This is a double dozen method I have been playing for several months now. It was born out of an observation I made about randoms weakness for staying under a five gap for any great period of time on a live wheel. And 7 on 1 exploits this weakness.
THE RULES.
1, We track spins on the DOZENS until we get a double 4 GAP TRIGGER. Three examples are given below. Two are acceptable and the third is a void. A void occurs when two 4 gaps are divided by a gap of 5 or more.
4
4----Classic double 4 gap trigger.
4
3
2
3
4----The second acceptable double 4 gap trigger.
4
7
4----A void as its separated by a gap greater than 3.
2, Once we have our double 4 gap trigger. We continue to track spins until we have a potential 4 gap on the same dozen that gave us our Trigger. Example below.
DOZEN 1
4
3
4
4? This is a potential 4 gap. On the next spin it either becomes a 4 gap or goes to 5 or more.
3, Using up to a 5 step progression. I now commence betting against there being seven of these 4 gaps in a row.
PROGRESSION 1,3,9,27,81 X 2 = 242 UNITS RISK.
4, I stop at winner. So in the example above we would have bet 1 unit on DOZEN 2 and 1 unit on DOZEN 3. And if the ball landed on either of those it's a win. If it hit DOZEN 1. I would continue tracking and go again until I either win one of the 5 steps. Or lose my progression.
5, I advise to play this method LIVE and H.A.R.
RESULTS UPDATE FOR 7 ON 1 FOR 12/01/2013
TOTAL GAMES PLAYED 925
TOTAL GAMES WON 925
TOTAL GAMES LOST ZERO
STRIKERATE 925/0
LONGEST WAIT FOR A WINNER STEP 4 of the progression 6 times. Most wins come in the first two steps of the progression.
I don't recommend this method for beginners. It requires a large BR. Its an advanced method. I just wanted people to know how it works. I am using it in my JL Challenge. I believe it will become a VIRTUAL H.A.R GRAIL. It works very well live. It deals with something random simply struggles to do.
This is the most successful method I have ever used so far. In terms of strikerate. And danger of losing my progression. To have gone this long without even a single challenge on the 242 unit progression it pretty special.
Thanks JL for the reveal of this method.
Perfectly understood. Like similar event triggers this cool creative concept will require patience, concentration, determination and rigidly playing exactly by the rules in order to thwart random. The benefit and reward for the time and effort expended will be a consistent trickle of winning profits that slowly amasses over a period into a healthy, formidable and positive profit balance that in time will enable higher staking for even higher returns out of the growing bankroll. I think it's a gem that should not be dismissed lightly.
A.
QuoteRESULTS UPDATE FOR 7 ON 1 FOR 12/01/2013 TOTAL GAMES PLAYED 925 TOTAL GAMES WON 925 TOTAL GAMES LOST ZERO STRIKERATE 925/0 LONGEST WAIT FOR A WINNER STEP 4 of the progression 6 times. Most wins come in the first two steps of the progression.
What is the bankroll requirement for this? Should I give a sample session to elaborate it?
QuoteWhat is the bankroll requirement for this
242 units, it would take that many games to recover from a loss, on a live wheel that would be days, if not a couple of weeks, madness
Superman, how could you mention that, it never loses..! :P
John, could you throw us say a hundred spins or so, with bet triggers / bet amounts marked beside them..?
Quote from: topcat888 on January 12, 2013, 04:22:45 PM
Superman, how could you mention that, it never loses..! :P
John, could you throw us say a hundred spins or so, with bet triggers / bet amounts marked beside them..?
A method never lose is without exitment, and is it a game? JL may not lose using it, but I think it is not so impossible to lose in a row even after a trigging event, a losing streak can happen at any time.
Quote from: topcat888 on January 12, 2013, 04:22:45 PM
Superman, how could you mention that, it never loses..! :P
John, could you throw us say a hundred spins or so, with bet triggers / bet amounts marked beside them..?
Okay Topcat. Here is the result of a game I played today
05
32
23
28
05
22
09
34
12
15
08
06
25
06
03
32
05
33
05
18
23
0
09----DOUBLE 4 GAP TRIGGER OF DOZEN 1
05
18
12
14
15
18
07----BET 1 STEP 1 LOST
07
20
32
06
14
21
29
29
28
26
06----WIN BET 2 STEP 2 AS DOZEN 1 BECAME A 7 GAP.
