPi.com (http://www.crackingpi.com/). I'll answer any questions you may have.
Welcome GM2
Hope you enjoy around and have a prosper stay :thumbsup:
I am the author of Cracking PI Cracking Random. I have worked extensively with Zumma's System Tester. There is a near precise flat bet advantage: .08333 over the 15k trials. I discuss it in my site: CrackingPi.com (http://www.crackingpi.com/). I'll answer any questions you may have.Quote
Please read over my challenge once again and if you understood it, try to play number 3 and beat it with any well-defined method. :thumbsup:
Where are all so-called mathematicians and system authors who have filled many forums with lots of "systems" and "money management" rules? There are many guys who have written dozens of them.
All these so called systems are workable in "favorable" cases only. If your betselection gets favorable, you will win with flat bet as well. What is the merit of these systems? They all bleed dry if a little adverse situations come and if adverse starts running little harder, you would lose what you can never recover.
If anyone can work out this, it would guide and help all to fight with randomness in real world situations.
Quote from: albalaha on November 14, 2012, 05:04:11 AM
Where are all so-called mathematicians and system authors who have filled many forums with lots of "systems" and "money management" rules? There are many guys who have written dozens of them.
As much as I don't really want to respond to this, I'm afraid I have to.
The people who write this stuff, or at least attempt to, do not get sidetracked with silly "challenges" of what basically amounts to chasing a single number on the wheel. What person in their right mind would want to?
As well you know, "singles" can run for hundreds of spins without showing. Why attempt to chase it down?
Yes, we all know you've beaten the game and have told us many, many times, yada-yada-yada.
Now for some reason you decide to see if somebody can win on a single that's missing for several hundred spins. It still doesn't make sense as a valid challenge.
However, perhaps this "challenge" needs to be presented in a more logical way. I'll leave that up to you but for the mean time, it just looks like a question on how to beat a single number that won't come up for 300 spins or so.
Why would anyone try? Obviously any progression won't work, as a simple spreadsheet will confirm. If you're not including any other wagers, a missing single for 300 spins is a pointless quest!
Very odd.
AD (posted here as nobody on your own forum will speak up anymore due to veiled threats of banishment)
Ad,
Number 3 is just a representative of a bet selection that can go perpetually bad. It can be anything else too, for that matter. If I ask all of same kind of variance in any other bet selection like any one dozen, people won't believe. That is why I had to pick a betselection from most known data in the world called as "zumma testers' book".
For your kind information, I have opened my forum now for all to see since I found that you guys are doing no positive thing over there apart from attending my free lectures. I do not allow filthy language or mudslinging in my forum and I am very strict with my rules.
If you guys are just looking forum to forum (as esoito named as butterflies) for anything that will change your luck and u will get a mysterious winner method somewhere, u r mistaken. The hard fact is, earning from roulette is not a cheesecake.
Unless you have a sound money management idea that can win in adverse cases too apart from good ones, you can't succeed ever in gambling.
When I am asking for a worthwhile debate, instead of supporting me, frustrated guys start bashing me. If we can solve this query jointly or severally, we will all be winners in long run.
Any taker?
ok albalaha, I will try something. It will be an interesting experiment.
Give me a few days and I will come back with the results and tell you how I played it.
cheers
Just to whet your appetite!
I am playing Roy Ward Dickson's hot numbers.
The first coup for anybody that knows it had a 3/9 split and came up on the 7th spin.
The formula boils down to this...
It's a number that comes up three times within 20 spins or less, after an absence of 30 spins or more - except when it does so three times in a row.
You play it for 9 spins.
1 chip on the first 6 spins and 2 chips on spins 7,8,9. (12 chips per coup)
There are a few notation rules which I will mention if it's successful in the challenge.
That only took about an hour doing it manually, lol.
3/9 win on 7th spin +64.
4/10 loss +52.
10/6 loss +40.
10/8 loss +28.
5/6 loss +16.
3/6 loss +4.
7/1 loss -8.
5/4 loss -20.
After such a promising start as well. I can't think of any other method to take on your challenge. I thought the RWD method might crack it as well.
Quoteok albalaha, I will try something. It will be an interesting experiment.Give me a few days and I will come back with the results and tell you how I played it. cheers
I love this attitude and want to see fighters like you. It is what we call "fire in the belly" :applause:
Please try to illustrate here whatever you play or find.
Quote from: albalaha on November 15, 2012, 07:02:43 PM
When I am asking for a worthwhile debate, instead of supporting me, frustrated guys start bashing me.
Al,
Nobody is "bashing" you. You're starting to act like a lot of people who think everyone is attacking them by merely questioning their actions.
Deal with it. No bashing allowed. The "challenge" still makes little sense but I'm willing to listen to others debate it.
AD
Hey Captain,
Personally I have nothing against you or anybody else.
I want to learn something from you guys too, who are playing these games for decades but most of the veterans are still not ready to share anything worthwhile ( a few veterans like flat_ino and GLC are just opposite and they share all their fancies and fantasies) .
If we do not test new ideas and accept challenges and try to find new ways, it is useless to roam around forums and make a big gathering just to chit-chat.
Hello,
I'm the author of Cracking Pi.
I've had to re-register since my password was not accepted the second time I tried to log in and an email to rewrite my password was not sent.
I spent several days in Dallas with the author of Zumma's Roulette System Tester. I tested all 15 k trials with the methodology of "action at a distance." This is the methodology of Quantum Mechanics. Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance." You can repeat my experiment and I'm quite certain you will get the same result. That is, a flat bet advantage: .08333 .
There are two matters of note. The first is minor. The original copy of System Tester contained several errors in which strings of numbers were erroneously repeated. When I pointed this out to the author, he patched them. I don't know if he went back to his original data, but my feeling at the time was that he used an RNG. Given that these were less than a hundred numbers total, I don;t think the difference would be particularly statistically significant.
The second matter is very much of significance. The author reported he recorded the data mainly from downtown casinos in Las Vegas. The casinos he named were not particularly mainstream. This may be because he required his data recorders to place bets and the lesser casinos had cheaper minimums. The significance of the less than mainstream casinos is that their dealers were not necessarily required or trained or supervised or encouraged to use a random release. When I questioned him on this point, I was told the dealer's were "throwing from the green all night long." The term refers to a dealer releasing the ball over one of the green house numbers (or a right angle thereto). This has obvious consequences in terms of randomness.
In my own Pi-odds study, I carefully selected dealers who were releasing randomly. From that study, using "action at a distance," I got a flat bet advantage close to what is now expected from a random release: .16666 .
Clearly, the factor of a dealer's release protocol invites deeper inspection.
GM3,
Welcome and some very interesting stuff. It appears we would be better served using a RNG for your statistical probability of achieving a positive result. Unfortunately, these are necessarily unplayable as the sheer volume could not withstand the human element.
Your website is a good read, though. Many thanks.
Gator
Hey Baly and Geometricsman,
Either I can't convey what I want or you are not getting my point of challenge. I am not saying about beating zumma in any manner (as geometricsmen is talking of flat bet advantage which is not possible while betting number 3 and Baly talks of some hot number betting idea). We have a static bet here, i.e. number 3 that is having huge variance throughout 15k spins.
Can we beat it or other data of such bad flow by any system, strategy, money management etc?
Quote from: albalaha on November 16, 2012, 03:29:48 AM
Hey Captain,
Personally I have nothing against you or anybody else.
I want to learn something from you guys too, who are playing these games for decades but most of the veterans are still not ready to share anything worthwhile ( a few veterans like flat_ino and GLC are just opposite and they share all their fancies and fantasies) .
If we do not test new ideas and accept challenges and try to find new ways, it is useless to roam around forums and make a big gathering just to chit-chat.
Dear Albalaha,
I didn't know you knew I was a "veteran". US Army to be exact. Military Police. C:-) Hehe :applause:
Sorry I can't help you with your challenge. Since I've posted every thought I've ever had about roulette (I'm not so sure Ivo has) then you should know that I don't mess around with straight up numbers. Time constraints. If I didn't have a family, a job, and public service, or need a few hours of sleep every couple of days, I might consider it.
Actually, I think it's kind of like asking if God can make a rock too big for Him to lift.
Your challenge reminds of the story of David and Goliath. You know, where Goliath would come our every morning and challenge the Isrealites to send out a champion to fight him. David, only a boy, didn't have enough sense to know he couldn't defeat the 9' giant. So he took his sling shot and nice smooth stone and before he got close enough for Goliath to reach him, he smote him right between the eyes. It was like taking a gun to a knife fight. Goliath never knew what hit him.
Maybe Bally or GM3 will turn out to be our David.
Cheers my friend,
GLC
Welcome to the Fray dear George :thumbsup:
The fellows around sure are glad to see you here. (count me first!)
Cheers!
Hey George,
you say you are too busy but u were one of the most prolific writers in rf.cc. My challenge is not about just beating this number 3 alone. it would envisage new approaches to handle the worst with any bet if someone conquers this with a systematic and well-defined approach.
Sumit, just one question: can we skip spins?
If so, perhaps the good ol' "only bet what is showing in the current cycle" might be handy, and we never sustain bets on #3 beyond 36 spins, making a pause until next show, using a soft progression, a la rise +1 plus "boom!".
Quote from: VLS on November 17, 2012, 05:06:51 AM
rise +1 plus "boom!".
Geez, I don't think I've written about the "
boom!" positive progression yet.
I can write the copy tomorrow, it's past 1 am here.
...Despite the name it
IS a very good cycle-based progressive betting to pump the balances in times of concentration.
Here's my initial thoughts. Since we know the 3 has some pretty long sleeping sessions, to have a shot at winning, I think we need to incorporate a trigger. The most obvious is to wait until the #3 hits and then bet on it for a pre-determined number of spins. If no hit, then you must wait until it finally hits again before we can bet on it again. We could, instead of waiting for another hit, wait for either another hit or a pre-determined number of spins with no hit. Say 108 spins. If it doesn't hit within 108 spins, we can assume it's (forgive me for using the word) DUE :no: and act as if it just hit. That means if we're betting for 37 spins for a hit once it shows, sleeping for 3 cycles triggers another round of 37 bets.
We would have to use a very small progression, say 1-1-2-2-3-3-4-4-5-5-6-6 etc...(each number represents 37 bets at that unit amount. I'm using 2 sets of each unit amount thinking of the suggestion I read somewhere of the 2nd set at the same level being used to limit our number of units lost at that amount. Of course we wouldn't recover all previous losses on a single win unless it hits within the 1st 36 spins. That means we'd have to work our way back to a profit with a series of hits.
The whole purpose of a progression is to keep us at the table long enough to get enough wins at large bet sizes and close enough together to recover all the small but numerous losses during a losing series.
As with all progressions, a bad enough stretch can kill your bank roll and a flat bet will just drift into oblivion without a little luck. I'm sure if we had the patience we could back engineer some convoluted system to beat the 15K spins betting on the #3 only, but it wouldn't work for any other number or any other set of 15K spins.
Okay, I'm on Pacific Standard Time and even TCS is probably in bed by now, so I'm going to get some of that sleep I talked about earlier.
GLC
P.S. I just notice that Victor had a similar thought. Oh well, I took the time to type it up, so I'm going to post it even if it is just an echo. :zzz:
GLC, welcome to "Wavelengths United".
People all over the world vibrating at the same tune. Today it was me and you :)
QuoteSumit, just one question: can we skip spins?
Do anything except reverse engineering the data to get a made-out way for beating this data only. If the method has substance, it will fit on other bad performing numbers as well.
Quote from: VLS on November 17, 2012, 05:09:51 AM
OK, I can write the copy tomorrow, it's past 1 am here.
Written and posted here:
http://betselection.cc/positive/'boom!'-positive-progression/ (http://betselection.cc/positive/'boom!'-positive-progression/)
Can someone show the flow of the bankroll on number 3 (as per the attached sheet) in a graph as if we are playing it flat bet?
At it...
Thanks Victor. It will help all of us understanding its negativity level.
Here:
[attachimg=1]
Thanks a lot. Can you help teaching us all how did u draw this?
