Quote from: JohnLegend on December 04, 2012, 07:14:11 AM
And Matt R/H I See you, why so shy now to respomd to your FIVE DATA thread.??

I disputed your 70 wins on 4th step with FIVE but now you changed your stats so there is no more issue with that.

Quote from: TwoCatSam on December 03, 2012, 03:34:55 PM

Let us not forget Parrondo's Paradox.  That can't possibly work,  Mathematicians  say it does.

Sam, I hate to be a party pooper, but Parrando's Paradox isn't really a paradox, not in the sense that it defies logic and mathematics. One of the games in the paradox has to have a positive expectation or it won't work (that's why it can't be used in casinos).

As for the bumble-bee, I think that's a bit of a myth. See "misconceptions" in the wiki entry on Bumblebee.

maths and logic can deduce consequences from true premises, but it can't tell you whether the premises are actually true, except the ones which are defined to be true.

OK, maybe I spoke out of turn.

As I understood it you have two losing games but when you alternate them, you get a winning game.  If one has a positive expectation, why not just play it?

"There exist pairs of games, each with a higher probability of losing than winning, for which it is possible to construct a winning strategy by playing the games alternately."

I read the above and believed it.  Sorry about me.What about De'mere's (sp) dice game?  Who would think that possible without mathematical proof?

Sam

Quote from: TwoCatSam on December 04, 2012, 09:47:22 AM

As I understood it you have two losing games but when you alternate them, you get a winning game.  If one has a positive expectation, why not just play it?

Sam - exactly right!! why not indeed?

It's going off-topic so I'll post a thread in the math section giving some more detail. PP comes up fairly often on forums so it's worth having a reference for the next time someone suggests a roulette system to take advantage of it.

OK, since I'm basically a mechanical person................

Have you ever seen the horse shoe puzzle?  Two horse shoes with chains welding them together and a ring around the chains.  Logic would say you cannot take that ring off.  Sure you can.

Can two parallel lines cross.  No!  Think railroad tracks.  They never even get close to each other.  BUT parallel lines can cross. (Yes, it twists the word "cross" a bit!)

My point--and I flubbed it--is that just because something looks impossible and 9999 out of 1,000 would tell you it's impossible--watch out for that thousandth person.

Sam

That might excuse Fender1000 but what about the shills / aliases?

Quote from: Robeenhuut on December 04, 2012, 07:58:28 AM
I disputed your 70 wins on 4th step with FIVE but now you changed your stats so there is no more issue with that.

Matt you made an error of judgement that's all. You didn't fully understand (as most didn't) how the bet trigger in FIVE works. So I can understand why you came gunning for me. 70 holds on the 4th step would indeed be a miracle. If they had been genuine 4 steps. Now you realize over 1 third were in reality FIVE STEPS. So we go on. I dare not tell you the stats for 8 ON 1. They are RIDICULOUS. but true.

This is my last post on this subject now that JL has admitted
to being Fender. Under Fender1000 he got flat out busted
for joining VLS under an alias and singing the praises of his
own losing system and making wild claims about money he
won that were all lies. He's a fraud and a charleton, what
you see is what you get. This is not an accusation, its an
easily proved fact. Waste as much time as you like on his
baloney, its your time to waste.

Just like  good  ole  roulette king from years gone by . He had more aliases in support of  his  wild claims at the  casino  Monte Carlo in Monaco. Deja Vue.

But this cat  was not satisfied with lowly  70, 000 Euro he went right away for  2. 5 millions to show he had class.   


N.D.

Quote from: JohnLegend on December 04, 2012, 05:46:54 PM
Matt you made an error of judgement that's all. You didn't fully understand (as most didn't) how the bet trigger in FIVE works. So I can understand why you came gunning for me. 70 holds on the 4th step would indeed be a miracle. If they had been genuine 4 steps. Now you realize over 1 third were in reality FIVE STEPS. So we go on. I dare not tell you the stats for 8 ON 1. They are RIDICULOUS. but true.

John

8 on 1 is a 5 step progression so it can produce long winning runs. Five with 4 steps produced 1000+ winning run so you might go 3000/0. The same odds....

Quote from: spike on December 04, 2012, 10:54:27 PM
This is my last post on this subject now that JL has admitted
to being Fender. Under Fender1000 he got flat out busted
for joining VLS under an alias and singing the praises of his
own losing system and making wild claims about money he
won that were all lies. He's a fraud and a charleton, what
you see is what you get. This is not an accusation, its an
easily proved fact. Waste as much time as you like on his
baloney, its your time to waste.

I got flat out nothing. PATTERN BREAKER has been sitting on the CC forum for nearly two years. I've been using it for 4. You come along and decide to stir up trouble while at the same time ignore the fact.

Subby is using it in a challenge for ALL to see. Aswell as myself using it in a challenge for all to see. WAKE IUP. Charlatons don't put themselves on the line.

They try to sell scams for money. When its all been proven to work. I will bet a heap you have gone into hiding without the decency to apologize and admit you were wrong.

That's a sure thing.

Enough!

Bayes started this thread in a gentle manner.

It has recently deteriorated considerably.

The time has come for protagonists to agree to disagree and leave it there.


The method is under test in Speramus.

Let's wait'n'see the outcome and hold off on pre-judging meanwhile.


I'm locking the thread for folk to cool down.

Bayes will unlock it if he wishes to.