Quote from: Drazen on January 14, 2013, 12:32:54 PM
Congratulations to JL for his method. But if this hits in so good ratio, I think playing not so volatile MM should be fine also, as John said most of the time hits come on first two steps...


Now my only worry is that Vic will start to recieve death threats and he will have to close this forum...    LoL


So all should be advised to copy the rules until is not too late 


Best


Drazen

Drazen thankyou. I honestly didn't expect it to do that well against a million spins on an RNG.

Thanks to Bayes for all his hard work. What you have to know about me is im very conservative when it comes to risk. I would never risk 242 units unless I have a very good feeling about something.

Its only through years of results with the ZONE. That I aquired that feeling. If you don't see something happen on a live wheel in nearly 3,000 results. You have to look into it.

So we know now 7 on 1 can survive a million spins. Maybe Albalaha will believe that I wasn't making up my results now.

And Superman will like what he sees here too. He stands to gain alot financially from this until we are stopped.

Thanks again Bayes. 10% of whatever I make from this and the other methods will be donated to Victor and the forum. So many will benefit from this.

Well John, this is the only method of yours that succeeded in tests.. Other were blasted like out of canon.


Bayes were trying to simulate H.A.R and it failed too. So only thing people had were your words actualy and few words of those who were playing your way also. I personaly think H.A.R (as most of like to call random entry and exit points in play) doesn't mean anything and that is logical if you think about it, but everyone on its own I say.


It would be interesting to see how this method would go with +2 -1 progression.


Now as it goes I expect that someone of those brilliant coders on few platforms we have here, will made tracker and people will be able to earn with no thinking and  knwoing anything at all. (Although I am jealous about giving knowledge and skills for longterm earnings to anyone so I know some will use this, who even doesn't know how many numbers or on the roulette, but what the heck..)  Earn? No. Better to say destroy casinos..


But will it go just like that? The proof is here so, it will be interesting to watch this thread in coming time.. 


Best


Drazen

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 14, 2013, 01:10:30 PM
I honestly didn't expect it to do that well against a million spins on an RNG.

Well, it actually HASN'T done that well, because I didn't incorporate the zero factor. This must push up the number of busts, which theoretically would be enough to put the results negative, but even so, I've never seen a system which has done as well even on a no-zero wheel.

So when I upload the actuals file/results, I'll make sure I've taken account of the zero so you get the true picture.

Quote from: Drazen on January 14, 2013, 01:31:33 PM
Well John, this is the only method of yours that succeeded in tests.. Other were blasted like out of canon.


Bayes were trying to simulate H.A.R and it failed too. So only thing people had were your words actualy and few words of those who were playing your way also. I personaly think H.A.R (as most of like to call random entry and exit points in play) doesn't mean anything and that is logical if you think about it, but everyone on its own I say.


It would be interesting to see how this method would go with +2 -1 progression.


Now as it goes I expect that someone of those brilliant coders on few platforms we have here, will made tracker and people will be able to earn with no thinking and  knwoing anything at all. (Although I am jealous about giving knowledge and skills for longterm earnings to anyone so I know some will use this, who even doesn't know how many numbers or on the roulette, but what the heck..)  Earn? No. Better to say destroy casinos..


But will it go just like that? The proof is here so, it will be interesting to watch this thread in coming time.. 


Best


Drazen

Drazen you only have to succeed once. I still believe in my other methods. They require more work and MM.

I dreamt of getting a method that could win on auto pilot. Now it looks lke we have it. It still won't change alot in the roulette world.

But more people now know its possible. That's all I've ever wanted.

Nice work JL !!!  Thank you for sharing!!   I have been traveling a lot to start this year off but pop in from time to time to see what's new.  Great Stuff, Great Appraoch, Great Thinking!  .... 

Quote from: Chauncy47 on January 14, 2013, 01:44:40 PM
Nice work JL !!!  Thank you for sharing!!   I have been traveling a lot to start this year off but pop in from time to time to see what's new.  Great Stuff, Great Appraoch, Great Thinking!  .... 

Thankyou my friend, not bad for a fake charleton scam artist. As I've been called. No doubt the likes of Spike and Giz will avoid this thread now.

Hello JL

I think I get it!

Is this correct?

16 (2)
35 (3)
10 (1)
22 (2)...3
8 (1)....2
15 (2)...2
31 (3)...5
7 (1)....3
0 (*)
8 (1)....2
4 (1)....1
26 (3)...5
25 (3)...1
22 (2)...8
13 (2)...1
10 (1)...5
1 (1)....1
0 (*)
23 (2)...4
9 (1)....3
23 (2)...2
32 (3)...9
27 (3)...1
33 (3)...1
16 (2)...4 (Does the 2 qualify here?)
22 (2)...1
10 (1)...7
5 (1)....1
28 (3)...5
8 (1)....2 (I bet for the 1st and 3rd dozen here and WON)

cheers 

Quote from: Bayes on January 14, 2013, 01:39:07 PM
Well, it actually HASN'T done that well, because I didn't incorporate the zero factor. This must push up the number of busts, which theoretically would be enough to put the results negative, but even so, I've never seen a system which has done as well even on a no-zero wheel.

So when I upload the actuals file/results, I'll make sure I've taken account of the zero so you get the true picture.

I still think it would do even better on a million live spins Bayes. That's why this is exciting news for me. I only ever play this live. Now 935/0

Quote from: Bally6354 on January 14, 2013, 01:53:16 PM
Hello JL

I think I get it!

Is this correct?