Quote from: albalaha on November 18, 2012, 09:09:43 AM
Thanks a lot. Can you help teaching us all how did u draw this?
Sure dear Sumit.
Step 1: Search and replace all L's by any non-3 number.
Step 2: Search and replace all W's by number 3.
Step 3: Load new file into RX, place 1 unit on number 3. Hit RUN!
:)
Nice, Victor. Can you try your progression upon this? Anybody else have courage to fight?
Quote from: albalaha on November 18, 2012, 09:09:43 AM
Thanks a lot. Can you help teaching us all how did u draw this?
You didn't recognize that style of graph?
AD
In defense of those without roulette xtreme.
Roulette xtreme is just one of many programs in the roulette market.
Granted, it is one of the most popular but by no means it is a prerequisite to know it from top to bottom.
I do not see any shame when someone does not know it.
Thank you.
[attachthumb=1] [attachthumb=2] [attachthumb=3] [attachthumb=4]
I don't use RX.
why not bet 10x for a 3 after you see a 3 with progression 1111111111,2222222222,3333333333,etc
Quote from: albalaha on November 19, 2012, 02:51:23 AM
I don't use RX.
albalah,
Tell me something, have you already found the solution to this problem?
why not bet 10x for a 3 after you see a 3 with progression 1111111111,2222222222,3333333333,etc
Try your methodology after #676 and try to win anywhere your way. You can try to do this manually too.
Tell me something, have you already found the solution to this problem?
I want to see whether any intelligent and experienced member have any solution to this. As I said, even the most unintelligent player can win if his bet hits more and losses less. This challenge is like a hurdle race. Is it the level and standard of so-called "experienced" members?
If you can't face and win variance attack, your system is no system. You are merely trying your luck.
maybe use cycles?
like 40 spins cycles, +1/-1 reset when ever even or in plus? this should work, what you guys think?
Sogett,
If you feel this can work, u can have a test of this by following way. Open the txt file in excel. Start doing your money management from Spin No. 677 (since it is winning before this even flat bet). If you get a positive balance anywhere after that, you may continue to check whether your ideas keep on working or not.
So far, I am only seeing suggestions regarding how to play it. Nobody has come up yet with testing the idea that he is talking about himself. Come up with testing (at least you can manually do 200-300 spins) results. That will bring guidance for all.
Can someone who is member of other forums like rf.cc, rf.net, rf.com, GG carry my challenge there as copy+paste (alongwith the text file or link?)
One can even put this challenge on forums with different language than English.
Quote from: albalaha on November 21, 2012, 02:05:51 AM
Sogett,
If you feel this can work, u can have a test of this by following way. Open the txt file in excel. Start doing your money management from Spin No. 677 (since it is winning before this even flat bet). If you get a positive balance anywhere after that, you may continue to check whether your ideas keep on working or not.
So far, I am only seeing suggestions regarding how to play it. Nobody has come up yet with testing the idea that he is talking about himself. Come up with testing (at least you can manually do 200-300 spins) results. That will bring guidance for all.
I tried testing in 100 spin cycles and it failed big time
currently at spin 10876 I am -51609 units
I am not only words, I did this by hand, It just took a while
and yes, the beggining was great, but when it started going down...
tough tough
so we can scratch that idea
Quoteand yes, the beggining was great, but when it started going down...tough tough
Was it great after spin number 676?
Quote from: albalaha on November 21, 2012, 04:23:27 PM
Was it great after spin number 676?
on spin 676 there is a hit and the balance is +463 unit
after that it just goes down
Quoteon spin 676 there is a hit and the balance is +463 unit[/size]after that it just goes down
That is what I am telling. If you can see the graph in previous page (page number 3 of this discussion carefully, you will see that upto spin number 676, it is winning even with flat betting.
This challenge is an eye opener, if you take it positively. What you are reading here and there as systems are only teaching you for good times, where you will win even with flat bet or any negative progression but the challenge that I have given needs lots of better understanding of probability, statistics and mathematics, apart from common sense and experience of this game.
Anybody else?
well I don't know
mybe take the loss? ;D ;D
Do you know how to beat it albalaha?
I am no expert on progressions and money management
this is a very good challenge, hope someone figures out how to beat it
QuoteDo you know how to beat it albalaha?
I doubt it, he wouldn't be asking for help if he did. As A Dulay stated, it's a pointless quiz as most seasoned members know a single can and will sleep over 600 spins so we wouldn't bother chasing it.
Sumit, cut to the chase, do you have a way of beating it? if you say you do you must be prepared to prove it, or are you still in the selling market?
As I said it so many times, it is not only about number 3. Number 3's performance is an evidence that your choice of bet selection may suffer from perpetual variance too. If I give 5 worst numbers of zumma as a bunch of bets of your choice, you will bleed dry, trying to fight them all.
It is a question of handling a betselection which is perpetually underperformer. Be it an EC or a single number.
The real problem with you is u never got to learn serious stuff ever on any of the forums. When asked to play, one man is losing more than 51k chips. Others could not even dare to try anything. A few just uttered some raw ideas without knowing its impact. A few like you who could not find anything, came to fight with me.
If you are not used to any serious and useful debate, go play martingale upon ECs, in one way or other.
Quotethis is a very good challenge, hope someone figures out how to beat it
I am afraid, most of the members are only moving from forum to forum to find a holy grail. No one wants to work for that himself.
QuoteSumit, cut to the chase, do you have a way of beating it? if you say you do you must be prepared to prove it, or are you still in the selling market?
If I can beat this and can prove my method too and like to sell that as well, you won't be able to pay its price. So better don't waste your time and mine too.
QuoteIf I can beat this and can prove my method too and like to sell that as well
As I thought, and you are asking everyone to do it for you or to see if anyone actually can, as you said, I will stick with what I know works, thanks for the nudge. Same old Sumit lol
I have no time for it, but as the numbers are known before the play, it may be possible to design a method for the spins, and if it will be possible it is still not sure it will past 15k other spins.
Those who feel that this challenge is a wastage of time, should move to other debates and do not spoil this topic.
QuoteAs I thought, and you are asking everyone to do it for you or to see if anyone actually can, as you said, I will stick with what I know works, thanks for the nudge. Same old Sumit lol
If somone does this positively, I won't take away that in my pocket. It will benefit all.
Quote[size=0.85em]I have no time for it, but as the numbers are known before the play, it may be possible to design a method for the spins, and if it will be possible it is still not sure it will past 15k other spins.[/size]
[/size]
[size=78%] [/size]
If someone just reverse engineers this number to form a method which will suit only this, the same won't work upon other 4 worst number of zumma or any other data having similar problem.[size=0.85em]
Quote from: Superman on November 22, 2012, 12:36:35 PM
As I thought, and you are asking everyone to do it for you or to see if anyone actually can, as you said, I will stick with what I know works, thanks for the nudge. Same old Sumit lol
Well... he does actually have a system that beat those...
But IMO it doesn't really matter since this is just one of the infinite numbers of combinations numbers can have.
I got systems that beat one set of 1kkk spins... but they will lose on another set.
QuoteI got systems that beat one set of 1kkk spins... but they will lose on another set.
why are you joking buddy?1kkk means 1 billion spins. Which system is doing that, please let me know?
Every sets are different, the 15000 spins supplied are equal uniqe as if it were only number 3 in all 15000 spins.
QuoteEvery sets are different, the 15000 spins supplied are equal unique as if it were only number 3 in all 15000 spins.
We are only talking of things on record i.e. zumma and working on tough numbers/ bet selections with a systematic approach. There is a world of difference between hypothesis and reality and this reality is lying open to world.
I wonder how Ophis talk about testing a billion spins (he can not be serious here) and you talk of "only number 3 in all 15000 spins (that is not possible with even trillion spins). Wake up guys.
Quote from: albalaha on November 22, 2012, 04:31:14 PM
We are only talking of things on record i.e. zumma and working on tough numbers/ bet selections with a systematic approach. There is a world of difference between hypothesis and reality and this reality is lying open to world.
I wonder how Ophis talk about testing a billion spins (he can not be serious here) and you talk of "only number 3 in all 15000 spins (that is not possible with even trillion spins). Wake up guys.
Why is it not possible, it will be one outcome every time you spin 15000. That what is posted will never come back in in trillions of spins or are as unlikley to come back as you get 15000 number 3 in a row. This is a fact. Every 15000 spins has equal chance, the posted numbers are as uniqe as 15000 number 3 . Hard for many to take even if they should understand it. It is 1/37 multply 15000 times, a large number(or better small), but still all has the same probabillity. It is the human brain making the 15000 number 3 more uniqe than any other outcome.
Quote from: albalaha on November 22, 2012, 03:38:17 PM
why are you joking buddy?1kkk means 1 billion spins. Which system is doing that, please let me know?
should state 1kk... million.
You right guys.....even if some system shows positive results after 1 milion spins, and in the next tests can t show again positive results , that s not any HG.
But still recomandable play that system , in comparation with most of the systems.
If can win all the time different 1 milion spins (over and over again, or most of the time ) that s the HG.
And what's 15 000 spins ? nothing , 150 000 spins ? start to be something if some can win that flat betting....
The best result/test i have until now is with one of my systems (flat betting 9 inside numbers) ...still up after 80 000 spins once( one test),
and various times up after 15 000 ....40 000 spins, But still not good enough because can t show same results always, but not bad to play for real
and with little progression.....
Sorry AL if i am off topic here .
cheers
I am not trying to bash any rational idea but rather talking of handling those bets that are not running that good.
I hope I am not at a wrong place talking to wrong people.
QuoteEvery 15000 spins has equal chance, the posted numbers are as uniqe as 15000 number 3 . Hard for many to take even if they should understand it. It is 1/37 multply 15000 times, a large number(or better small), but still all has the same probabillity. It is the human brain making the 15000 number 3 more uniqe than any other outcome.
So you believe that appearance of Number 3 in these 15000 spins is as unique as number 3 repeatedly coming for 15000 times? Truly amazing.
Quote from: albalaha on December 25, 2012, 06:09:20 AM
So you believe that appearance of Number 3 in these 15000 spins is as unique as number 3 repeatedly coming for 15000 times? Truly amazing.
You could try better understand, I never wrote that. I wrote the sample you provide has the same chance to be exactly the same next try as all is three.
and my this challenge is meant for finding a solution to such cases, if any member have that. Nothing personal.
With due respect to the esteemed individuals involved here, this is an exercise in utter futility and a waste of valuable time. Why make problems for yourself?
A smart bet would filter out the sleepers. Never chase them.
Instead reverse the psychology not the engineering.
Where 3 was cold it may well be some of its neighbours were busy compensating.
Whatever, the real action was somewhere else.
Any methodology needs to be responsive to reality.
One definition of insanity is to keep banging your head against the (same) wall thinking its got to change soon. Not necessarily.
Look elsewhere for real success. And work in short cycles !
Cheers and Merry Christmas XXVV
XXVV Well said & Merry Christmas
XXVV,
This challenge is not regarding only number 3 as I said repeatedly and again repeating here. It could be just any other betselection. Have we learnt only facing good ones? Why so many systems and discussions then, play flat bet and trust that it will go good at some place and will get successive hits? What is the use of so much talks over various forums?
Isn't it time to think again that we are still at same place even after running a marathon?
The way i play change the amount of numbers i play each time , i can follow the number 3 , but my bet some time will be 1-18 , 1st 12 , 1-6 , 2-3-5-6 , 1-3 , 2-3 , or 3 , if I'm allow to move my bet every time as long as my bet cover number 3. i will accept this challenge , but since you are asking for some warrior to take this challenge , you will have to be with me every spin via team viewer to witness , i need to know the amount of chips i will be able to have for the challenge too , we can do 100-200 spins each day , you can install rx and spin for me after i place my bet.
GGasoft
MBB,
You do have fresh ideas. Try to execute your strategy and beat this. Remember, do not make a tailor-made strategy that handles only worst numbers. The strategy should be applicable upon well performing numbers of zumma as well. One excel of your way on number 3 will speak better than your meter long written strategy.
GGasoft,
This challenge is simply of beating a particular number, that kept itself on back foot throughout 15,000 spins. You can't mix other bets to tone down the consistent dispersion/variance that it has. Just fight with that if you really know how to.