It took 42 spins to complete this game. And what I've found in my experience playing the ZONE in the past. Is how hard it is for random to stay under 5 for over 50 spins.
that's where the confidence in this method first came from.
Just checking, so a "gap" is inclusive of the next dozen, like this?
05
32
23
28
05 -- 4
22
09 -- 2
34
12 -- 2
15
08 -- 2
06 -- 1
25
06 -- 2
03 -- 1
32
05 -- 2
33
05 -- 2
18
23
0
09----DOUBLE 4 GAP TRIGGER OF DOZEN 1
Also, it seems that 0 counts toward the gap length.
I believe so Bayes, that got me before... logically you would expect a 'gap' to be not inclusive...?
Quote from: Bayes on January 12, 2013, 04:59:29 PM
Just checking, so a "gap" is inclusive of the next dozen, like this?
05
32
23
28
05 -- 4
22
09 -- 2
34
12 -- 2
15
08 -- 2
06 -- 1
25
06 -- 2
03 -- 1
32
05 -- 2
33
05 -- 2
18
23
0
09----DOUBLE 4 GAP TRIGGER OF DOZEN 1
Also, it seems that 0 counts toward the gap length.
That's right Bayes. So long as the gaps that separate a four gap are 3 or less they count. And they are welcome. As in my experience the longer a dozen stays under 5 with gaps of 1--3.
The less 4 gaps its can produce before it has to show a 5 or more.
John, I thought the zero was ignored..?
Sorry john, but the only gap trigger here is the break with reality. I tested this progression a couple of years ago on these forums. It even used a logical method of searching for a weakness in randomness, an actual situational awareness kind of a trigger. It fails at just slightly more than all the money earned from the very long streaks of winnings. In other, more appropriate words, it's fool's gold.
I also do not believe you started playing this three months ago. Three months ago you were up to your neck in Pattern Breaker. I'm just not buying it. If you had the very best from your magic HAR then why does the need to find advanced methods dazzle you now? You are just faking yourself out. Please stop wasting your time. Find something that really works. Anyone can see that the philosophical discussion on randomness has cut into your effectiveness track. This trigger based, magical HAR HAR system of yours has nothing to do with randomness. It's pure rule based nonsense.
If you're going to play this insanity in a real casino,
bring your life savings and a sleeping bag. You'll
go broke and be real tired too.
Quote from: Gizmotron on January 12, 2013, 05:52:35 PM
Sorry john, but the only gap trigger here is the break with reality. I tested this progression a couple of years ago on these forums. It even used a logical method of searching for a weakness in randomness, an actual situational awareness kind of a trigger. It fails at just slightly more than all the money earned from the very long streaks of winnings. In other, more appropriate words, it's fool's gold.
I also do not believe you started playing this three months ago. Three months ago you were up to your neck in Pattern Breaker. I'm just not buying it. If you had the very best from your magic HAR then why does the need to find advanced methods dazzle you now? You are just faking yourself out. Please stop wasting your time. Find something that really works. Anyone can see that the philosophical discussion on randomness has cut into your effectiveness track. This trigger based, magical HAR HAR system of yours has nothing to do with randomness. It's pure rule based nonsense.
Giz PM TwisterUK. And ask him how long he has known about this method.
I don't need you to throw insults in my direction. Neither you or Spike have anything better to bring to the table. No clear cut method or proof it works. But you will both be the first to jump on me, I expect that. It matters not both of you will be climbing off your high horses this year.
Quote from: topcat888 on January 12, 2013, 05:33:23 PM
John, I thought the zero was ignored..?
I am playing the zero TC. It makes no difference to the results. This thing will win.
Quote from: spike on January 12, 2013, 08:16:11 PM
If you're going to play this insanity in a real casino,
bring your life savings and a sleeping bag. You'll
go broke and be real tired too.
You will do neither. You play this online get with the times. I don't advise anyone to play this until they have a strong BR. And are confident about its strength. I simply introduced it to the forum to show one of the methods that will be used to bring alot of money to Superman and myself this year.
And silence several know alls but show nothings in the process. A few on this forum. And especially the other one.
I don't understanad how the trigger works? :S
Is it a dozen reappear after 4 spins 2 times in a row?
Dozen 123
1
2
3
3
1 - First Gap?
2
3
2
1 -Second Gap? And now betting doz 2 & 3??
John, contacting anyone that believes you, including any made up friends, would be pointless. You are the best friend any casino owner would ever want. So go forth and multiply... and divide .... and...
