Sorry if I misled people with my initial results, but I did suggest that celebrations might be premature given that I hadn't taken the zero into account. I'll upload a file with the total results for all dozens, but TBH I expect a similar outcome. 

Quote from: spike on January 18, 2013, 09:03:57 AM
We have a state called Texas. They have a saying there, when somebody
is a braggart with nothing to back him up, he's
'all hat and no cattle'.  That means he struts around
like a real cowboy, running his mouth, saying stupid
things, but in reality he's just a fancy hat with nothing
in the barn.

We have state called Wisconsin and they have a saying here ... "Thank goodness Tony Romo plays for Dallas."   I couldn't resist.  Anyways, does it really matter who is right?  Isn't this more about sharing ideas?  I have been playing H&R for 2 years now and have never looked back.  It doesn't mean I am right or better or worse, it just means that it works for me personally, my bank roll, my money management, methods and thought process.  It sure would be nice if the thread stayed positive.  Yep, I know, we lost to the 49'ers.

Quote from: Bayes on January 18, 2013, 11:17:56 AM
Sorry if I misled people with my initial results, but I did suggest that celebrations might be premature given that I hadn't taken the zero into account. I'll upload a file with the total results for all dozens, but TBH I expect a similar outcome. 

That won't stop me playing the method Bayes. If you went from positive to negative simply because of the zero.

Should that be an issue I would simply cover the zero on the big bets. The thing is this, H.A.R Im not even being challenged. As I've said before. If any method will make the argument for H.A.R its this one. I expect the longterm results to mirror those you had without the zero.

And that will once and for all prove what I've known for a long time. LIVE is the only way to be sure for me. I can't vouch for anyother format. Its the format that has been successful for me for many years.

The interesting thing for me speaking of the zero. Is how little impact its had on the 955 games I've now played. Few steps have been lost as a result of its existence.

The only way ill ever get H.A.R superiority stamped in reality is to do what im now doing. Turn a small modest bankroll into an ever growing fortune.

No one will be able to refute my claims then. Not even the dynamic duo.

Chauncy

You a cheese head? 

(Love them curds, man!) 

Sam

Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 18, 2013, 02:59:16 PM
Chauncy

You a cheese head? 

(Love them curds, man!) 

Sam

that's so hard to admit outloud ... "Yes"

Quote from: Bayes on January 18, 2013, 11:00:27 AM
Ok, I have some results for the 1M spin file(attached). Note that this is for Doz 1 only. There are some stats at the end of the file. Note that "LB" means loss of bank. Sadly, the results went negative at spin 46,653 and never recovered.

Thank you for doing the heavy lifting. It looks like it fails around the expectation mark. Funny how large numbers helps to see things. Maybe I'll do more on my black box validator today. If that works, it would beat large numbers. I hope so. I would really resent a simple minded use of a well known progression, backed by a specific situation styled trigger, to be the first working method to beat Roulette.

Quote from: Gizmotron on January 18, 2013, 05:33:57 PM
Thank you for doing the heavy lifting. It looks like it fails around the expectation mark. Funny how large numbers helps to see things. Maybe I'll do more on my black box validator today. If that works, it would beat large numbers. I hope so. I would really resent a simple minded use of a well known progression, backed by a specific situation styled trigger, to be the first working method to beat Roulette.

Giz do you really believe its necessary for a working method to beat a straight million spin sample, in order for it to be seen as a successful method?

If so lets see you put your method in Bayes hands for a million spins. And that arrogant Texan even show us a method to hand over to Bayes for a million spin test. If you both come out of the other end in positive numbers. You have my undivided attention.

He tells someone he has 16,000 posts on gamblers glen with no clue of how he actually beats the game. You go figure that one. And then he attacks others who say they can win at this game.

John

Who is the Texan?

Sam

Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 18, 2013, 06:15:37 PM
John

Who is the Texan?

Sam

The one that goes by the name Spike.

Quote from: Bayes on January 18, 2013, 11:00:27 AM
Ok, I have some results for the 1M spin file(attached). Note that this is for Doz 1 only. There are some stats at the end of the file. Note that "LB" means loss of bank. Sadly, the results went negative at spin 46,653 and never recovered.

Bayes a few questions about your test. Were they conducted on the 1 million actuals. Or a sim? How many total losses did you find in the 1 million sample. And how many were as a result of the zero? Thanks for your time.

Dear John... Spike explained his method in one of those 16,000+ posts at GG. I'm there too. From near the very start I've been advocating "test as you go." That's me being deliberately vague. I had no idea, back then, that you could tell people how to really beat this game, and that there would be no danger in wrecking the opportunity.

That's funny getting Bayes to program this. It's complex. The amount of extraneous source code is so nebulous that the request is more at inflicting torture on someone. I would be happy to answer any question Bayes might have regarding my methods. I doubt that he would want to do such a massive body of work. Giving that, your methods have already proven dangerous to use for a life changing opportunity. July 19th will be the day of real-world simulation.

Quote from: Gizmotron on January 18, 2013, 06:49:49 PM
Dear John... Spike explained his method in one of those 16,000+ posts at GG. I'm there too. From near the very start I've been advocating "test as you go." That's me being deliberately vague. I had no idea, back then, that you could tell people how to really beat this game, and that there would be no danger in wrecking the opportunity.

That's funny getting Bayes to program this. It's complex. The amount of extraneous source code is so nebulous that the request is more at inflicting torture on someone. I would be happy to answer any question Bayes might have regarding my methods. I doubt that he would want to do such a massive body of work. Giving that, your methods have already proven dangerous to use for a life changing opportunity. July 19th will be the day of real-world simulation.

Well if he wants to play Mr perfect. He should bring it to this forum with clear concise rules. So that all can test it. And see if he is half as good as he thinks he is.

Then if he really can beat random with the even chances and no progression. He can do his im above eveyone else rountine. Otherwise he is more empty than a vacuum.

My methods are being laid bare. Whether you like them or not. You know what I use. The only thing I've to prove, is when they're played on a LIVE WHEEL H.A.R. The ultimate result is PROFIT OVERALL.

So while everyone and the kitchen sink thinks im mad. The numbers starting with the first milestone in July. Will tell the truth.

Then everyone who has criticized me has to explain how methods with no merit were able to do that to just 200 units. And it goes on from there.

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 18, 2013, 06:42:44 PM
Bayes a few questions about your test. Were they conducted on the 1 million actuals. Or a sim? How many total losses did you find in the 1 million sample. And how many were as a result of the zero? Thanks for your time.

On the 1M actuals. Total losses were 48 + 3 on the zero = 51. It's not so much the losses due directly to the zero which killed it, but those times the zero hits when you're in the post-trigger zone - how many busts would have been saved if there was no zero? according to my previous simulation, enough to make a profit overall. There are some stats at the end of the results file, I'll post the results for all 3 dozens tomorrow.

Quote from: Gizmotron on January 18, 2013, 06:49:49 PM
That's funny getting Bayes to program this.

Gizmo, JL didn't ask me to code it, nor is he paying me. I was just curious to see whether it worked, given the claims made by JL. Looks like another triumph for HAR. 

Surely the answer then is to play on the NO ZERO wheel at betvoyager and pay them the 10% tax from your winnings.