Minimum bet allowed and maximum bet allowed?
Try from 1 to 100.
bankroll allowed?
limits are to low to win.
How much bankroll and table limits you want?
Quote from: Albalaha on May 02, 2013, 04:58:56 PM
How much bankroll and table limits you want?
--It is normal casino B&M 2 min.200 max.......and btw ALBA,I could take a challenge and easy win it,but
unfortunately haven't enough wasting time......after all what would I get to prove my point...it is only
you and others that would profit out from that.But will give you a hint anyhow......required BR 4080...
CYCLES OF 34 SPINS........TO LOSE NUMBER 3 SHOULDN'T HIT FOR 544 SPINS.......And now take any 50
real casino numbers sessions in the row and you will find out.......RNG are not casino numbers.
W_O_W
Can anybody simulate Flat's Idea? I do not think it will work perfectly here. How about GG claim?
Albalaha,
First of all, anyone playing in real casino will tell you point blank that these numbers are fake and have not seen in their experience of a life time.
Second, we don't prove any point by winning this challenge, as there is no holy grail. Only MM and MM only can take you to win things.
Third, now that there is a challenge, this is how you approach it. You break it into utmost simplicity. Consider one 36 spin cycle as a single bet. Keep an LW register for this 36 spin cycle to see whether you Lose or Win a cycle. Because the risk of losing is very high and we are not following any MM or whatsoever, we have to be very careful and take the least risky approach.
So we bundle 5 sets of this 36 spin cycle into one LW register. So essentially we have an LW register that consists of 5 sets of 36 spins. Now what you do is you start betting the next 5 set if you got a "W" in the previous cycle and within the 5 set cycle again bet only if the previous 36 spin cycle was a "W". Stop betting as soon as you hit a spin and come out of both the LW registers and wait for another "W".
For 15,000 spins that you have shown here, max bank roll required was 36 units for me. There were 14 betting opportunities. 10 of them won and 4 of them lost. Final unit count was +5 units.
Finally, what's the point. it's a total time waste, as you will never find the holy grail. There is a reason why it is called a holy grail.
Quote from: GreatGrampa on May 03, 2013, 04:54:37 PM
For 15,000 spins that you have shown here, max bank roll required was 36 units for me. There were 14 betting opportunities. 10 of them won and 4 of them lost. Final unit count was +5 units.
Finally, what's the point. it's a total time waste, as you will never find the holy grail. There is a reason why it is called a holy grail.
Very cool! Now at least two of us have "solved" this excercise in futility.
AD
Everybody is only speaking of their opinions. No illustrations has come up yet. What is the use of this challenge? The purpose is to learn how you handle continuous variance in such a span. If a strategy wins this challenge, without reverse engineering the W/L in it, that should win in any other number in long term.
Whoever claims to beat it, be it Adulay, Flat_ino or Greatgrampa need to illustrate their idea working on this data openly here. Otherwise, the claim to beat it with all these abovesaid methods, can be safely considered as imaginary if not false.
Quote from: GreatGrampa on May 03, 2013, 04:54:37 PM
Consider one 36 spin cycle as a single bet. Keep an LW register for this 36 spin cycle to see whether you Lose or Win a cycle. Because the risk of losing is very high and we are not following any MM or whatsoever, we have to be very careful and take the least risky approach.
Actually, the chance of getting a hit is quite good - about 63%
[attachimg=1]
Sumit,
Proof in the attached sheet. Infact we got more betting opportunities that i thought. For the method refer to my previous post. We got 36 betting opportunities and we won 22 of them. That is close to 60% win. And the beauty so far is it is only a flat bet and we don't need a huge bank roll
If we apply a cyclic progression on this, or the libertyto apply parachuting we will win with a huge margin.
So the idea is keeping things simple using a LW register, following the table and keeping your mm tight. Having solved this, this is not a HG as there never will be one and it's a total time waste as there are better things to do. :)
Quote from: Albalaha on May 04, 2013, 04:17:04 AM
Everybody is only speaking of their opinions. No illustrations has come up yet. What is the use of this challenge? The purpose is to learn how you handle continuous variance in such a span. If a strategy wins this challenge, without reverse engineering the W/L in it, that should win in any other number in long term.
Whoever claims to beat it, be it Adulay, Flat_ino or Greatgrampa need to illustrate their idea working on this data openly here. Otherwise, the claim to beat it with all these abovesaid methods, can be safely considered as imaginary if not false.
Does this also apply to you Albalaha? I don't mean to sound unfriendly.
I have never made any claim on this data.
Im going to attempt to win , playing all the spins , we dispersion killers , never run or dodge , or wait , because we know , every spin is same as any other, and we know how strong our game is. When I'm done i will comeback with the results , no matter if positive or negative.
GGasoft
Good. I like your spirit. :applause:
what's the casino bankroll for the challenge?
Look. I know it is not feasible to try 15k spins with 100 chips in hand. Will 5000 chips be enough to you? My curiosity is to see how wisely you can bet in such adverse cases to ensure a net win without going too down in loss.
ok i will win 5000 chips of the minimum value.
Video coming.....
I already beat your challenge my friend. you will call me maestro forever?
playing all spins
using 1-100 limits
with desired bankroll.
Quote from: Albalaha on May 04, 2013, 04:17:04 AM
Whoever claims to beat it, be it Adulay, Flat_ino or Greatgrampa need to illustrate their idea working on this data openly here. Otherwise, the claim to beat it with all these abovesaid methods, can be safely considered as imaginary if not false.
Al,
I do believe I explained it on your own forum.
The actual solution came from my craps playing brother, the born loser. Once he explained it to me, it made perfect sense.
Using your rules as posted, the solution was to play those 15,000 finite numbers like a tournament.
I've already given you the results (posted) in another thread.
What more would you like for this unrealistic challenge that seems to be your current focus?
AD
Captain,
You have only told the results without telling anything about the methodology. Those results may be imaginary because you claim to beat it with flat betting, which is quite indigestible in the presence case unless someone reverse engineers the flow of win/loss and use the weakest point of this particular data to show the win.
If you have really beaten this (even with slightest profit) with a sensible approach which someone will use on a straight up bet, why are you shying away to show that to all?
So far, nobody has done anything to go near beating this data.
Quote from: Albalaha on May 05, 2013, 06:34:28 PM
Captain,
You have only told the results without telling anything about the methodology.
I not only told you the results, I told you exactly how I arrived at it. Re-read my original post on your board.
Quote from: Albalaha on May 05, 2013, 06:34:28 PM
Those results may be imaginary because you claim to beat it with flat betting, which is quite indigestible . . . .
It may be imaginary to YOU due to your incorrect deduction based on an improper logical fallacy. You just can't believe it was flat betting, eh?
Quote from: Albalaha on May 05, 2013, 06:34:28 PM
If you have really beaten this (even with slightest profit) with a sensible approach which someone will use on a straight up bet, why are you shying away to show that to all?
Why am I "shying" away? Why, to get you all excited because at least two people have already solved your innane "test" and it's bugging you that you can't see it!
PLAY IT LIKE A TOURNAMENT using your previously posted rules.
Quote from: Albalaha on May 05, 2013, 06:34:28 PM
So far, nobody has done anything to go near beating this data.
Say what? At least two people have "solved" this incredible time waster as we type.
Feels funny to be on the other side, doesn't it!!
Anyway, what you fail to see is that your "challenge" is totally unrealistic. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY is about to chase a single number and being told in ADVANCE that this will be the worst possible number in 15,000 spins makes it so far off base that a I'm amazed anyone events thinks about trying this. It's pointless and fits into no reasonable gambling scenario, especially given the original parameters of the "challenge".
So, I'll try to exit this discussion gracefully with the following recommendation. . . .
Play it like a tournament and beat the silly "challenge".
AD (too much fun but done with it for now)
Quote from: Albalaha on November 11, 2012, 06:11:27 AM
Anybody can play and win in sessions where his betselection either appears averagely or with minor temporary variance. Can anybody dare to win a perpetually under performer number?
If you are aware of Zumma Testers's book of American Roulette having 15k real spins, here is an open challenge for all those who say they are system creators.
In the attached sheet, I have marked the wins/losses of number 3 in entire 15k trials. It is pertinent to mention here that number 3 has won only 329 times i.e a hit rate of only 45.59 spins/Win.
I openly challenge that no one can beat it at last being under a reasonable limit (bankroll wise and maximum bet used wise). Will anybody ever beat it and prove me wrong?
Since I am not member of any other forum apart from this and mine, I request Victor and others to carry my challenge to other forums as well.
Is done you are wrong.
Enjoy the video....
You have to call me "Maestro" Now
Beating the zuma challenge (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Dl-XQnDupU#)
GGasoft
(Any one know how i can improve the quality of the video? damn i have to defeat that too!)
pixel capture rate?
Adulay,
You never described as to how did u break it and just told that you won +79 units while betting flat. Is it sufficient?
Any one having two working eyes can see whether you told any method here, in my forum or not : http://albalaha.lefora.com/2012/11/11/albalahas-open-challenge-can-anyone-beat-the-worst/page2/ (http://albalaha.lefora.com/2012/11/11/albalahas-open-challenge-can-anyone-beat-the-worst/page2/)
GGasoft,
Please explain your method and put it in excel, so that everyone can see what exactly you did and how exactly you reach till end.
Claims of wins from both are imaginary and vague and highly unclear. It is like saying I killed a tiger with bare hands in jungle but no one saw me doing that, unfortunately. Put your methodology in writing here, so that anybody from Victor to Bayes to Stef/Nick or many more testers can verify that.
All right you are right even with the video , will take sometime for you to prove is the actual sample of numbers.
And also want the tech used, and some judges to verify.
then after that you will call me "maestro" right?
Ok here is the method:
Is a regression , i used a few years ago when i fight vls on the ladder, he know it pretty well , but this time was on a single number.
I add also , triggers , to bet more or less.
Ok it start on table limit , and as long as i don't lose 36 spins the value of the chip stays at limit , then if a lose 36 units , i go down on value to half and i stay on that value until i win 36 units , or i lose 36 spins, if i lose then i play next level. and i repeat the process , until i finally win 36 units on a level i go back to attack at table limit.
the levels i use:
100
50
25
12
6
3
1
Im a player not a geek so i don't know about execel if some one can support me on that so albalaha can finally call me master i will be thankful , and i call the person excel master too ;)
Albalaha , when i was like spin 1000 something , i realize that i was alredy winning enoght bankroll , to stay the rest of the challenge betting 1 unit minimum value , and end positive anyway , so i end with more than 20 000 units , at spin 15000.
Im even willing to teamviewer you , to beat it in from of your eyes on the xtreme if you wish.
I kill you minino.
Im sorry.
GGasoft
I Think Nick/Steph can do it in the best way. I have no problem in calling you a "maestro" if you can achieve this which has not been solved by anyone else so far.
Any taker of excel simulation of this technique?
What about my excel and method Sumit. You seem to ignore it ;D
I am not ignoring anybody. If you have a claim, the onus to prove lies with you, not me. If you can't do it yourself, let someone come up forward and test your idea, if it appeals, to someone. If you can't test your idea on entire data, consider yourself a loser, so far it is confirmed as a winner. Till then, keep patience.
So far many came with raw ideas to beat it. Yet to see any clear method illustrated over the entire session and that is winning unambiguously.
No volunteer for testing these? Strange. :nope:
Quote from: Albalaha on May 06, 2013, 06:38:02 AM
I am not ignoring anybody. If you have a claim, the onus to prove lies with you, not me. If you can't do it yourself, let someone come up forward and test your idea, if it appeals, to someone. If you can't test your idea on entire data, consider yourself a loser, so far it is confirmed as a winner. Till then, keep patience.
So far many came with raw ideas to beat it. Yet to see any clear method illustrated over the entire session and that is winning unambiguously.
Refer to the excel I posted. I tested the concept on the complete 15000 spins
Ok here is betting history , i leave it at spin 580 some , because over there it shows my huge advantage , everyone can check on the video what happend after that , i spend other 500 spins on the fight then i decide , to bet 1 unit minumum value each spin until challenge end , and my final result was positive.
need more info? or i can claim my win over this now?
