I can not help thinking that people never publish everything they know.

I was reading other websites and it is clear that the first thing people think is that just going to let winning to get out of the forums.

This means that everything that is posted in all forums is what does not work. After people try and it is a no go, then decide to publish.

Or perhaps you have posted all that you know?

Please give your opinion. I have no holy grail, but I want to know what others think.

Thank you very much.

I'm sure that most people believe that a real HG should never be widely available. In fact it would be foolish to share such a thing. That's exactly why I did it. It's published right here at this forum. I'M counting on human nature. People are too sceptical to believe what's right in front of their faces. There's also the fact that very few are ready to see it. Most people want an easy solution. Until they are prepared to give up on any easy way, they have very little interest in finding the very thing they are looking for. And for that, most of them will be too late. It's not personal. I haven't done this to tick off a few beginners. This is about proving the mathboyz wrong. The price for doing this is in a way it's own reward.

Well,
       Most of the people gathered on different gambling boards are big time losers. They join all forums with the unrealistic hope of getting a panacea some fortunate days.
            One of the grail which I tested to beat more than 10 million spins, is in the shape of a bot that Ophis has created is shown here:
http://betselection.cc/ophis'-mst/holy-grail-randomness-can-be-beaten-even-in-the-longest-run/

I respect but do not support the intention of not publishing the best that anyone has.

If I had a holy grail I would publish it. What bothers me is the fact that people see the forums as a gathering of people stingy with knowledge.

Comments like that if I won, I would not be in the forum. I am leaving because I learned to win. I read things like that in many other places of discussion.

It is a sad attitude. But I suppose that it is human nature as you say. Those who leave because they won they return with their tails between their legs. With another user. Or with the same user very ashamed. Would not it be better not to leave in the first place? Even as a winner. Better to stay and share with other tips and help people succeed.

In your particular case. Thank you for sharing and set the example.

QuoteThere's also the fact that very few are ready to see it. Most people want an easy solution. Until they are prepared to give up on any easy way, they have very little interest in finding the very thing they are looking for.

That's THE problem, no interest in studying what random is sending, wanting the easy a-b-c method, there isn't one - period !

QuoteIt is a sad attitude. But I suppose that it is human nature as you say

You should maybe look at it a little differently wannawin, IF an a-b-c type method did exist then providing the world with

wait for this
then do that
if lose - do this
if win - do that

would kill roulette for good so you could almost respect the holder of such a method for keeping it quiet, as if you work hard enough eventualy, with hope, you too at some point may see it and when you do, the game is still there to use your years of study to earn with.

QuoteI can not help thinking that people never publish everything they know.

From what I have seen on the forums over the last 5 to 6 years there is only a handfull who 'say' they/we are able to win each session, I say they/we as I am one of them, Bayes knows what I do and I know what he does, we are almost playing identically one of the differences is the stake size being used, Bayes plays higher values than I do but he has been doing it longer than me, Gizmo, in my opinion, seems to do very similar, we are lead to believe, and I don't doubt it, that MrJ wins too, now he only plays live wheel, Bayes and I play RNG at BV not sure about Gizmo.

I've explained as much as I can on the forum regarding series, singles and other events, I've also sent detailed replies to the many PM's I get, the recipients have always come back with thanks and gratitude to the process I use, the main factor is al always MM if you can't get that right you're 70% down already, the simplest way I can put my play is, you need to understand your PERSONAL win/loss flow, how often are you correct or how reliable are your 'triggers to bet' mentally storing the length of L's and building your MM around these findings, we are still constantly developing our triggers to bet, without this knowledge you're flying blind and still hoping for that a-b-c method that isn't going to be found but thres always hope, I would love to be able to bot a cash cow but I can't even get my play into code as you could say a lot of it is gut, my win ratio is probably only 30% - 35% the rest is how much I bet which depends on what I am used to in my WL mental picture.

@ wannawin, regarding your coding teaching thread, learning to code is a good thing but you will get the same outcomes as we who already code do, which means you'll be learning coding to be dissapointed so I would only recommend learning it for the love of it not to hopefully find a HG, you can just leave that to those of us who already do and give the results to the forum.