Quote from: Gizmotron on January 12, 2013, 10:10:51 PM
John, contacting anyone that believes you, including any made up friends, would be pointless. You are the best friend any casino owner would ever want. So go forth and multiply... and divide .... and...
You think so do you? Your golden mistake is assuming you know too much Giz.
You haven't done the homework. Just look at a progression and assume you know the outcome. Just like with PB. You have no idea why they work. Just keep harking on about martingales and triggers. You avoid the crucial reasons I will succeed with these methods.
But as I said to a very arrogant forum owner. Bankrolls don't grow by themselves. We will see how you and the rest explain that away.
JL
Just a thought but rather than bite back why not let adverse comments be the water off the duck's back?
Biting back simply encourages more of the same!!
By the same token, adverse comments of the method will be inevitable -- you already knew that, surely -- and I had to chuckle over Spike's dry wit.
Perhaps he has a point? Some will agree...
Quote from: ignatus on January 12, 2013, 09:40:24 PM
I don't understanad how the trigger works? :S
Is it a dozen reappear after 4 spins 2 times in a row?
Dozen 123
1
2
3
3
1 - First Gap?
2
3
2
1 -Second Gap? And now betting doz 2 & 3??
No Ignatus.
4-----DOZEN 1
3
4-----DOUBLE 4 GAP TRIGGER
4? Once you have the double trigger, the next potential 4 GAP is what you bet against. So here we would bet on DOZEN 2 and DOZEN 3.
The strength of the method is, we are aking random to stay under 5 for a very long time in order to beat us. And its not very good at this. Its forcing random not to figure out a code or hit a certain place on the layout. but to keep itself under a limit. I have several thousand results from a live wheel. And 925 played games where its been unable to show me a 7.
Quote from: esoito on January 12, 2013, 11:36:44 PM
JL
Just a thought but rather than bite back why not let adverse comments be the water off the duck's back?
Biting back simply encourages more of the same!!
By the same token, adverse comments of the method will be inevitable -- you already knew that, surely -- and I had to chuckle over Spike's dry wit.
Perhaps he has a point? Some will agree...
Esoito youre right. Let them come. I already know this is an alltime winner. July 19th is the first milestone. From there all they will have is empty comments.
You don't 20,30,40,50,100 fold a bankroll with losing methods. They will all be singing another tune in the end.
Why is July 19th the day, a milestone?
Quote from: Gizmotron on January 13, 2013, 12:01:07 AM
Why is July 19th the day, a milestone?
Its the first stage in showing what these methods will do when used properly and faithfully. The first stage in showing your know it all attitude. didn't quite know it ALL.
There are several people who have me marked as something im not in for more than a shock.
Quote from: Gizmotron on January 13, 2013, 12:01:07 AM
Why is July 19th the day, a milestone?
He did the exact same thing on VLS. it's a 'safe' date, its so far
in the future that people will forget, he'll be banned, or have
disappeared before then. Its an old flim flam trick.
Quote from: spike on January 13, 2013, 12:30:59 AM
He did the exact same thing on VLS. it's a 'safe' date, its so far
in the future that people will forget, he'll be banned, or have
disappeared before then. Its an old flim flam trick.
Spike: I've made a note of the date.
And made a copy of posts thus far.
So on that date I'll be looking for some response/feedback on progress at that particular milestone.
Accountability, and all that...
I wrote the date on my ol' fat belly and will not shower until then! :o
Again bigger gambler's fallacy coupled with most insane progression ever played by mankind. Tell me one thing, JL, how do u think of playing anything like that? It is even worse than Pattern Breaker.
I always thought that Gizmotron and Spike are doing too much criticism against you, but I can see they were totally correct. You may win even with this JL but you may lead many to commit suicide, believing you.
Quote from: albalaha on January 13, 2013, 04:54:57 AM
you may lead many to commit suicide, believing you.
I said that a few weeks ago. This guy doesn't play
for real money, EVER, listen to him at your own risk.
Quote from: spike on January 13, 2013, 08:03:39 AM
I said that a few weeks ago. This guy doesn't play
for real money, EVER, listen to him at your own risk.
I don't want to go too personal but this can't be a way to play, in real world.
Quote from: albalaha on January 13, 2013, 04:54:57 AM
... but you may lead many to commit suicide, believing you.
Really..!?! Are we all that gullible here..?? Whilst this may be a Harebrain idea with an Insane Progression, surely people are not stupid enough to try it if they don't want to lose it..??