GGasoft
Here again you can check it better on the attach:
[reveal=CLICK TO VIEW RESULTS]
Spin Number Type Bet Unit Win Loss Net Unit Bal. Bet Layout
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 -100 100 : 3
2 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 -200 100 : 3
3 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 -300 100 : 3
4 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 -400 100 : 3
5 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 -500 100 : 3
6 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 -600 100 : 3
7 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 -700 100 : 3
8 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 -800 100 : 3
9 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 -900 100 : 3
10 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 -1000 100 : 3
11 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 -1100 100 : 3
12 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 -1200 100 : 3
13 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 -1300 100 : 3
14 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 -1400 100 : 3
15 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 -1500 100 : 3
16 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 -1600 100 : 3
17 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 -1700 100 : 3
18 3 Bet 100 3600 -100 3500 1800 100 : 3
19 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 1700 100 : 3
20 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 1600 100 : 3
21 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 1500 100 : 3
22 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 1400 100 : 3
23 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 1300 100 : 3
24 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 1200 100 : 3
25 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 1100 100 : 3
26 3 Bet 100 3600 -100 3500 4600 100 : 3
27 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4500 100 : 3
28 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4400 100 : 3
29 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4300 100 : 3
30 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4200 100 : 3
31 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4100 100 : 3
32 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4000 100 : 3
33 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 3900 100 : 3
34 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 3800 100 : 3
35 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 3700 100 : 3
36 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 3600 100 : 3
37 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 3500 100 : 3
38 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 3400 100 : 3
39 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 3300 100 : 3
40 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 3200 100 : 3
41 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 3100 100 : 3
42 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 3000 100 : 3
43 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 2900 100 : 3
44 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 2800 100 : 3
45 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 2700 100 : 3
46 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 2600 100 : 3
47 3 Bet 100 3600 -100 3500 6100 100 : 3
48 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 6000 100 : 3
49 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 5900 100 : 3
50 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 5800 100 : 3
51 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 5700 100 : 3
52 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 5600 100 : 3
53 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 5500 100 : 3
54 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 5400 100 : 3
55 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 5300 100 : 3
56 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 5200 100 : 3
57 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 5100 100 : 3
58 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 5000 100 : 3
59 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4900 100 : 3
60 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4800 100 : 3
61 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4700 100 : 3
62 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4600 100 : 3
63 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4500 100 : 3
64 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4400 100 : 3
65 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4300 100 : 3
66 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4200 100 : 3
67 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4100 100 : 3
68 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4000 100 : 3
69 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 3900 100 : 3
70 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 3800 100 : 3
71 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 3700 100 : 3
72 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 3600 100 : 3
73 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 3500 100 : 3
74 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 3400 100 : 3
75 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 3300 100 : 3
76 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 3200 100 : 3
77 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 3100 100 : 3
78 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 3000 100 : 3
79 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 2900 100 : 3
80 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 2800 100 : 3
81 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 2700 100 : 3
82 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 2600 100 : 3
83 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 2500 100 : 3
84 3 Bet 50 1800 -50 1750 4250 50 : 3
85 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 4200 50 : 3
86 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 4150 50 : 3
87 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 4100 50 : 3
88 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 4050 50 : 3
89 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 4000 50 : 3
90 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 3950 50 : 3
91 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 3900 50 : 3
92 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 3850 50 : 3
93 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 3800 50 : 3
94 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 3750 50 : 3
95 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 3700 50 : 3
96 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 3650 50 : 3
97 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 3600 50 : 3
98 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 3550 50 : 3
99 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 3500 50 : 3
100 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 3450 50 : 3
101 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 3400 50 : 3
102 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 3350 50 : 3
103 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 3300 50 : 3
104 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 3250 50 : 3
105 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 3200 50 : 3
106 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 3150 50 : 3
107 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 3100 50 : 3
108 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 3050 50 : 3
109 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 3000 50 : 3
110 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 2950 50 : 3
111 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 2900 50 : 3
112 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 2850 50 : 3
113 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 2800 50 : 3
114 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 2750 50 : 3
115 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 2700 50 : 3
116 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 2650 50 : 3
117 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 2600 50 : 3
118 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 2550 50 : 3
119 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 2500 50 : 3
120 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 2450 50 : 3
121 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2425 25 : 3
122 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2400 25 : 3
123 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2375 25 : 3
124 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2350 25 : 3
125 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2325 25 : 3
126 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2300 25 : 3
127 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2275 25 : 3
128 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2250 25 : 3
129 3 Bet 25 900 -25 875 3125 25 : 3
130 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 3100 25 : 3
131 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 3075 25 : 3
132 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 3050 25 : 3
133 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 3025 25 : 3
134 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 3000 25 : 3
135 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2975 25 : 3
136 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2950 25 : 3
137 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2925 25 : 3
138 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2900 25 : 3
139 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2875 25 : 3
140 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2850 25 : 3
141 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2825 25 : 3
142 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2800 25 : 3
143 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2775 25 : 3
144 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2750 25 : 3
145 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2725 25 : 3
146 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2700 25 : 3
147 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2675 25 : 3
148 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2650 25 : 3
149 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2625 25 : 3
150 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2600 25 : 3
151 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2575 25 : 3
152 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2550 25 : 3
153 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2525 25 : 3
154 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2500 25 : 3
155 '00 Bet 25 0 -25 -25 2475 25 : 3
156 3 Bet 12 432 -12 420 2895 12 : 3
157 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2883 12 : 3
158 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2871 12 : 3
159 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2859 12 : 3
160 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2847 12 : 3
161 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2835 12 : 3
162 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2823 12 : 3
163 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2811 12 : 3
164 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2799 12 : 3
165 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2787 12 : 3
166 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2775 12 : 3
167 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2763 12 : 3
168 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2751 12 : 3
169 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2739 12 : 3
170 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2727 12 : 3
171 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2715 12 : 3
172 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2703 12 : 3
173 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2691 12 : 3
174 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2679 12 : 3
175 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2667 12 : 3
176 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2655 12 : 3
177 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2643 12 : 3
178 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2631 12 : 3
179 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2619 12 : 3
180 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2607 12 : 3
181 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2595 12 : 3
182 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2583 12 : 3
183 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2571 12 : 3
184 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2559 12 : 3
185 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2547 12 : 3
186 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2535 12 : 3
187 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2523 12 : 3
188 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2511 12 : 3
189 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2499 12 : 3
190 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2487 12 : 3
191 3 Bet 12 432 -12 420 2907 12 : 3
192 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2895 12 : 3
193 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2883 12 : 3
194 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2871 12 : 3
195 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2859 12 : 3
196 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2847 12 : 3
197 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2835 12 : 3
198 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2823 12 : 3
199 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2811 12 : 3
200 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2799 12 : 3
201 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2787 12 : 3
202 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2775 12 : 3
203 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2763 12 : 3
204 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2751 12 : 3
205 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2739 12 : 3
206 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2727 12 : 3
207 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2715 12 : 3
208 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2703 12 : 3
209 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2691 12 : 3
210 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2679 12 : 3
211 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2667 12 : 3
212 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2655 12 : 3
213 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2643 12 : 3
214 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2631 12 : 3
215 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2619 12 : 3
216 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2607 12 : 3
217 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2595 12 : 3
218 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2583 12 : 3
219 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2571 12 : 3
220 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2559 12 : 3
221 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2547 12 : 3
222 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2535 12 : 3
223 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2523 12 : 3
224 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2511 12 : 3
225 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2499 12 : 3
226 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2487 12 : 3
227 '00 Bet 12 0 -12 -12 2475 12 : 3
228 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2469 6 : 3
229 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2463 6 : 3
230 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2457 6 : 3
231 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2451 6 : 3
232 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2445 6 : 3
233 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2439 6 : 3
234 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2433 6 : 3
235 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2427 6 : 3
236 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2421 6 : 3
237 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2415 6 : 3
238 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2409 6 : 3
239 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2403 6 : 3
240 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2397 6 : 3
241 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2391 6 : 3
242 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2385 6 : 3
243 3 Bet 6 216 -6 210 2595 6 : 3
244 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2589 6 : 3
245 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2583 6 : 3
246 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2577 6 : 3
247 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2571 6 : 3
248 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2565 6 : 3
249 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2559 6 : 3
250 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2553 6 : 3
251 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2547 6 : 3
252 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2541 6 : 3
253 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2535 6 : 3
254 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2529 6 : 3
255 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2523 6 : 3
256 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2517 6 : 3
257 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2511 6 : 3
258 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2505 6 : 3
259 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2499 6 : 3
260 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2493 6 : 3
261 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2487 6 : 3
262 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2481 6 : 3
263 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2475 6 : 3
264 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2469 6 : 3
265 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2463 6 : 3
266 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2457 6 : 3
267 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2451 6 : 3
268 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2445 6 : 3
269 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2439 6 : 3
270 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2433 6 : 3
271 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2427 6 : 3
272 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2421 6 : 3
273 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2415 6 : 3
274 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2409 6 : 3
275 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2403 6 : 3
276 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2397 6 : 3
277 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2391 6 : 3
278 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2385 6 : 3
279 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2379 6 : 3
280 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2373 6 : 3
281 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2367 6 : 3
282 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2361 6 : 3
283 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2355 6 : 3
284 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2349 6 : 3
285 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2343 6 : 3
286 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2337 6 : 3
287 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2331 6 : 3
288 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2325 6 : 3
289 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2319 6 : 3
290 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2313 6 : 3
291 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2307 6 : 3
292 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2301 6 : 3
293 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2295 6 : 3
294 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2289 6 : 3
295 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2283 6 : 3
296 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2277 6 : 3
297 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2271 6 : 3
298 '00 Bet 6 0 -6 -6 2265 6 : 3
299 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2262 3 : 3
300 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2259 3 : 3
301 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2256 3 : 3
302 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2253 3 : 3
303 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2250 3 : 3
304 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2247 3 : 3
305 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2244 3 : 3
306 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2241 3 : 3
307 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2238 3 : 3
308 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2235 3 : 3
309 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2232 3 : 3
310 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2229 3 : 3
311 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2226 3 : 3
312 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2223 3 : 3
313 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2220 3 : 3
314 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2217 3 : 3
315 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2214 3 : 3
316 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2211 3 : 3
317 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2208 3 : 3
318 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2205 3 : 3
319 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2202 3 : 3
320 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2199 3 : 3
321 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2196 3 : 3
322 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2193 3 : 3
323 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2190 3 : 3
324 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2187 3 : 3
325 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2184 3 : 3
326 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2181 3 : 3
327 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2178 3 : 3
328 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2175 3 : 3
329 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2172 3 : 3
330 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2169 3 : 3
331 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2166 3 : 3