Then there's those members who do post their whole winning a-b-c method, JohnLegend for example, full of enthusiasim, but so far in the JL challenge, of which I am responsible for monitoring and reporting the results, well, in almost 5 months he's DOWN approx £300 in the red. So your only gripe is that a reliable a-b-c method 'could' be out there but is being held very close to someones chest, if you can change your mindset into believing it isn't then you can clear your mind and accept you have to keep looking until YOU find what works for you.

Quote from: Gizmotron on March 27, 2013, 05:01:46 PM
I'm sure that most people believe that a real HG should never be widely available... That's exactly why I did it...

Great thread wannawin!


Albalaha, I have not read your HG thread or this thread completely yet, just glanced over them, but many many thanks for starting it. To all who say Al is not for real, Ophis does not play around : )


If someone does have a HG then it is their choice to share or not, either way they are not obligated to do anything.


A HG will always remain a HG published or not, rare to be used : )

Quote from: spike on March 27, 2013, 08:14:26 PM

Very simple Spike. I'm running an experiment in human nature. Heck, even Victor is suggesting a Randomness 101 kind of talking points. No. 1, I don't need the money. Nobody in my family believes I can win whenever I go in a casino. Of course, none of them ever go in casinos. So I have a pallet full of skeptics telling me what I can't do. The mathboyz are the primary targets. My goal is to send a throng against their never ending, drown of fundamentalist dogma. I really don't care if it over saturates the casinos with effective players. I don't care what the casinos are freeked out over. I don't care if you get discovered. I'm only interested in showing the mathboyz that they are wrong.

Giz,


To make a point is a difficult undertaking.


To enjoy your winnings is easy ; )



Thanks and I always appreciate everyone's time and help!

Quote from: Gizmotron on March 27, 2013, 08:30:40 PM
Nobody in my family believes I can win whenever I go in a casino.

Really? What's wrong with them. Don't they know you
published the HG here? That's why I had all the question
mark emoticons in the previous post, where is that post
where that the Grail is in, I missed it. Do you have the
link?

If I am making 1000 euro per month playing roulette for the past several years then the only reason I would post on the forums is to enjoy conversations with players interested in my approach.

Quote from: spike on March 27, 2013, 08:39:38 PM
Really? What's wrong with them. Don't they know you
published the HG here? That's why I had all the question
mark emoticons in the previous post, where is that post
where that the Grail is in, I missed it. Do you have the
link?

Spike, what you want does not concern me. Randomness is not your exclusive domain. It never was. Your 72% contribution has never passed a peer reviewed process. My version of reading randomness will. You and your concerns are irrelevant. You are nothing more than a minor irritation. I've been dealing with the mathazoids for so many years, you are nothing but a bunch of hot air. BTW, you know where every word I've said at these forums are. Don't play unintelligent.

Quote from: AMK on March 27, 2013, 08:20:43 PM
To all who say Al is not for real, Ophis does not play around : )

Phoenix after further development evolved into bot generating 0.26u/spin with 2500 bank.
...
other words... having 500euro im tripling this this per month... +a bit more.

---
people here are not interested in HG.
All they want is to search for it their entire live.
Project Phoenix will not become public because of this attitude.
And i can't be bothered with support.

Quote from: Gizmotron on March 27, 2013, 08:56:10 PM
you know where every word I've said at these forums are. Don't play unintelligent.

I don't remember in what thread you posted your HG
and I wanted a heads up, that's all. How about it?

If you consider an HG to mean a system which ends in plus, even in the longest stretch, you can refer to the HG topic in Ophis' section. More than an easy to use method which u like to play manually, it is a pure bot stuff. It has beaten more than 10 millions data, having sessions like one with 3 million, two 1 million data and various hundreds of thousands of data available to me as well to ophis from our personal  collections, various forums and gambling sites. A few hundred thousands of data were given to us by "magoo" which were beaten gracefully without ever getting irrecoverable losses.
               I don't think that there is anybody else who can match with this HG bot, at least not known to me. If anybody knows any other stuff of that level, please let us know. The HG is still being improved to make it a far better winner with lesser drawdowns.