Why not just let John carry on proving his systems in peace..?
He has provided his "out of world" stuff already. Would you like to try this?
Quote from: albalaha on January 13, 2013, 08:34:09 AM
He has provided his "out of world" stuff already. Would you like to try this?
Then just let him do that..? You don't
have to try it and neither do I...!
Please read this : http://albalaha.lefora.com/2011/12/04/open-internet-scam-by-casino-affiliates/ (http://albalaha.lefora.com/2011/12/04/open-internet-scam-by-casino-affiliates/)
7 on 1 is taking/leading towards a hole so deep, nobody would ever be able to recover. If u r interested in playing martingale type things u don't need to be in a discussion forum.
Such"out of world" winning claims upon such a dangerous way to play is nothing else but insanity. I request Bayes, Gizmo, Spike or any other sensible person to test this method and bring forth its reality.
Quote from: albalaha on January 13, 2013, 08:34:09 AM
He has provided his "out of world" stuff already. Would you like to try this?
Albalaha, did you bother to read what I wrote at the start of this thread? I said I don't advise ANYONE to play this method unless they have a strong BR and believe in the methods strength.
Funny how you missed that. I simply showed the method to the forum. No one needs to use it. Its just there so you will know one of the methods that won for me.
Quote from: albalaha on January 13, 2013, 08:47:33 AM
I request Bayes, Gizmo, Spike or any other sensible person to test this method and bring forth its reality.
Can you not manage that yourself..? :nope:
John,
I don't have anything personal against you but willingly or unwillingly you are pushing newbies towards a "suicide point". You have said that u have won 900+ sessions without losing even once. If you get even just two-three losses in next 100 sessions, it would take you a month to recover.
Are you claiming to win the world by July, with this?
QuoteCan you not manage that yourself..?
I don't create trackers
Quote from: esoito on January 13, 2013, 12:58:49 AM
Spike: I've made a note of the date.
And made a copy of posts thus far.
So on that date I'll be looking for some response/feedback on progress at that particular milestone.
Accountability, and all that...
Esoito you will have it. SUPERMAN is my verifier. The problem with Spike is he doesn't look around he reads and believes what he wants to. He says I don't play for real. I put no money where my thoughts/beliefs are.
Who financed Speramus? Who will turn 200 units into tens of thousands? Who will donate 10% of all winnings to this forum? It won't be him will it.?
Quote from: albalaha on January 13, 2013, 09:01:11 AM
John,
I don't have anything personal against you but willingly or unwillingly you are pushing newbies towards a "suicide point". You have said that u have won 250+ sessions without losing even once. If you get even just two losses in next 100 sessions, it would take you a month to recover.
Are you claiming to win the world by July, with this?
I don't create trackers
Albalaha im surprised at you. Your total overeaction it unwarranted. Very few play PB at only 7 units buy in. Do you really think anyone will play 7 ON 1 at 242 units buy in???. I simply published the method with Victor's consent to show one of the prime methods I will use to prove I am for real.
And where do you get 250 from. I am 930/0 for 7 ON 1.
Nobody else has to touch it. And I say to everyone else don't. Okay does that get through to you?
He posted his system YOU don't HAVE to play it. Now get off his back.
[Edited by Moderator]
John,
You claim to win 925 sessions, without a loss, with this. It is indigestible in itself and an exaggeration. Your this method has impractical and out of world triggers as well as progressions. Even someobody starts playing with 10,000 chips, this way, he won't be able to double that, even in an year. He may, rather lose all.
"Pattern Breaker" is far more sensible and worth trying than this.
JL clearly issued this WARNING in his first post:
"I don't recommend this method for beginners. It requires a large BR. It's an advanced method. "
Can't be much clearer than that!!
Presumably adults on the forum are capable of reading that and then making their own decision.
Some of the posts are way too heated and losing perspective.
I suggest everyone takes a cold shower and waits until 19 July.
Then let's see what's what.
Quote from: albalaha on January 13, 2013, 09:01:11 AM
John,
I don't have anything personal against you but willingly or unwillingly you are pushing newbies towards a "suicide point". You have said that u have won 900+ sessions without losing even once. If you get even just two-three losses in next 100 sessions, it would take you a month to recover.
Are you claiming to win the world by July, with this?
I don't create trackers
Albalaha that is my risk. Why are you so concerned? The method hasnt even been challenged yet ON A LIVE WHEEL. Make sure you understand that.