332 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2163 3 : 3
333 '00 Bet 3 0 -3 -3 2160 3 : 3
334 '00 Bet 1 0 -1 -1 2159 1 : 3
335 '00 Bet 1 0 -1 -1 2158 1 : 3
336 '00 Bet 1 0 -1 -1 2157 1 : 3
337 3 Bet 1 36 -1 35 2192 1 : 3
338 '00 Bet 1 0 -1 -1 2191 1 : 3
339 '00 Bet 1 0 -1 -1 2190 1 : 3
340 3 Bet 1 36 -1 35 2225 1 : 3
341 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 2125 100 : 3
342 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 2025 100 : 3
343 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 1925 100 : 3
344 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 1825 100 : 3
345 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 1725 100 : 3
346 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 1625 100 : 3
347 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 1525 100 : 3
348 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 1425 100 : 3
349 3 Bet 100 3600 -100 3500 4925 100 : 3
350 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4825 100 : 3
351 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4725 100 : 3
352 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4625 100 : 3
353 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4525 100 : 3
354 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4425 100 : 3
355 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4325 100 : 3
356 3 Bet 100 3600 -100 3500 7825 100 : 3
357 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 7725 100 : 3
358 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 7625 100 : 3
359 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 7525 100 : 3
360 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 7425 100 : 3
361 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 7325 100 : 3
362 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 7225 100 : 3
363 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 7125 100 : 3
364 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 7025 100 : 3
365 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 6925 100 : 3
366 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 6825 100 : 3
367 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 6725 100 : 3
368 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 6625 100 : 3
369 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 6525 100 : 3
370 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 6425 100 : 3
371 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 6325 100 : 3
372 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 6225 100 : 3
373 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 6125 100 : 3
374 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 6025 100 : 3
375 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 5925 100 : 3
376 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 5825 100 : 3
377 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 5725 100 : 3
378 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 5625 100 : 3
379 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 5525 100 : 3
380 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 5425 100 : 3
381 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 5325 100 : 3
382 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 5225 100 : 3
383 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 5125 100 : 3
384 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 5025 100 : 3
385 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4925 100 : 3
386 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4825 100 : 3
387 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4725 100 : 3
388 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4625 100 : 3
389 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4525 100 : 3
390 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 4425 100 : 3
391 3 Bet 100 3600 -100 3500 7925 100 : 3
392 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 7825 100 : 3
393 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 7725 100 : 3
394 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 7625 100 : 3
395 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 7525 100 : 3
396 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 7425 100 : 3
397 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 7325 100 : 3
398 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 7225 100 : 3
399 3 Bet 100 3600 -100 3500 10725 100 : 3
400 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 10625 100 : 3
401 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 10525 100 : 3
402 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 10425 100 : 3
403 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 10325 100 : 3
404 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 10225 100 : 3
405 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 10125 100 : 3
406 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 10025 100 : 3
407 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 9925 100 : 3
408 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 9825 100 : 3
409 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 9725 100 : 3
410 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 9625 100 : 3
411 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 9525 100 : 3
412 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 9425 100 : 3
413 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 9325 100 : 3
414 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 9225 100 : 3
415 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 9125 100 : 3
416 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 9025 100 : 3
417 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 8925 100 : 3
418 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 8825 100 : 3
419 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 8725 100 : 3
420 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 8625 100 : 3
421 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 8525 100 : 3
422 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 8425 100 : 3
423 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 8325 100 : 3
424 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 8225 100 : 3
425 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 8125 100 : 3
426 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 8025 100 : 3
427 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 7925 100 : 3
428 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 7825 100 : 3
429 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 7725 100 : 3
430 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 7625 100 : 3
431 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 7525 100 : 3
432 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 7425 100 : 3
433 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 7325 100 : 3
434 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 7225 100 : 3
435 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 7125 100 : 3
436 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 7075 50 : 3
437 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 7025 50 : 3
438 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 6975 50 : 3
439 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 6925 50 : 3
440 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 6875 50 : 3
441 3 Bet 50 1800 -50 1750 8625 50 : 3
442 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 8575 50 : 3
443 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 8525 50 : 3
444 '00 Bet 50 0 -50 -50 8475 50 : 3
445 3 Bet 50 1800 -50 1750 10225 50 : 3
446 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 10125 100 : 3
447 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 10025 100 : 3
448 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 9925 100 : 3
449 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 9825 100 : 3
450 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 9725 100 : 3
451 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 9625 100 : 3
452 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 9525 100 : 3
453 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 9425 100 : 3
454 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 9325 100 : 3
455 3 Bet 100 3600 -100 3500 12825 100 : 3
456 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 12725 100 : 3
457 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 12625 100 : 3
458 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 12525 100 : 3
459 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 12425 100 : 3
460 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 12325 100 : 3
461 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 12225 100 : 3
462 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 12125 100 : 3
463 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 12025 100 : 3
464 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 11925 100 : 3
465 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 11825 100 : 3
466 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 11725 100 : 3
467 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 11625 100 : 3
468 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 11525 100 : 3
469 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 11425 100 : 3
470 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 11325 100 : 3
471 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 11225 100 : 3
472 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 11125 100 : 3
473 3 Bet 100 3600 -100 3500 14625 100 : 3
474 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 14525 100 : 3
475 3 Bet 100 3600 -100 3500 18025 100 : 3
476 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 17925 100 : 3
477 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 17825 100 : 3
478 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 17725 100 : 3
479 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 17625 100 : 3
480 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 17525 100 : 3
481 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 17425 100 : 3
482 3 Bet 100 3600 -100 3500 20925 100 : 3
483 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 20825 100 : 3
484 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 20725 100 : 3
485 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 20625 100 : 3
486 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 20525 100 : 3
487 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 20425 100 : 3
488 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 20325 100 : 3
489 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 20225 100 : 3
490 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 20125 100 : 3
491 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 20025 100 : 3
492 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 19925 100 : 3
493 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 19825 100 : 3
494 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 19725 100 : 3
495 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 19625 100 : 3
496 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 19525 100 : 3
497 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 19425 100 : 3
498 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 19325 100 : 3
499 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 19225 100 : 3
500 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 19125 100 : 3
501 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 19025 100 : 3
502 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 18925 100 : 3
503 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 18825 100 : 3
504 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 18725 100 : 3
505 3 Bet 100 3600 -100 3500 22225 100 : 3
506 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 22125 100 : 3
507 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 22025 100 : 3
508 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 21925 100 : 3
509 3 Bet 100 3600 -100 3500 25425 100 : 3
510 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 25325 100 : 3
511 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 25225 100 : 3
512 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 25125 100 : 3
513 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 25025 100 : 3
514 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 24925 100 : 3
515 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 24825 100 : 3
516 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 24725 100 : 3
517 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 24625 100 : 3
518 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 24525 100 : 3
519 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 24425 100 : 3
520 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 24325 100 : 3
521 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 24225 100 : 3
522 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 24125 100 : 3
523 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 24025 100 : 3
524 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 23925 100 : 3
525 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 23825 100 : 3
526 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 23725 100 : 3
527 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 23625 100 : 3
528 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 23525 100 : 3
529 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 23425 100 : 3
530 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 23325 100 : 3
531 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 23225 100 : 3
532 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 23125 100 : 3
533 3 Bet 100 3600 -100 3500 26625 100 : 3
534 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 26525 100 : 3
535 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 26425 100 : 3
536 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 26325 100 : 3
537 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 26225 100 : 3
538 3 Bet 100 3600 -100 3500 29725 100 : 3
539 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 29625 100 : 3
540 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 29525 100 : 3
541 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 29425 100 : 3
542 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 29325 100 : 3
543 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 29225 100 : 3
544 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 29125 100 : 3
545 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 29025 100 : 3
546 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 28925 100 : 3
547 3 Bet 100 3600 -100 3500 32425 100 : 3
548 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 32325 100 : 3
549 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 32225 100 : 3
550 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 32125 100 : 3
551 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 32025 100 : 3
552 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 31925 100 : 3
553 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 31825 100 : 3
554 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 31725 100 : 3
555 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 31625 100 : 3
556 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 31525 100 : 3
557 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 31425 100 : 3
558 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 31325 100 : 3
559 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 31225 100 : 3
560 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 31125 100 : 3
561 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 31025 100 : 3
562 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 30925 100 : 3
563 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 30825 100 : 3
564 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 30725 100 : 3
565 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 30625 100 : 3
566 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 30525 100 : 3
567 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 30425 100 : 3
568 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 30325 100 : 3
569 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 30225 100 : 3
570 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 30125 100 : 3
571 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 30025 100 : 3
572 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 29925 100 : 3
573 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 29825 100 : 3
574 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 29725 100 : 3
575 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 29625 100 : 3
576 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 29525 100 : 3
577 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 29425 100 : 3
578 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 29325 100 : 3
579 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 29225 100 : 3
580 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 29125 100 : 3
581 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 29025 100 : 3
582 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 28925 100 : 3
583 '00 Bet 100 0 -100 -100 28825 100 : 3[/reveal]
OK i manage to make de video with better definition.
zuma2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLfQMWLye5Q#)
GGasoft,
Even an average player will win this data till 700 spins because till then number 3 is doing very well and winning even flat bet.
Quoteother 500 spins on the fight then i decide , to bet 1 unit minimum value each spin until challenge end
This is what we call, reverse engineering. You are betting with $100 chips in good time and then suddenly u chose to go flat bet with $1. What kind of methodology is this? You are not fooling others but rather yourself. Go, play the entire session with a well defined system and then come up with your results, net profit, drawdown etc.
The challenge was , defeat the data sample.
I didn't cheat.
I did defeat it with common sense. why do i need to keep betting when i alredy won suficient to pay all the other spins?
I did stop when i was winning.
I pay each of the other 14 000 spins.
I pay the taxes.
My regression is valid....
If some one come with a reversed progression that reach table limit , the first 1000 spins and win a lot and then over the entire 14 000 others spins stays and low levels bet and end positive you are going to call it invalid??
I see that i follow all the rules of your challenge.
For the life of me I cannot understand why any of you are entertaining Alababa, he has the grail already and just wants someone else to do his work for him. Everyone who replies here gets the same thrown at them from him, why bother?
Superman,
You better fly in your own territory and speak sensibly. Nobody is calling you to do anything. It is an open challenge to fight with a perpetually bad bet. This challenge unmasks the standard of knowledge acquired by all of us in running around various forums and trying thousands of systems. Don't think much about this challenge. You can't help it.
GGasoft,
Can you understand plain and simple English? You are showing winning with your bet in that area of the data where it is winning more and losing less, even flat bet. See page number 3 of this topic to see the graph of number 3 being played flat bet. The challenge is to beat the entire session, not a chosen favorable area/portion of it. If you apply your approach throughout 15k spins, it will lose a few hundred thousands of units. Don't try to fool us and specially to yourself.
Calm...calm...calm down, Al.
A touch heated, and getting very borderline in your wording to the two members.
Try not to let your frustration run away with you.
QuoteCalm...calm...calm down, Al.
Exactly why he should be ignored: arrogant, rude and thinks he's above everyone else.
Ignore him people, he never acknowledges or thanks any contribution.
QuoteCalm...calm...calm down, Al.
You can see what is provoking me to answer like this.
QuoteIgnore him people, he never acknowledges or thanks any contribution.
What you have contributed, so far? New Fallacies and innovative and copy+paste ideas to how to lose more and win less. If someone has really helped me, they are programmers like Victor, Steph, Ophis etc. I have never forgot thanking them.
Where can I get access to those numbers?
See the beginning of this debate.
Quote from: Superman on May 07, 2013, 06:32:33 AM
For the life of me I cannot understand why any of you are entertaining Alababa, he has the grail already and just wants someone else to do his work for him. Everyone who replies here gets the same thrown at them from him, why bother?
----Even thought rarely agree with you,/RNG/but this time...RIGHT ON THE NAIL.
Don't be so hard with the guy....
He just wants to see something deeper.....
He just hope a hero comes and show him, that is possible to perform great over the entire sample.
You really want me to play the entire sample?
My Great Master tell me once , if you can't win , lose as little as possible..
You said my method will lose couple of hundred thousands of chips , you really believe that?
I don't.
As a dispersion Killer i never, ever, run from a match....
And this data sample is a great sparring.
So i will accept the challenge, if i can't win i will lose as little as i can....
GGasoft
This challenge is meant for a real maestro. Kindergarten methods will fall flat here. Most of the people are looking for winning in those sessions, which can be won even with flat bet. A few talk of methods without knowing the real implications of that. So far, 100% failure over this challenge and whoever claimed to beat, could not prove anything serious.
Ggasoft, Adulay and Flat_ino, if you feel you can play and beat this, prove your methods upon the entire data. If the method is really workable, that will win another number having similar traits too. If someone reverse engineers this data to get a fake win, he will be exposed very easily.
A method that wins good performing number and that can handle the worst too, is truly difficult. I have yet to see any in any of the forums.
Quote from: Albalaha on May 08, 2013, 05:24:58 PMnot prove anything serious.
Ggasoft, Adulay and Flat_ino, if you feel you can play and beat this, prove your methods upon the entire data. If the method is really workable, that will win another number having similar traits too. If someone reverse engineers this data to get a fake win, he will be exposed very easily.
A method that wins good performing number and that can handle the worst too, is truly difficult. I have yet to see any in any of the forums.
Al,
(sigh...)