16 (2)
35 (3)
10 (1)
22 (2)...3
8 (1)....2
15 (2)...2
31 (3)...5
7 (1)....3
0 (*)
8 (1)....2
4 (1)....1
26 (3)...5
25 (3)...1
22 (2)...8
13 (2)...1
10 (1)...5
1 (1)....1
0 (*)
23 (2)...4
9 (1)....3
23 (2)...2
32 (3)...9
27 (3)...1
33 (3)...1
16 (2)...4 (Does the 2 qualify here?)
22 (2)...1
10 (1)...7
5 (1)....1
28 (3)...5
8 (1)....2 (I bet for the 1st and 3rd dozen here and WON)

cheers 

Bally, I think it could be wrong, but I can't see exactly what you're doing. Basically, the trigger is when you see 2 "gaps" of 4 and they don't have to be consecutive as long as any gaps in between are less than 4. If any gap between 4 and another 4 is greater than 4, then you need to start re-tracking. When you have your 2 4's you wait for another 4 and bet that it will become a 5 - ie: bet the other 2 dozens. That's it. There's no magic to the number 4, I'm sure you could use other gap lengths and the results would be similar.

Quote from: Bayes on January 14, 2013, 02:47:04 PM
Bally, I think it could be wrong, but I can't see exactly what you're doing. Basically, the trigger is when you see 2 "gaps" of 4 and they don't have to be consecutive as long as any gaps in between are less than 4. If any gap between 4 and another 4 is greater than 4, then you need to start re-tracking. When you have your 2 4's you wait for another 4 and bet that it will become a 5 - ie: bet the other 2 dozens. That's it. There's no magic to the number 4, I'm sure you could use other gap lengths and the results would be similar.

Possibly Bayes. I have seen seven 5 gaps though live three times. Playing the zone.

It would be of a great suprise if the millon spis will last winning. We know every thing can happen, but it is probably not so the casinos will close or much change the rules to play. In a infinite (which we can always just be in as a limited part of it) it can happen  JL and  all here can win using it, at the probability is as the humans will be in extinct in 100  years. ( the game of JL I think has less probability, but not impossible). After a second thougth JL may have better chance than we are here in 100 years, that's hard to digest.

Quote from: Ralph on January 14, 2013, 03:08:00 PM
It would be of a great suprise if the millon spis will last winning. We know every thing can happen, but it is probably not so the casinos will close or much change the rules to play. In a infinite (which we can always just be in as a limited part of it) it can happen  JL and  all here can win using it, at the probability is as the humans will be in extinct in 100  years. ( the game of JL I think has less probability, but not impossible). After a second thougth JL may have better chance than we are here in 100 years, that's hard to digest.

Ralph you must know as everyone should know. Even if you found a HG and gift wrapped it and gave it to every gambler on the planet. The casinos will still be very safe.

Its never been the game. Its the mind of the person playing it that always breaks first. And if man is still here a 1,000,000 years from now. That will not have changed.

Quote from: Bayes on January 14, 2013, 02:47:04 PM
When you have your 2 4's you wait for another 4 and bet that it will become a 5 - ie: bet the other 2 dozens. That's it.

That's where one of us has it wrong!

I think you bet for the third 4 not to appear.

Like so....

05 (1)
32 (3)
23 (2)
28 (3)
05 (1)......gap of 4.......
22 (2)
09 (1).....gap of 2......
34 (3)
12 (1).....gap of 2.......
15 (2)
08 (1).....gap of 2.......
06 (1)....gap of 1........
25 (3)
06 (1).....gap of 2......
03 (1).....gap of 1......
32 (3)
05 (1)......gap of 2.......
33 (3)
05 (1).....gap of 2......
18 (2)
23 (2)
0 (*)
09 (1).....gap of 4.......
05 (1).....gap of 1......
18 (2)
12 (1).....gap of 2.......
14 (2)
15 (2)
18 (2)
07 (1).... gap of 4....... lost here betting the 2nd and 3rd dozen.
07 (1).....gap of 1.......
20 (2)
32 (3)
06 (1)....gap of 3........
14 (2)
21 (2)
29 (3)
29 (3)......won here. **I am assuming we would bet here**
28 (3)  **Bayes is assuming we would bet here**
26 (3)
06 (1)

Hopefully JL can clear it up.

cheers. 

you bet one the one that you say Bally, not the one that Bayes thinks 

I know the triggers well enough because i made the 8/1 tracker in excel 

You always bet after the third gap that is doesn't become a 4-gap.

It's that easy

Stef

Quote from: Bally6354 on January 14, 2013, 03:32:26 PM

That's where one of us has it wrong!

I think you bet for the third 4 not to appear.

Like so....

05 (1)
32 (3)
23 (2)
28 (3)
05 (1)......gap of 4.......
22 (2)
09 (1).....gap of 2......
34 (3)
12 (1).....gap of 2.......
15 (2)
08 (1).....gap of 2.......
06 (1)....gap of 1........
25 (3)
06 (1).....gap of 2......
03 (1).....gap of 1......
32 (3)
05 (1)......gap of 2.......
33 (3)
05 (1).....gap of 2......
18 (2)
23 (2)
0 (*)
09 (1).....gap of 4.......
05 (1).....gap of 1......
18 (2)
12 (1).....gap of 2.......
14 (2)
15 (2)
18 (2)
07 (1).... gap of 4....... lost here betting the 2nd and 3rd dozen.
07 (1).....gap of 1.......
20 (2)
32 (3)
06 (1)....gap of 3........
14 (2)
21 (2)
29 (3)
29 (3)......won here. **I am assuming we would bet here**
28 (3)  **Bayes is assuming we would bet here**
26 (3)
06 (1)

Hopefully JL can clear it up.

cheers.

Bally what  I think Bayes meant was you wait for a 3 and bet it doesn't become a 4. A 4 can't become a 5 because its already a 4. Do you see my point?