I am showing one of the methods I use to win. The point isn't how much I win. But that I win consistently as I claim. To silence the doubters. Who have called me a liar and charleton. And you know ONE OF THEM very well.
QuoteAlbalaha that is my risk. Why are you so concerned?
I believe that this forum is not your private place so misleading things would affect all and not just me.
Quote"I don't recommend this method for beginners. It requires a large BR. It's an advanced method. "
I can see that very advanced players can play this and would like to know any one of them.
JL,
You have every right to publish your methods here but please do not say that u have won 925 sessions with it, without a single loss. You remind me of Donny Millionaire whose all methods are nothing else but different style to play martingale or even dangerous progressions. Martingale takes time to lose but it loses so badly, recovery isn't possible.
Casinos may call you to felicitate for this marvel of yours. :applause:
Quote from: albalaha on January 13, 2013, 09:42:01 AM
I believe that this forum is not your private place so misleading things would affect all and not just me.
I can see that very advanced players can play this and would like to know any one of them.
JL,
You have every right to publish your methods here but please do not say that u have won 925 sessions with it, without a single loss. You remind me of Donny Millionaire whose all methods are nothing else but different style to play martingale or even dangerous progressions. Martingale takes time to lose but it loses so badly, recovery isn't possible.
Casinos may call you to felicitate for this marvel of yours. :applause:
Albalaha, the exact reason I am doing the challenge. Is your doubting thomas attitude. Twister won 500 odd games on an RNG with this. You don't have to believe in it or use it. Step back and relax. I will show what this can do over the coming months and years.
John, something I don't get, is you state: I now commence betting against there being seven of these 4 gaps in a row
However, the last bet that won the game (the second bet) did not commence betting after three gaps from a dozen one number, see below:
09----DOUBLE 4 GAP TRIGGER OF DOZEN 1
05
18
12
14
15
18
07----BET 1 STEP 1 LOST
07
20
32
06 - Dozen 1 - second trigger..?
14 - count one
21 - count two
29 - count three
29 - Why did you not bet here..??
28
26
06----WIN BET 2 STEP 2 AS DOZEN 1 BECAME A 7 GAP.
Quote from: topcat888 on January 13, 2013, 10:21:35 AM
John, something I don't get, is you state: I now commence betting against there being seven of these 4 gaps in a row
However, the last bet that won the game (the second bet) did not commence betting after three gaps from a dozen one number, see below:
09----DOUBLE 4 GAP TRIGGER OF DOZEN 1
05
18
12
14
15
18
07----BET 1 STEP 1 LOST
07
20
32
06 - Dozen 1 - second trigger..?
14 - count one
21 - count two
29 - count three
29 - Why did you not bet here..??
28
26
06----WIN BET 2 STEP 2 AS DOZEN 1 BECAME A 7 GAP.
Lol I would have bet there TC. I simply highlighted when DOZEN 1 hit again to show it became a 7 GAP.
Why are we interested if it became a 7 GAP or not..?? ???
Quote from: topcat888 on January 13, 2013, 10:34:58 AM
Why are we interested if it became a 7 GAP or not..?? ???
No particular reason TC. That was just where it came to rest in that particular game. All we are interested in is that the game won and it went beyond 4.
So, if I am correct you won the second bet on progression step 5, correct..?
Quote from: topcat888 on January 13, 2013, 10:40:10 AM
So, if I am correct you won the second bet on progression step 5, correct..?
In that game TC this is where we bet.
09-----DOUBLE 4 GAP TRIGGER
05
18
12*
14
15
18
07----BET 1 STEP 1 LOST
07
20
32
06*
14
21
29
29----BET 2 STEP 2 WON AS DOZEN 1 didn't BECOME A 4 GAP
28
26
06
ok, so I'm correct, by the time you won, you were on progressin step 5... :thumbsup:
Quote from: topcat888 on January 13, 2013, 11:19:56 AM
ok, so I'm correct, by the time you won, you were on progressin step 5... :thumbsup:
No TC that was step 2 of the 5 step progression. I've never had to go to the 5th step yet in 930 games.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 13, 2013, 11:22:46 AM
No TC that was step 2 of the 5 step progression. I've never had to go to the 5th step yet in 930 games.
Correct - and of course there are other double doz progressions mentioned elsewhere that *could* be utilised instead of the total 242 risk...
A.