I've asked you several times for whatever the next worst number is to VALIDATE my previous solution to your silly challenge.
As you've already "defeated" roulette (by your own words) I'll just assume you're tossing this innane challenge out just for grins and giggles.
So, I've showed a profit on your challenge. I'm still waiting for whatever the next losing number is to see if MY solution is valid. Get your act together and post up the next number that desperately needs to be beaten down in the Great Albalaha's Roulette Challenge (and goat rope) of 2013.
I'd hate to put out something that you didn't approve of.
Oh yeah, the local indian (Native American) casino just paid for ANOTHER new Glock 21 for me. But alas, it was baccarat and not roulette that did all the "work".
AD
Albalaha to fight your challenge i need to unlock and evolution to the system i originally used.
I was thinking i didn't need to do more effort but since you are asking for being functional for the entire data sample, i need to evolve the system a few generations from what your first saw on the video.
Primitive dispersion surfing will not be able to handle the challenge.
I need to unlock the same system but a few generations later. Am i allowed to do that?
GGasoft
--I would just suggest Alba that you check all last year Wiesbaden sessions around 300 spins/and
aprox.there are about 3 each night/--and on the bottom of each sessions there are records of each number hit--and when you find a session without any of 37 numbers unhit ....please let us know.
3x300x30x12=about 324.000 spins....all this;we know that number don't hit even 600 spins....it is
all one great b....t......are you ppl.playing roulette at all......it is played session by session....not some
silly zuma,RNG,and all that kind of stuff,trillion spins........that is not roulette and thatway you will never
be a winner.324000 spins/sessoin per session/are my winning test of your challenge.Again I'm talking
about live game of roulette.
Albalaha
I call dispersion killing unlocks level 7 8 9
I call my swarm classic system from the forum where i come from and i will convert it to play on your challenge.
Final result at spin 15000
+5062
I did put time on your challenge and i play spin after spin , with the system.
Thank you was a lot of fun!
Without stuff like your post , forum will represent almost no fun for a Dispersion Killer like me.
I did work as you ask , so now it is your duty have a serius analisys on the data im sending you on the attachment.
Cheers
GGasoft your new "Maestro"
GGasoft,
let me look at the results. Oh again, you are using $100 chips in good times and $1 chips later. For how many times do I need to tell you that what you are doing is reverse engineering and instead of being called a "maestro", you may be termed as a "joker".
Flat_Ino,
In a small sample of wiesbaden, a single number may not come even once and there is no point of trying that number because whoever plays on that number will lose. Number 3 challenge is not a test of your method but it is an endurance test of a very good system. I play much more roulette than you do and I have read and written far more about it than you can do till your life. Although, I don't have easy access to land based casinos but I do 3-4 trips of about a fortnight each time (a few short trips too) every year and have accounts with not less than 200 online casinos. I play, study and do my indigenous researches with the help of more than 2 dozen bots/tracker developed exclusively for me by the best known programmers of this forum world. I give not less than 3-4 hours on testing and developing new ideas.
Captain,
You said you did it but yet to put proof of your victory before anyone. Let us all have your methodology and test report which you claim to have won +79. You will get the second worst number too, to work upon the same principals, if there are any. I have beaten the game and I can beat it in both short and long runs. Even you can do that if you have a strategy that can survive the worst.
THe .rmd is the file of the sesion i play on the roulette xtreme
You can open the file with that program and then check it.
GGasoft
GGasoft,
Keep betting $100, $50 chips throughout 15k spins, as you did in beginning and then see the results of your superb strategy. Check your graph yourself and see what are you doing after first 700 spins where even the most unwise member can win. This is not a method but a joke.
All right im the joker leave it like that.
My great master toll me once:
Even if the way to win was on the wall of the casinos no one will ever pay attention to it.
GGasoft
Your master told you exactly opposite of the reality. If a successful method is written inside Osama's bunker, people will enter to read that. All these forums are clear examples of that. Actually there is no method in public eyes that can always win. Once they see an HG, they all run to local casinos or online ones.
Quote from: Albalaha on May 09, 2013, 02:33:44 AM
GGasoft,
Keep betting $100, $50 chips throughout 15k spins, as you did in beginning and then see the results of your superb strategy. Check your graph yourself and see what are you doing after first 700 spins where even the most unwise member can win. This is not a method but a joke.
Even if the history is the same as happend with Manrique.
I will follow his steps, of kindness and wisdom.
Alhabama , the reason why i don't keep betting 100 or 50 is because im not allow to do it. The method i follow , it only allow to to bet more whenever i have a positive cicle.
If a negative cicle happends , im only allow to bet less.
This is the aquiles paradox that my Great Master Manrique teach me years ago.
If things start going good again , i will raise my bets , if start losing again i will just bet less and less and less until things change.
Soon or later , i will find again another chain like the one at the begin of zuma , and then i can choose if i quit and buy a car or a house , or i continue playing hunting another chain.
Read Dispersion Killing
Read Manrique to understand GGasoft , Manrique will get your mind ready.
GGasoft.
Even I trust whatever u say, u r not winning the challenge in any sensible manner, not even close to that. Your method is meant for better times than average and the challenge is just meant for opposite of that. If I remove first 700 spins, your method and your master both will start crying. You can not guess whether there will be good times or bad, in future, so u will always play with an identical method. Here, you are becoming a clairvoyant (some call it smarta## too) who knows from beginning that first 700 spins going to be good and he bets heavily there and his sixth sense stops him to bet big later.
What a master and what a student!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Our bankroll is a minimum 400 , 000 dollar (4000 units) to play calculate how much is left after you remove those 700 spins.
Your little challenge will take away only like how much? 150 units?
How many others samples we can spare to get that back?
The same force that draw zuma -3200 ngm , will draw a a solid path , where i can win later on another sample.
We don't know when is going to happen, but we know it will happen and we are going to be there because our strategy will not allow us to lose.
GGasoft
You claim to be a dispersion killer and running away to see the dispersion. If you have any real approach that can work in such bets, write that clearly, otherwise try your luck somewhere else.
If i can't defeat the deviation when i lose and i lose and i lose , i will stop fighting with it , instead i will let it go , i will bet as less as i can and i will hunt the moment when things finally change.
Dispersion Killing 1:1
The only way to kill it is not fighting with it......
GGasoft
QuoteThe only way to kill it is not fighting with it......
So you better stay out of this challenge. Your philosophy teaches you that.
:no: like it or not , my philosophy , destroy your challenge.
I invite anyone to study the documents , I attach on the other msg , to contest my claim.
GGasoft
Beyond the challenges, I'm truly glad to see both an Indian fellow and a Latin American fellow discussing techniques.
Manrique's techniques are relatively well known in the gambling scenes from countries such as Argentina; I wish we had more Latin American fellows willing to discuss them internationally! This on itself is a great happening.
Cheers!
Quote from: Albalaha on May 09, 2013, 06:55:05 AM
You claim to be a dispersion killer and running away to see the dispersion. If you have any real approach that can work in such bets, write that clearly, otherwise try your luck somewhere else.
Al,
"You claim to be a roulette winner and have "beaten the game". If you have any real approach that can work in such bets, write that clearly, otherwise try your luck somewhere else."
This would be known as "turnabout is fair play".
AD
Ad,
You have no right to say so. It is my challenge. You claimed to win this but shying away to show how. Further, I have never claimed to have beaten this particular challenge.
Quote from: Albalaha on May 09, 2013, 05:24:15 PM
Ad,
You have no right to say so. It is my challenge. You claimed to win this but shying away to show how. Further, I have never claimed to have beaten this particular challenge.
Al,
Once again you have misread and misinterpreted what I have written.
If you will read my message, it said "You have claimed to have beaten roulette". Period. Stop.
Not only did you make this claim, you used it as your signature in forums for quite some time.
I did NOT say you had beathen this stupid challenge thing.
Unfortunately for all of the unwashed masses on these boards, you somehow managed to avoid telling anyone just how you managed to "defeat the game of roulette", so pretty much all of your statements then become suspect.
On the second point, how many times do I have to tell you, in writing, how to beat your silly challenge????
Play it like a tournament. DUH!
And to finish this off, at least for me, I will now apologize to Al for teasing him and picking on him, using his own statements. It was too easy and not really fair for me to do that.
I've seen this type of behavior in a few other forums and did not like the tone that it set, so I will publicly admit that I was trying to play with Albalaha and will cease this form of torment.
I am sorry to have used you as the punching bag in the roulette forums.
Good luck and continue on with your quest to beat roulette by stalking the forums.
AD
Captain,
Quote Play it like a tournament. DUH!
It is not so simple thing to do. Someone who will beat this challenge with a well defined and logical money management will be a real maestro of this game. So far, nobody is even close to do anything like this. A few merely talk of their assumptions that this should beat it and that should beat it but they are far from the reality and if they test their raw idea upon this challenge, they will get how hollow they are. A few like GGasoft are creating comical solution of this and rest are just making assumptions about various possibilities. So, we can only beat a session which is either hitting always below break even or where we are getting wins in cluster? I do not think anyone will ever beat this challenge. It seems all have surrendered to the difficulties that it offers.
Quote from: Albalaha on May 10, 2013, 02:10:00 AM
Captain,
It is not so simple thing to do.
Al,
Give me the next worst number and I'll run it again.
AD
Dear student Albalaha.
You are not ready for me....
You will stay as the perfect loser phase 3 (Read manrique)
I will continue my teachings on dispersion killing , one day when your mind finally open and understand randomness.
You will read 10 times each of the post I will leave , and look all the possible information about our path.
Don't worry everything will be there when you can understand it.
GGasoft
GGasoft,
Do not forget that it is not humor section. You have only done a joke by your so-called method here which is open to everyone to see and evaluate. Your so-called methods and test reports will be intact but no more jokes here, please.
Dear Student Albalaha
describe my joke in detail...
Describe on detail the system I use over the 15 000 spins.
Lets see how funny it is....
GGasoft
You are a magician who knows since beginning that the first 700 spins where the bet of ours is winning even flat bet has to be bet by $100 chips. Over-smartness sometimes make you look foolish. You are a loser. Anybody can see the graph of your session and graph created by Victor by flat bet and bets made by you at "hot spots" and thereafter.
Play the same regression all over 15k spins, you will start oozing blood. As I said earlier, stop fooling yourself.
Can someone else please explain GGasoft that what he is doing is a kind of reverse engineering and he has done nothing to beat the challenge? I think either he can't read what I am writing about his method or turned shameless.
You really need to test your system against multiple "bad" sequences. It's inevitable that there will be an element of curve-fitting if you've designed your system around one sequence. Ideally, you shouldn't be looking at the outcomes at all. :nope:
I think he needs to see this graph:
http://betselection.cc/general-discussion/albalaha's-open-challenge-can-anyone-beat-the-worst/msg1340/#msg1340 (http://betselection.cc/general-discussion/albalaha's-open-challenge-can-anyone-beat-the-worst/msg1340/#msg1340)
GGasoft,
Go to kids and tell your variance killer stories. Here you are only making fun of yourself. You are, in no way, know how to handle variance/dispersion. You are winning where flat bet is winning and losing where flat bet is losing. What is your merit? You need to study kindergarten books on statistics/probability and mathematics of gambling.
Do not make my topic a circus with clowns jumping around. I will delete all further posts of urs here having no substance. If you want to prove your win, write a separate topic. In my observation and as per Bayes opinion too, u have only lost it very badly.
QuoteGive me the next worst number and I'll run it again.
Captain,
It will be useless doing so. Since you have yet to come up with what exactly u did with number 3 challenge. Put that first in open here, if u have really beaten it or admit that you claimed falsely.
Why I should read stadistics books?
Stadistics are the worse way you can mention to win.
GGasoft.
Quote from: GGasoft on May 10, 2013, 08:35:21 AM
Stadistics are the worse way you can mention to win.
I beg to differ. ::)
Why do you think statistics is the worst way to win?
If you do not understand statistics/mathematics/probability you are just like a blind man claiming to shoot a flying bird. Those who are aware of that are having eyes at least.
Because no matter who much you study the numbers , events , pattern , make graphics , calculate where a deviation can go or how long can last.
