Quote from: Bayes on January 22, 2013, 10:07:16 AM
John, to be honest, I find this a bit depressing. If I go to the trouble of writing a simulation and the response is "it means nothing", which is what you're basically saying, then why should I (or anyone else) be motivated to make the effort?

H.A.R. can easily be simulated (I've done it before, as has Gizmo), but I get the feeling you would dismiss that as invalid, too.

You have been testing 7-on-1 using THE VERY SAME file which I used for the sim, but suggest that only LIVE results matter, in which case, why bother to test at all?

Bayes your efforts are totally appreciated. I even offered to  pay you for them. But what do I do? All my methods fail in the grinder.

But they are succeeding  as I play them. I don't mean to suggest your efforts are.not valued. They are more curiousity on my part. I don't expect them to work. But if for example I've never seen a single loss for 7 on 1, played H.A.R

It makes me wonder. So what your tests do for me personally is reinforce my belief in H.A.R. So we have a situation where all the experts say there's absolutely no difference.

No advantage. My challenge which will go for as long as im allowed. Will show that I win longterm. And most importantly, win with methods that can't win played continuously.

Its then up to the observer, to make up their own mind. Is how I play an advantage. Or am I just lucky. For those who say I am just lucky.

I say how long can you be lucky for? I've been winning for 9 years, that's a  long time to put it all on luck. If I reach my goals over the next two years. Can anyone truly say JL lucked his way from 200 units to 1 million. At 1--3% growth on BR  per session

Ok John, would you like me to carry on and put CODE 4 horizontal through the 1M spin file?

Quote from: Bayes on January 22, 2013, 06:59:47 PM
Ok John, would you like me to carry on and put CODE 4 horizontal through the 1M spin file?

Yes please Bayes. Its not my method, but I really like it. And it would be interesting to see how long it holds up. It needs about 60 wins to match a progression, which is a big improvement on 7 ON 1.
Im now 325/0 in my play with the method, so lets see. Many thanks in advance. 

I'm not understanding how hit and run
works with a system that requires so
much tracking. Could you explain how
HAR works on this, I don't get it.

Quote from: spike on January 22, 2013, 10:03:00 PM
I'm not understanding how hit and run
works with a system that requires so
much tracking. Could you explain how
HAR works on this, I don't get it.

The tracking isn't important. At the conclusion of a game, I log out. No one who thinks and talks like a representative of the wizard of odds is ever gong to get this.

That's why I've got to prove it will make methods that have no edge played straight. Into longterm winners.

Quote from: Atlantis on January 22, 2013, 10:55:11 AM

Hi Robeenhuut,
FIVE was superceded by 7on1 and was born out of it and is a lot easier to understand and track (and code). JL thought it superior as well, so that explains why FIVE was put on the back burner due to the testing and playing being switched to the 7on1 method.
A.

Atlantis

What method would you play if they both had 1000+ winning streak? The one that risks 80 units or 240 units to win 1?  They are both difficult to track and John has a patience.

Hi Robeenhuut,
Put that way is a good point - but that still does not mean that 7on1 is less solid - but then JL will no doubt give us the definitive reason(s) why preferable to switch to later method 
A.

Quote from: Robeenhuut on January 23, 2013, 06:20:02 AM
Atlantis

What method would you play if they both had 1000+ winning streak? The one that risks 80 units or 240 units to win 1?  They are both difficult to track and John has a patience.

Matt I would play 80 units, that's not why I've put FIVE on the backburner for now. I've had a loss with FIVE. I've never had a loss with 7 ON 1. I've never seen a  loss with LIVE results either.

I've seen a few for FIVE. Few people could understand FIVE. Because of the complexity of the BET TRIGGER.

But that's what gives it the power. I find myself in a similar situation at the moment with CODE V5. And Atlantis's brilliant CODE 4 H. They're the opposite of eachother.

But both very promising. So FIVE is always there to be called upon. Its not disguarded or forgotten. Im never precious about methods.

I am always looking for the strongest one with the fastest turnover. CODE V5 has a turnover faster than five or 7 on 1 and in relation to risk may prove as strong. As it only has 27 Units at risk.

If JL continues to use bet triggers based on empirical observations it is no wonder that he uses a martingale progression and calls it a "smart MM".
I am more of a rationalist.
Cheers

Quote from: MarignyGrilleau on January 23, 2013, 01:32:49 PM
If JL continues to use bet triggers based on empirical observations it is no wonder that he uses a martingale progression and calls it a "smart MM".
I am more of a rationalist.
Cheers

Marigny a limited martingale can be very smart MM indeed. A suicidal 10 step marty is foolish. And will be costly longterm.

A 7 unit marty can be and is very rewarding married to the right bet selection and H.A.R. This is what must be clear.

Martingales can't work if the BET SELECTION is weak. And H.A.R isn't employed. All three together can result in something special and consistently rewarding.

Hello JL...

Quick question.
How many times a day do you play this 7 on 1.... And how much do you win, as in units. If your playing for £1.00 a win, gonna have to play a lot of it.   I don't play this system, to complex for me ...

Quote from: Tarantino on January 23, 2013, 01:54:09 PM
Hello JL...

Quick question.
How many times a day do you play this 7 on 1.... And how much do you win, as in units. If your playing for £1.00 a win, gonna have to play a lot of it.   I don't play this system, to complex for me ...

5--10 games per day, £4.00 units. You need to understand I play 3--5 methods a day Tarantino. 7 ON 1 is on test more than being a bread and butter method like say PATTERN BREAKER or TEMPLATE 7.

If you have never seen something lose on a live wheel when its had nearly 4,000 chances to do so. You have to be a fool, not to look at it very, very closely.

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 23, 2013, 05:56:48 AM
At the conclusion of a game, I log out.

That isn't hit and run. HAR is when you win a unit and find
another table. Playing till the game is over is called 'playing'.

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 23, 2013, 01:51:54 PM
Marigny a limited martingale can be very smart MM indeed. A suicidal 10 step marty is foolish. And will be costly longterm.

A 7 unit marty can be and is very rewarding married to the right bet selection and H.A.R. This is what must be clear.

Martingales can't work if the BET SELECTION is weak. And H.A.R isn't employed. All three together can result in something special and consistently rewarding.

What makes you think that a bet selection is stronger than other? Hit Rate? Variance? As for what you call HAR, it doesn't make any difference, i consider it your personal permanence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Quote from: MarignyGrilleau on January 23, 2013, 08:02:50 PM
What makes you think that a bet selection is stronger than other? Hit Rate? Variance? As for what you call HAR, it doesn't make any difference, i consider it your personal permanence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Marigny what is GAMBLERS FALLACY?