Quote from: Bayes on January 18, 2013, 08:31:55 PM
Final Bank = -5105 units
Total wins = 7237 units
Losses due to zero = 322
Losses other than zero = 3686
Progression loss due to zero = 3
Progression loss due to D2 or D3 = 48

That's right. I wanted to test the program first so ran it on one dozen. Since the code for the other dozens is exactly the same, if you know the result for one dozen then you know it for all of them.

Regarding the results file I uploaded, you did unzip it first, right? sounds to me like you were trying to read the compressed archive.

Now I'm really confused!  I thought any time you were betting you were using a progression.  So why are there two losses to zero?

Sam

Quote from: spike on January 18, 2013, 08:42:26 PM
Fender doesn't understand stuff like this. He see's the
layout and the first dozen can't be identical to the other
two. If you were testing EC's and only tested H/L because
the results for R/B and O/E would be identical to H/L, Fender
would have a fit. That can't be right in the world he lives in.

Layout I never see. You have alot to learn. If you know anything about what I do it has nothing to do with the layout.

I never said anything about HIGH LOW being different to ODD EVEN. I started PB on HIGH LOW. Do you read things?

Then I played it on both HIGH LOW and ODD EVEN. It was recorded in the time I've played that RED BLACK. Produces more losses than the other two.

Is this finding unique to me? NO! Others who have bothered to play the method for any real length of time have noticed this TOO. Chauncy 47 AND Subby.

Until you actually play a method Spike. you will never know this. Just harking on about the obvious regarding random means nothing. We want proof that you are the man. Not talk.

Quote from: Bayes on January 18, 2013, 08:31:55 PM
Final Bank = -5105 units
Total wins = 7237 units
Losses due to zero = 322
Losses other than zero = 3686
Progression loss due to zero = 3
Progression loss due to D2 or D3 = 48

That's right. I wanted to test the program first so ran it on one dozen. Since the code for the other dozens is exactly the same, if you know the result for one dozen then you know it for all of them.

Regarding the results file I uploaded, you did unzip it first, right? sounds to me like you were trying to read the compressed archive.

Bayes something I don't get here. In the first tests you did without the zero you had 14--16 thousand games per million over the 5 million tests. Here you don't even have 8,000?

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 18, 2013, 08:51:27 PM

Until you actually play a method Spike. you will never know this.

Yeah, right. You don't have to actually eat dog stuff
to know it tastes awful, you know.

Quote from: spike on January 18, 2013, 09:02:20 PM
Yeah, right. You don't have to actually eat dog stuff
to know it tastes awful, you know.

No comparison. You have to play to see what unfolds. Your maths journal doesn't cut it here mate. This is where there's alot to be learnt. Actually experiencing what TRUE RANDOM delivers. And not simulations is the only way you will ever understand how im beating this game.

Experience on a live wheel is priceless. Just reading a load of theory isn't going to get it done. I've got 20 years experience standing in front of a real wheel. What I know is from first hand experience. This is why I know H.A.R turns even an average method into a profit maker.

A good method into a roulette killer. No ifs, buts or maybes. Then you turn up and say you are the master of random. Only you forgot to bring your method. And 20 years of real experience. No good at all.

Maybe a test is in order!

Quote from: Bayes on January 18, 2013, 08:09:20 PM
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. 

Bayes, JL  challenged me to get you to program my method. "This" is in reference to that. And by funny, I in no way was suggesting that you couldn't do it. You would wisely decline. It's too much work.

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 18, 2013, 09:05:03 PM
No comparison. You have to play to see what unfolds.

Absolutely not true. I can read a systems description
and if I don't see a clearly manifested edge, I know it's a
loser. For the 100th time, you MUST have the edge
to win consistently in the long term. You always mistake
short term results as meaning something.

You're so hung up on tricking the math and random
that you can't see the forest for the tree's.

Quote from: soggett on January 18, 2013, 08:13:05 PM

I couldn't find it, can you post a link or something?

http://www.gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=8587&forum=Roulette_Message_Board

" I look at the last outcome and balance it against the last few outcomes and balance THAT against my experience with random and make my educated guess. There really is nothing more to it than that. On the next spin everything changes and I do it all again.

that's it in a nutshell. You can do the same thing with practice. I don't know any other way to explain it. I'm sorry that all my claims spring from such a simple method of play, but they do. "

Quote from: spike on January 18, 2013, 09:56:28 PM
Absolutely not true. I can read a systems description
and if I don't see a clearly manifested edge, I know it's a
loser. For the 100th time, you MUST have the edge
to win consistently in the long term. You always mistake
short term results as meaning something.

You're so hung up on tricking the math and random
that you can't see the forest for the tree's.

Look you keep saying that but you can't show it. What is that all about? You don't need a mathematical edge to beat roulette.You need the three tenets of success to all be working in harmony to overcome the negative expectancy of the game.

GOOD BET SELECTION--HIT AND RUN--MONEY MANAGEMENT. If one of them is missing you will lose. Its been proven a billion times that you can't beat this game shoulder to shoulder playing long drawn out sessions. But when you play short bursts you can.

Let me put this to you. If a man starts with 200 units. And ends up with 5,000. Then that 5,000 becomes 20,000. Then that 20,000 becomes 50,000 and so forth. Could he have done that by luck or voodoo?. NO, if he has systematically gone from 200 units to 50,000. He has to have something working right consistently for him. NO BIG DRAWDOWNS. No surprises. Just consistent winning.

Now you know where im going. So then people who think they have a hold on what will be and won't with this game. Have to explain how worthless methods and strategies did that.

They can't and they won't. The only conclusion that will come out of it, is all three together equals success. .

Quote from: spike on January 18, 2013, 09:56:28 PM
Absolutely not true. I can read a systems description
and if I don't see a clearly manifested edge, I know it's a
loser. For the 100th time, you MUST have the edge
to win consistently in the long term. You always mistake
short term results as meaning something.

So guessing is your edge?

I'm done with this thread. Fender/Legend is proving
his ignorance with every post, let him continue alone.
Let him hold his breath till July 2018 if if likes. Who
cares.

Quote from: spike on January 18, 2013, 10:49:52 PM
I'm done with this thread. Fender/Legend is proving
his ignorance with every post, let him continue alone.
Let him hold his breath till July 2018 if if likes. Who
cares.

Real questions, no anwsers. That's Spike. ta da. I would get more explanation and proof about edge out of the cattle they parade through the fortworth stockyards.

Quote from: spike on January 18, 2013, 10:49:52 PM
I'm done with this thread. Fender/Legend is proving
his ignorance with every post, let him continue alone.
Let him hold his breath till July 2018 if if likes. Who
cares.

Stating the obvious is nearly pointless. You are dealing with what's known as a true believer.

QuoteFinal Bank = -5105 unitsTotal wins = 7237 unitsLosses due to zero = 322Losses other than zero = 3686Progression loss due to zero = 3Progression loss due to D2 or D3 = 48

               So this is going to move earth upside down by July 2013?  Bravo JL, you are truly a legend. That is why I had to write that "isn't every forum is merely bunch of frustrated gamblers?"