No matter what you play:
You will experiment moments where you hit more than what suppose to hit , and moments where you will hit less that what you suppose to hit.
This moments can last thousands of spins or end the next spin, no control over them at all.
Stadistics will not help.
Lo que paso , paso , y no incide nada en lo que pasara.
GGasoft.
Quote from: Albalaha on May 10, 2013, 08:52:22 AM
If you do not understand statistics/mathematics/probability you are just like a blind man claiming to shoot a flying bird. Those who are aware of that are having eyes at least.
Probability ?
I should get 1 hit every 38 spins on a double 00 roulette.
Where is that on zuma sample?
GGasoft
You need to study mathematics fully. Don't you know about dispersion, standard deviation etc?
No albalaha :o I don't know nothing.
Oh wait I use to know years ago.......
But since was all useless , I focus my efforts on betting more when I was winning , and less when I was losing.
GGasoft
Quote from: GGasoft on May 10, 2013, 08:55:50 AM
Because no matter who much you study the numbers , events , pattern , make graphics , calculate where a deviation can go or how long can last.
No matter what you play:
You will experiment moments where you hit more than what suppose to hit , and moments where you will hit less that what you suppose to hit.
This moments can last thousands of spins or end the next spin, no control over them at all.
Stadistics will not help.
Lo que paso , paso , y no incide nada en lo que pasara.
GGasoft.
Well, all I can say is: you ain't doing it right. ;)
I don't know how you can say that NOT knowing about how random outcomes behave is better than knowing - which is all that probability and statistics is about. ???
What else do you have, apart from some kind of mystical intuition?
And even those who claim that they use gut-instinct and intuition have to put the work in beforehand - intuition doesn't come from no-where, it has to be earned. You can either spend years practising or study statistics and probability instead, and it will give you a lot more ideas about how to tackle randomness.
Folks lets not get personal and focus on methods that can stand!
How about the idea that i posted. I had also posted the excel with how that idea stands by and delivers results. Is that idea not good enough to get moderate profits from a long term loser. If not, can someone improvise more on that and other ideas posted so far.
Bayes! Being a wiz, you can comment on whether its mathematically possible?
Hey GreatG.....
If you make a claim and feel that has some worth, the onus to prove that lies on you.
He proved it already!! your like a wound up clock who has the same reply saved on your pc that you just copy and paste.. Nobody is doing it the WAY YOU want. So move on.
Juiced,
Do not put your expert comments here because that is not sought. If you can illustrate how GreatGramp's method wins, do that here. He has yet to prove anything and he has just put a theory like many others which he feels, should win.
Quote from: Albalaha on May 11, 2013, 05:25:33 AM
Juiced,
Do not put your expert comments here because that is not sought. If you can illustrate how GreatGramp's method wins, do that here. He has yet to prove anything and he has just put a theory like many others which he feels, should win.
Sumit did u not see the excel I posted with the results for the entire 15000 spins?
Ok. What does your excel say to you, let me know? What is the max bet, biggest drawdown, best figure in winning and how much did it finish with?
Greatgr...
I am asking to you.
Quote from: Marshall Bing Bell on May 10, 2013, 07:33:07 AM
To be fair, why would he bother?
All you'll do is say, "Yep, played that like a tournament too, and won +1550 units. :D
No, if he can come up with the "next worst number" I can attempt to validate MY own solution to his goofy challenge and put an end to this waste of time for once and for all.
I'm not quite sure what Al is looking for but it's evident his exposure to roulette is limited to a very small subset of the game.
Has nobody here ever played in a roulette tournament? Any gambling tournament?
Hopefully his next "challenge for the ages" will have a bit more structure to it than "beat this number" and then tell me how you did it.
It's been beat. Now I just need another number to validate my process to make sure it wasn't just a lucky streak.
I'll be more than happy to post up a play by play, just need to make sure the first one wasn't a "fluke" win.
AD (actually I believe the first win was something like +79)
Ad,
If it looks as waste of time, don't waste that. Nobody is asking you, particularly to take this challenge. It is not like you do not understand the meaning and purpose of this challenge. You never did number 3, otherwise you would have come up with results jumping like a frog.
This challenge is much like a very difficult hurdle race. It needs a balance of speed and control over lead leg and trail leg. Let me clarify you that all basic negative/positive progressions or regressions will fall flat on this challenge. To beat this challenge you should be able to pass through very tough challenges. It is like driving in a road that is bumpy and smooth at places. Not everyone can dare to do this.
Those who know "extreme variance management" and a suitable money management that can handle persistent variance/scatter can do something positive in such challenges.
Copy+paste members have no leg room. Only innovative ones can think of doing something here.
With due respect to all concerned on this thread, why make life hard for yourself so as to have to cope with 'extreme variance'.
Playing every spin, and by perverse hindsight selecting only to play the 'runt' number that random distribution offers, is indeed masochistic, if not insane.
Why would you bother? To find a supposed strategy that could handle anything? Well in this small sample it is like a puddle compared to the oceans of opportunity out there for really nasty outcomes.
In other words this quest with a paper sword is futile in the real world.
Instead, find a bet that has specific characteristics that demonstrate, for at least some or even most of the time it is a winning bet, then apply measures of the variance that unfolds with this more benign skew.
There will still be unplayable passages but a simple stop loss can deal with it.
Most of the time the variance will be within known parameters and a money management that combines flat staking with short stopped progressions will give you the most consistent winning outcomes you could wish for ( with occasional small setbacks in reality).
Pay homage to Mr Keynes in your thanks.
Best XXVV
QuoteWith due respect to all concerned on this thread, why make life hard for yourself so as to have to cope with 'extreme variance'.
Then you do not need to read around systems on any forum. Play anything with positive expectation of getting goodey-goodey sessions and curse your luck on bad ones. Later when you end up your bankroll, you have sayings to support your loss, at last from Albert Einstein.
There is always no worries in good times but bad sessions are much more obvious.
Those who have no idea about how to do this challenge please stay away from commenting in this topic.
Quote from: Albalaha on May 11, 2013, 10:57:37 AM
Ok. What does your excel say to you, let me know? What is the max bet, biggest drawdown, best figure in winning and how much did it finish with?
Greatgr...
I am asking to you.
Sumit,
I have attached the excel again so that you can see easily. As you can see i have played my method both using flat bet and cyclical progression. Flat bet gave me a loss of 65 units at the end and cyclical progression gave me a win of 287 units.
No re-engineering of results nothing. Concepts that i have clearly explained and results based on that.
With flat bettingbest figure - +64 units
Biggest drawdown - -147 units
Finish with - -65 units
max bet - flat 1 unit
With cyclical progression(up as you lose, down as you win, reset at a new high)best figure - +323 units
Biggest drawdown - -188 units
Finish with - +287 units
max bet - 3 units
Any queries, please ask.
I still can't understand whether the figures that you arrived at are correct or not by your explanations. Can't you work it out spin by spin? If 36 spins are a cycle for you and u increase by every cycle loss and decrease by every cycle win, how could u bet 3 unit max?
Can GreatGr or anybody else explain this?
Quote from: Albalaha on May 12, 2013, 03:15:31 AM
You never did number 3, otherwise you would have come up with results jumping like a frog.
Well, if you'll remember back a few weeks, I did jump up and down when I told you how I solved this odd challenge with the help of my losing, craps player, brother. Even posted up the results on your board. Too bad only 4 people saw it.
Quote from: Albalaha on May 12, 2013, 03:15:31 AM
This challenge is much like a very difficult hurdle race.
This challenge is pointless. However, it does keep your name up "in lights" so you can pretend to be somebody in the finite roulette world.
Quote from: Albalaha on May 12, 2013, 03:15:31 AMOnly innovative ones can think of doing something here.
I think I already did that.
Anyway, how about sending out the next spreadsheet with the second worst number. DO NOT tell me the number, just post up the spreadsheet like you did with the first one showing "W" and "L". My curiosity is now getting to me and I'd really like to see if it can beat it again. I'll run it EXACTLY like the first one, bet by bet, spin by spin.
AD
Darn it.
I made another reply to this thread and I swore I wouldn't.
Oh well, if Al won't send me the penultimate bad number from that spreadsheet I'll just send my solution to the problem to Victor and if he believes I've solved the problem legitimately, I'll post it up.
AD (180 replies to a pointless challenge. Go figure.)
QuoteOh well, if Al won't send me the penultimate bad number from that spreadsheet I'll just send my solution to the problem to Victor and if he believes I've solved the problem legitimately, I'll post it up.
Ad,
This is the last time I am asking you to put your work openly here, if you have beaten it really. So far, whoever claimed to beat it is only doing reverse engineering of this particular data or calculating wrongly. Whether you played like a tournament or a 100 meter sprint, doesn't matter much. Why will you show your work to Victor, Privately? It shows you are not confident of doing it correctly or you merely used reverse engineering or you just lied about it. Flat betting will never work in such situations unless you are a clairvoyant who knows when exactly you will bet and fetch wins in such wild scatter of wins and losses.
This open challenge is working like a mirror and showing real faces of all who claim to be masters of the game. Many frustrated members facing identity crisis are also coming to this topic only to make empty comments. I never knew those who write so much are so hollow inside that they only keep looking for good sessions to win or getting good luck to get wins in clusters.
Many of them come up with a new method of losing money, every week. LoL.
Quote from: Albalaha on May 12, 2013, 07:47:28 AM
I still can't understand whether the figures that you arrived at are correct or not by your explanations. Can't you work it out spin by spin? If 36 spins are a cycle for you and u increase by every cycle loss and decrease by every cycle win, how could u bet 3 unit max?
Can GreatGr or anybody else explain this?
Ok! Sumit I will try explaining this so that it is very clear. There are three things that form the framework of this method. 1. Keep things simple – We will treat 36 spins as one betting opportunity and the outcome of this 36 spins as a "W" or "L". In other words, if our chosen number for betting is "x", in a span of 36 spins, if "x" comes up once, we stop betting that 36 spin span and mark that span of 36 spins as "W". We will miss out if the number "x" comes again in the same span of 36 spins, but that's alright as we are looking at a bigger picture of winning consistently and remaining in profit. 2. Ride on waves whether winning or losing – Easier said than done. Easy in theory and difficult in practice. However, I have seen that we can do it with far more success with two important things that I have learnt. "Virtual betting" and "Cyclic betting". Virtual betting is a well-known concept and I don't have to explain it, I guess because any serious player will be aware of it. "Cyclic betting" is something that I will explain. It is not cyclic progression. It is very different from cyclic progression. "Cyclic betting" is all about analysing a cycle to understand win/loss waves and start riding on those waves. It is built around the fallacy (or should I say philosophy) that wins/losses come in cycles whether in life or in roulette. Chosing individual spins to analyse this waves will not give the right picture as it is a phenomenon that is going to last over a few betting opportunities and not on individual betting opportunities. What it does is, it takes a set of betting opportunities and see whether we were winning or losing on those betting opportunities and what was the last occurrence. If both comes out as "W", then it is a signal of good things JFor this framework it translates as follows. We consider cycles of 5 betting outcomes. Lets say the outcome of 5 sets of 36 spins looks as - WWLLW. So this is a winning cycle, as there were 3 Ws compared to 2 Ls. Also, to understand whether the wave is still continuing or not, we take the last betting outcome. IT is a "W". So we "assume" that the winning wave is continuing and put our money on the next set of 36 spins expecting a favourable outcome. I stress on "assume" because it is not conclusive and not an definite confirmation of things to come, but an indication of things to come. A few more examples.
WWLWW – We bet on the next 36 spinsWLLWW – we bet on the next 36 spinsLWWWL – we don't, as the cycle is won, but the last outcome is LLWLWL – We don't, as the cycle is lostWLLLW – We don't, as the last outcome was won, but the cycle is lostAnd so on. So essentially this is our trigger. 3. Cyclical progression – This is being discussed in other topics in forum. So won't go into the details, but it is essentially treating our betting opporutnities in cycles and progressing it, using a progression that suits.So every time we chose to bet using point number 2 will be considered as 1 of a cycle of 5 bets. And depending on whether these 5 bets result in losing amount we increase stakes by 1 and if it results in winning amount we decrease the stakes by 1 and reset to base unit when there is an overall gain.