Quote from: atlantis on January 13, 2013, 11:41:52 AM
Correct - and of course there are other double doz progressions mentioned elsewhere that *could* be utilised instead of the total 242 risk...
A.
Of course there are Atlantis, I don't want anyone to play this progression or even the method for real. I only published it to show one of my chief methods.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 13, 2013, 11:22:46 AM
No TC that was step 2 of the 5 step progression. I've never had to go to the 5th step yet in 930 games.
Of course... ::) got it.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 13, 2013, 11:56:24 AM
...I only published it to show one of my chief methods.
And 'good on ya' for doing so, good or bad, that is for people to make their own mind up.
Quote from: albalaha on January 13, 2013, 09:20:04 AM
John,
You claim to win 925 sessions, without a loss, with this. It is indigestible in itself and an exaggeration.
This coming from the guy who publicly states in his signature "I have beaten the game of roulette".
Interesting.
AD
Quote from: ADulay on January 13, 2013, 06:45:37 PM
This coming from the guy who publicly states in his signature "I have beaten the game of roulette".
Interesting.
AD
Well Adulay I was surprised at Albalaha's reaction. I understand he is a flat betting devotee.
But I have made it clear this method is for an advanced player with a huge BR. Who has done enough testing to realize 242 units is worth the risk.
What's amusing is if someone lost 242 units flat betting. No one makes any noise about it.
As soon as you mention the word martingale. Everyone and the kitchen sink are up in arms.
I aim to prove that sometimes. JUST SOMETIMES, a martingale even seemingly this extreme is justified.
If the bet selection is that powerful it is.
Good luck with it JL and I hope you take the casino to the cleaners.
Money won is always twice as sweet as money earned! :thumbsup:
Quote from: Bally6354 on January 13, 2013, 07:49:53 PM
Good luck with it JL and I hope you take the casino to the cleaners.
Money won is always twice as sweet as money earned! :thumbsup:
Thanks Bally. This is only one of 5 methods I use.
Quote from: ADulay on January 13, 2013, 06:45:37 PM
This coming from the guy who publicly states in his signature "I have beaten the game of roulette".
Interesting.
AD
I have not beaten the game only once but keep beating that. Check my old section in rf.cc: http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?board=32.0 (http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?board=32.0)
I am the one who has posted proofs of daily winnings, won many no deposit wagering challenges and won "hall of fame" by a public system testers site beating 100k spins with 1000 units only and multiplying bankroll to more than 6.5 times. See: http://albalaha.lefora.com/2011/12/12/entering-hall-of-fame/ (http://albalaha.lefora.com/2011/12/12/entering-hall-of-fame/)
I have documented every claim of mine. How many of you guys could do that ever? Is there any single member here who could think of beating upto 80x wagering, playing slots, not just once but more than a dozen times. http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=347.0 (http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=347.0)
I don't say I have beaten 925 sessions without any loss. I would never try a progression that can kill profit of 100s of sessions.
I like Michael (Johnlegend) as a person and have even defended Pattern Breaker because it looked playable to me. When I had a chat with Johnlegend, I told him, martingale is an escapist way of playing. When a person get tired of thinking everything else, martingale looks like a panacea. He said, he is not in favor of dangerous progression either. A three step martingale is not as dangerous.
I agreed. Pattern Breaker is just a way of playing as any other and 1-2-4 can be acceptable as progression.
This 7 on 1 is not looking a mature way of playing to me which is solely relying upon a deadly progression. Anybody can test it and prove me wrong, if I am talking nonsense.
Alblablablahahalabhaahhalla
If it's not a good way to play, don't play it!
TCS
I know what is good and bad and want to warn others too regarding "dangerous progressions". Don't jump across fire repeatedly.
Quote from: albalaha on January 14, 2013, 04:29:56 AM
I know what is good and bad and want to warn others too regarding "dangerous progressions". Don't jump across fire repeatedly.
Albalaha, heres how I look at it. You could lose more than 242 units flat betting. And people do, if the methods no good.
I know people who have drawdowns into four figures. And spend days trying to recover. Now on the surface 242 looks like a crazy risk to win 1 unit.
But If my strikerate playing H.A.R ends up being several thousand to one. Its not so crazy anymore. As I said, I don't want anyone to play this progression.
I am financially strong enough to do this experiment. And that's why I've undertaken to-find out if its as good as it looks on past results live.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 14, 2013, 06:24:50 AM
You could lose more than 242 units flat betting.
I can't!
