Quote from: JohnLegend on January 14, 2013, 03:44:44 PM
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?

ok thanks, I understand it but there is a difference between waiting for a 3 to become a 4 or a 4 to become a 5 which is what I interpreted Bayes as saying.

These things are better cleared up before anybody starts using it.

cheers.

Quote from: Bally6354 on January 14, 2013, 03:54:16 PM

ok thanks, I understand it but there is a difference between waiting for a 3 to become a 4 or a 4 to become a 5 which is what I interpreted Bayes as saying.

These things are better cleared up before anybody starts using it.

cheers.

Well number 1, the way I just explained is the right way. Number 2. No ones really going to use this except me.

That's why the game will always be safe, 242 is still too much risk. And it lost 20--30 times per million minus the zero.

I know already ths is an alltime winner especially on a live wheel. Remember I have yet to be challenged not just lose.

Random is running out of steam by the fourth 4. The vast majority of the time. I've only had 6 X 5 four gaps. In 935 games. This is when H.A.R shows its value.

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 14, 2013, 03:44:44 PM
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?

Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry for any confusion. You are actually betting that the GAP will be at least a 5, that's what I was trying to get across.

Thank you Bayes 

Do you just play this on the dozens JL?

7 on 1 vs Dublinbet Table 1 2400 spins

7 on 1 vs Dublinbet Table 1 4000 spins

7 on 1 vs first 20,000 spins from Bayes 1 Million set

Quote from: Bally6354 on January 14, 2013, 04:33:19 PM
Thank you Bayes 

Do you just play this on the dozens JL?

Yes they have the history because of the vast back results I have for THE ZONE.

As I said before my enthusiasm for this method and willingness to put 242 units on the line, comes from what I never saw in nearly 3,000 results. Remember I have yet to see this thing lose live.

Quote from: Bayes on January 14, 2013, 10:58:44 AM
Hey guys, I've just written a simulation of 7 on 1 and it appears to do very well on a single zero wheel. Losses are VERY rare and I can't seem to make it lose - after several  million RNG spins the balance is still way up! 

I'm pretty sure there are no bugs in the code, but I'm going to upload a 1M actuals file with bets marked on it and a running balance so you can all check it.

Later...

Are  you joking? Please use  the appropiate smiles.

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 14, 2013, 01:46:56 PM
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.

Isn't that the truth!  Now all I have to do is move to Europe and I have got it made!

Quote from: Chauncy47 on January 14, 2013, 05:45:08 PM

Isn't that the truth!  Now all I have to do is move to Europe and I have got it made!

You could always rent an apartment Chauncy. Once you are strong enough not to have to work. Id cover your expenses.

Quote from: Ralph on January 14, 2013, 05:31:52 PM

Are  you joking? Please use  the appropiate smiles.

No. 

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 14, 2013, 01:10:30 PM
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.

That's quite kind dear John. Thank you VERY much.
It's reassuring to know there'll be your monthly help   

Quote from: Drazen on January 14, 2013, 12:32:54 PM
Now my only worry is that Vic will start to recieve death threats

  I certainly hope it isn't the case! 

Quote from: Bayes on January 14, 2013, 06:19:26 PM
No. 

I like your thinking and I am still on target with the growth of my BR ... so it will be good to have a few beers with you this summer or fall!