Now that I have posted the concepts, let me try walking through few spins in the zumma challenge and the details of rest can be seen in the excel attached.
· We start betting straightaway or we chose to wait for the first set of 5 cycles of 36 spins to complete to understand whether it was a winning or a losing cycle. I have chosen to wait. The outcome of the first 5 sets of 36 spins are WWWWW. Outright win both on the cycle and the last outcome of the 36 spin span. So we chose to bet the next span of 36 spins. 1 unit on number 3 until we get a hit or completion of 36 spins. We get a hit in spin number 11. So we stop betting here and start observing 5 sets of 36 spins. At this stage our bank roll is +25 (36 – 11). Our cycle count for progression is 1· The outcome of the next 5 sets of 36 spin spans are WWLLW. Win on cycle and win on the last outcome of the 36 spin span. So we choose to bet the next span of 36 spins. 1 unit on number 3 until we get a hit or 36 spins. We get a hit on spin 31. So we stop betting here and start observing 5 sets of 36 spins. At this stage our bank roll is +30 (+25 from earlier bets and +5 from this betting opportunity). Our cycle count for progression is 2.
· The outcome of the next 5 sets of 36 spin spans are WWWWW. Win on cycle and win on the last outcome of the 36 spin span. So we choose to bet the next span of 36 spins. 1 unit on number 3 until we get a hit or 36 spins. We get a hit on spin 7. So we stop betting here and start observing 5 sets of 36 spins. At this stage our bank roll is +59 (+30 from earlier bets and +29 from this betting opportunity). Our cycle count for progression is 3.
· The outcome of the next 5 sets is WWWWL. The cycle is a win, but the last outcome is a loss. So we assume that this is a start of a losing wave and sit out the next 5 sets of 36 spins. There is no trigger for us to bet the next set of 36 spins. BR remains at +59 and cycle count for progression remains at 3 as we choose not to bet this cycle and hence will not count towards progression.· The outcome of the next set is LWWLW. This cyle is a win and the last outcome is also a win. So we bet on the next set of 36 spins. We lose this 36 spins, as the number 3 did not come in 36 spins. We continue to observe this 5 sets of 36 spins. The BR at the end of this cycle is +23 (36 lost in this cycle subtracted from +59 from previous bets). The cycle count for progression is 4. · We proceed this way for the next set and figure out that our next trigger for betting is not appearing for a few sets. The outcomes of few following sets are LWLLL, WWLWL, LLWLL, LLLWW, LLLWW. And then we get a WWWLW. So here comes our trigger. A cycle win and a last outcome win. So we go with 1 unit bet on number 3 for the next set of 36 spins. We get a hit on spin number 8 and stop betting to observe the next cycle. Our BR at the end of this is +51 (28 from this set and 23 from previous history). Our cycle progression count is now 5. We are at the end of our progression cycle. We look at our outcome of this 5 bets and we are in positive and hence a win. So we subtract one from the units that we were betting lost. Because we were betting on base unit, we remain at base unit. · The process goes on after resetting the cyclic progression count to 0. Now the result of our next 5 betting opportunities were +4, +9, -36, -36, -36, this adds up to -95. So we lost this progression cycle and because we lost, we increase our unit size by 1. At the end of this second cycle, which was a set of 10 betting opportunities, we are at -44 units.· The result of next 5 betting opportunities is -114 units betting 2 units on every valid betting opportunity. Again a loss, so we increment our unit by 1. Now the units that we will bet becomes 3 and the overall BR is -158. · The result of next 5 betting opportunities is +270 units betting 3 units. A win, so we decrement our unit size by 1. It becomes 2 units. Now we find out our overall BR. We are +156 units. As we are in overall profit, we reset our bet size to one unit.· We go on and on. The details further can be easily seen from the excel I posted. For this set of 15000 spins, using this our maximum progression is 3 units. Using this cyclical betting progression our final outcome at the end of 15,000 spins is +287 units.
· Now apply the same method to any number from 0 to 36 in your 15,000 spins, the probability of getting a positive unit size is really high. If Sumit, you can share may be a couple of numbers which are next worst performing and LW for those numbers, we can run this on those set of numbers to see how this method stakes.
:applause:
At least there is someone who has a vision to fight the worst but would you like to apply the same approach in case of a number which is going great from beginning to finish? Since we can't predict which bet will go very good, good, bad or worst a strategy like this doesn't look feasible for general playing.
Can someone verify the method in the given data and present it with flow of bankroll in entire 15k spins with graph?
I am hereby officially declaring that I have won this challenge myself within a limited betting range 1-30 chips and limited bankroll of 5k chips. The winnings are more than 1k units. Same approach that beats #3 can beat the second worst number, third worst, average hitting numbers, good hitting numbers and the best hitting numbers alike.
It is a pity that nobody could do this in more than a year. This was not just an open challenge to all of you but me too.
I hereby officially declare beating this challenge within a reasonable setup and without any reverse engineering that too with an approach that will earn even better in good hit rate (not a system meant to work in bad cases only).
The approach that beats zumma #3 or say any number can beat any bet of roulette having as much variance in long run as #3 had, be it european wheel or american wheel.
Since I have nothing left to debate or discuss after this I am getting off all public and private gambling related forums forever. http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/19400612/Holy-Grail-short-playable-session-concluding-research-deb#.Utdk-9IW1A4 (http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/19400612/Holy-Grail-short-playable-session-concluding-research-deb#.Utdk-9IW1A4)
I hereby also declare that I have beaten this game in short playable sessions (not in 15k spins) too and profit that I will get is lucrative and not just 1 unit somehow.
I can win Steve Hermouzes and wizardofodds.com and imspirit.wordpress.com roulette challenges but why should I bother for them as it will expose my methods to masses and I doubt they will pay me what they say.
By saying all this I do not want to ridicule or tease you but say that if you want to have same success as I got, only work on a sound money management which can let you sustain and survive till virtual stretch of variance and gets net win even when it is hitting below break even. The number 3 challenge was exactly meant for this.
You may not hear from me in public forums after this.
Good luck to all
http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/19400613/No-system-for-Sale-anymore#.UteSbNIW1A4 (http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/19400613/No-system-for-Sale-anymore#.UteSbNIW1A4)
:nope:
As far as I can see from reading this thread at least GreatGrampa clearly beat the challenge with a method which he demonstrated twice with an very full explanation the second time. Unfortunately, it seems his method was too complicated for Albalaha to comprehend so he dismissed it on both ocassions.
Anyone can frame a method if he can see the wins/losses beforehand. GGP did exactly that. His method is not playable in general conditions. Try to play his way in normal sessions, you will know it yourself.
Since I do not want to have any debate anymore, I am locking this topic. If any moderator/admin has trouble with any of my posts/topics he can delete that and even my membership.
Hmm, thread closed. Al's gone.
The clock is ticking. . . . . .
This snapshot will reveal a bit of how my methodology worked on number 3
[attachimg=1]
A comparison with how it did in flat bet, would be great.
(https://betselection.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Falbalaha.lefora.com%2Fattach%2Fview%2Fma%2F1b8447ad2f24e8f18a91c3ba49970751870ff654.png&hash=8cf626b853b1501558fe91eb6363e360d9d1d329)
Hang on, buddy.
Not for sale because HG can not be sold or purchased. :no:
It has to be earned. Archie is correct that no one can pay enough for such things and a true HG owner can earn anything he wishes with itself. One more thing, one can not earn very big with it, since it has drawdown too and only those who expect a mild earning, working hard, can use it. Not for daydreamers.
For better or for worse the thread is now unlocked.
The thread asks a question so it's odd having it locked so people can't answer the question!
BE CAREFUL: I'll lock it again if posts break the rules -- so kindly READ AND ABIDE BY THEM!! Thanks.
There is nothing that you can guess, patternanalysis @smiley @ englishwriter.
I am testing the second worst number 34, in the same way. Will give you more puzzles to guess.
See the fate of the second worst number.
[attachimg=1]
See, if we play the same number flat bet:
[attachimg=1]
Keep guessing. Graphs will help u speculate more.
Pockets opened a thread trying to do anything similar but later admitted his failure. It is not so easy to beat the worst. Usually you will fail in even an average doing number for such long span. Don't believe me? Try any.
Quote from: smiley on April 19, 2014, 07:55:34 AM
Hi, I try to figure out how Mr Albalaha, bet this '3'Zumma...
Why don't you just ask him how he did it?
He didn't like my solution so I'm sure his will just amaze you,
AD
@Smiley@patternanalysis@weirdenglishwriter
No theory of Raymond Lai or any other author will even remotely do what I did and shown. They just reverse engineer a data to find weak points and exhibit their so called method to get a win. A little bit adverse data and the method will bust like a tire. I reverse engineered Zumma book to do the opposite. I found toughest bets to beat. Opened it for all, for about 1 and half year.
Nobody could satisfy with any method. Even if someone curve fits a method to get a win on #3 somehow, it will fail on any similar harsh bet. Adulay, GrGrampa and later Pockets tried to fool people with hypothetical theories but could not exhibit a winning way, that is created as a general "panacea" for bad bets. This is because they never knew anything like that.
I do not see any improvement in the knowledge of most of the members since I have been reading them. They are as much in dark as they were 5 years earlier.
Don't believe me? Ask Adulay, Pockets or Priyanka to show how do they beat it. They will surely go unintelligent and deaf.
Quote from: Albalaha on April 20, 2014, 04:28:52 AM
Nobody could satisfy with any method. Even if someone curve fits a method to get a win on #3 somehow, it will fail on any similar harsh bet. Adulay, GrGrampa and later Pockets tried to fool people with hypothetical theories but could not exhibit a winning way, that is created as a general "panacea" for bad bets. This is because they never knew anything like that.
I do not see any improvement in the knowledge of most of the members since I have been reading them. They are as much in dark as they were 5 years earlier.
Don't believe me? Ask Adulay, Pockets or Priyanka to show how do they beat it. They will surely go unintelligent and deaf.
Big Al,
OK, I really, really, really tried to stay out of your "challenge" for the longest time but for some reason YOU keep bringing my name up over and over.
Using the rules as you posted in your own forum, I then proceeded to tell you how to show a profit/win on your data.
You didn't believe me. I explained it to you. You mumbled something.
I then requested verification of the rules of the "challenge". I accepted them and beat your challenge.
How did I do it?????
Drum roll here as evidently Big Al can't understand how this all works. . . . . . .
Play those numbers like you were in a ROULETTE TOURNAMENT.
Well, DUH!
As you didn't stipulate any particular amount of starting bankroll, I picked my own and played it to show a profit after RUNNING THROUGH THE ENTIRE DATASET, like you requested.
Now, will you kindly leave me OUT of any more discussion of this silly challenge. Even Garnabby could have come up with something better than this. The "challenge" has always been goofy and unrealistic. As an existential exercise in mathematics, it may have some social redeeming value, but as a "gambling" topic, it's pointless!
So, once again, let me leave out of your "challenge" and give it to people who seem to believe that it's important to do this. I no longer do. (Actually I never did, it was unintelligent from the start.)
I showed a profit in your challenge, explained how I did it. It's your turn now. At least my method can be played in a real casino, unlike your solution which was strictly academic.
AD (out of this until my name shows up again)
Quote I showed a profit in your challenge, explained how I did it.
Where is that link where you told how to do that? Put link for everyone to see. Ladies and Gentlemen, pay attention to the next post having a so called method or its link, where Captain Adulay will show you his real skills.
QuoteI then requested verification of the rules of the "challenge". I accepted them and beat your challenge. How did I do it?? Drum roll here as evidently Big Al can't understand how this all works. . . . . . . Play those numbers like you were in a ROULETTE TOURNAMENT.
Now, what the hell is, Playing like a roulette tournament? Are you trying to blind us or to yourself?
Quote from: Albalaha on April 21, 2014, 03:40:47 AM
Now, what the hell is, Playing like a roulette tournament? Are you trying to blind us or to yourself?
Confuses me also, does it mean go all in?
LOVE the Albahala challenge---It just goes on and on.................