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 14, 2013, 06:24:50 AM
Albalaha, heres how I look at it. You could lose more than 242 units flat betting. And people do, if the methods no good.
I know people who have drawdowns into four figures. And spend days trying to recover. Now on the surface 242 looks like a crazy risk to win 1 unit.
But If my strikerate playing H.A.R ends up being several thousand to one. Its not so crazy anymore. As I said, I don't want anyone to play this progression.
I am financially strong enough to do this experiment. And that's why I've undertaken to-find out if its as good as it looks on past results live.
When ever you enter the playing, it is beyond any reasonable chance it can work 1000 of times in a row. The chance of two or more bust after each ohter are not very small. In the game of roulette everything can happen, so it is not impossible, just very unlikley. If we got a simulator and it were possible to run it as you play, I am sure very few will fix 1000 of spins without a bust.
We know any method played of a large number of persons, one or a few will come out very well, most will not.
Hey guys, I've just written a simulation of 7 on 1 and it appears to do very well on a single zero wheel. Losses are VERY rare and I can't seem to make it lose - after several million RNG spins the balance is still way up! :o
I'm pretty sure there are no bugs in the code, but I'm going to upload a 1M actuals file with bets marked on it and a running balance so you can all check it.
Later...
Quote from: albalaha on January 14, 2013, 02:55:41 AM
I have not beaten the game only once but keep beating that. Check my old section in rf.cc: http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?board=32.0 (http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?board=32.0)
I am the one who has posted proofs of daily winnings, won many no deposit wagering challenges and won "hall of fame" by a public system testers site beating 100k spins with 1000 units only and multiplying bankroll to more than 6.5 times. See: http://albalaha.lefora.com/2011/12/12/entering-hall-of-fame/ (http://albalaha.lefora.com/2011/12/12/entering-hall-of-fame/)
I am sorry but i am the one in first place @testmystrategy web site.
;)
Quote from: MarignyGrilleau on January 14, 2013, 11:20:23 AM
I am sorry but i am the one in first place @testmystrategy web site.
;)
That's only because I never tested my strategy over there! ;)
(only joking)
:D
A sample of RNG results, each run is 1 million spins -
Total winning games: 16311 units
Total losing games: 20 x 242 = -4840 units
Total Profit = 11471
--------------------------------------------------
Total winning games: 14973 units
Total losing games: 26 x 242 = -6292 units
Total Profit = 8681
--------------------------------------------------
Total winning games: 16248 units
Total losing games: 21 x 242 = -5082 units
Total Profit = 11166
--------------------------------------------------
Total winning games: 15021 units
Total losing games: 25 x 242 = -6050 units
Total Profit = 8971
--------------------------------------------------
Total winning games: 15050 units
Total losing games: 26 x 242 = -6292 units
Total Profit = 8758
:o :o :o :nod: :cheer:
Quote from: Bayes on January 14, 2013, 11:55:24 AM
A sample of RNG results, each run is 1 million spins -
Total winning games: 16311 units
Total losing games: 20 x 242 = -4840 units
Total Profit = 11471
--------------------------------------------------
Total winning games: 14973 units
Total losing games: 26 x 242 = -6292 units
Total Profit = 8681
--------------------------------------------------
Total winning games: 16248 units
Total losing games: 21 x 242 = -5082 units
Total Profit = 11166
--------------------------------------------------
Total winning games: 15021 units
Total losing games: 25 x 242 = -6050 units
Total Profit = 8971
--------------------------------------------------
Total winning games: 15050 units
Total losing games: 26 x 242 = -6292 units
Total Profit = 8758
:o :o :o :nod: :cheer:
This should be fun!
[attachimg=1]
My old mate COLIN would now be saying....
IS THIS REALLY THE ONE! (he liked using caps)
Seriously though........
Those are pretty spectacular results Bayes.
I can also see where JL is coming from when he defends the progression. It looks like a loss is going to come once in a blue moon if those results are indicative of any future performance.
Well done JL :thumbsup:
I've just realized that although the simulation is done on a single zero wheel, I haven't taken account of when the zero hits between a trigger of 2 and 7 4's. Nevertheless, this is still an unprecedented result, and I guess you could always cover the zero towards the end of the progression.
Congratulations to JL for his method. But if this hits in so good ratio, I think playing not so volatile MM should be fine also, as John said most of the time hits come on first two steps...
Now my only worry is that Vic will start to recieve death threats and he will have to close this forum... :fight: LoL
So all should be advised to copy the rules until is not too late >:D
Best
Drazen
Quote from: Drazen on January 14, 2013, 12:32:54 PM
Congratulations to JL for his method. But if this hits in so good ratio, I think playing not so volatile MM should be fine also, as John said most of the time hits come on first two steps...
Now my only worry is that Vic will start to recieve death threats and he will have to close this forum... :fight: LoL
So all should be advised to copy the rules until is not too late >:D
Best
Drazen
Drazen thankyou. I honestly didn't expect it to do that well against a million spins on an RNG.
Thanks to Bayes for all his hard work. What you have to know about me is im very conservative when it comes to risk. I would never risk 242 units unless I have a very good feeling about something.
Its only through years of results with the ZONE. That I aquired that feeling. If you don't see something happen on a live wheel in nearly 3,000 results. You have to look into it.
So we know now 7 on 1 can survive a million spins. Maybe Albalaha will believe that I wasn't making up my results now.
And Superman will like what he sees here too. He stands to gain alot financially from this until we are stopped.
Thanks again Bayes. 10% of whatever I make from this and the other methods will be donated to Victor and the forum. So many will benefit from this.
Well John, this is the only method of yours that succeeded in tests.. Other were blasted like out of canon.
Bayes were trying to simulate H.A.R and it failed too. So only thing people had were your words actualy and few words of those who were playing your way also. I personaly think H.A.R (as most of like to call random entry and exit points in play) doesn't mean anything and that is logical if you think about it, but everyone on its own I say.
It would be interesting to see how this method would go with +2 -1 progression.
Now as it goes I expect that someone of those brilliant coders on few platforms we have here, will made tracker and people will be able to earn with no thinking and knwoing anything at all. (Although I am jealous about giving knowledge and skills for longterm earnings to anyone so I know some will use this, who even doesn't know how many numbers or on the roulette, but what the heck..) Earn? No. Better to say destroy casinos..
But will it go just like that? The proof is here so, it will be interesting to watch this thread in coming time.. 8)
Best
Drazen
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 14, 2013, 01:10:30 PM
I honestly didn't expect it to do that well against a million spins on an RNG.
Well, it actually HASN'T done that well, because I didn't incorporate the zero factor. This must push up the number of busts, which theoretically would be enough to put the results negative, but even so, I've never seen a system which has done as well even on a no-zero wheel.
So when I upload the actuals file/results, I'll make sure I've taken account of the zero so you get the true picture.
Quote from: Drazen on January 14, 2013, 01:31:33 PM
Well John, this is the only method of yours that succeeded in tests.. Other were blasted like out of canon.
Bayes were trying to simulate H.A.R and it failed too. So only thing people had were your words actualy and few words of those who were playing your way also. I personaly think H.A.R (as most of like to call random entry and exit points in play) doesn't mean anything and that is logical if you think about it, but everyone on its own I say.
It would be interesting to see how this method would go with +2 -1 progression.
Now as it goes I expect that someone of those brilliant coders on few platforms we have here, will made tracker and people will be able to earn with no thinking and knwoing anything at all. (Although I am jealous about giving knowledge and skills for longterm earnings to anyone so I know some will use this, who even doesn't know how many numbers or on the roulette, but what the heck..) Earn? No. Better to say destroy casinos..
But will it go just like that? The proof is here so, it will be interesting to watch this thread in coming time.. 8)
Best
Drazen
Drazen you only have to succeed once. I still believe in my other methods. They require more work and MM.
I dreamt of getting a method that could win on auto pilot. Now it looks lke we have it. It still won't change alot in the roulette world.
But more people now know its possible. That's all I've ever wanted.
Nice work JL !!! Thank you for sharing!! I have been traveling a lot to start this year off but pop in from time to time to see what's new. Great Stuff, Great Appraoch, Great Thinking! .... :)
Quote from: Chauncy47 on January 14, 2013, 01:44:40 PM
Nice work JL !!! Thank you for sharing!! I have been traveling a lot to start this year off but pop in from time to time to see what's new. Great Stuff, Great Appraoch, Great Thinking! .... :)
Thankyou my friend, not bad for a fake charleton scam artist. As I've been called. No doubt the likes of Spike and Giz will avoid this thread now.
Hello JL
I think I get it!
Is this correct?
16 (2)
35 (3)
10 (1)
22 (2)...3
8 (1)....2
15 (2)...2
31 (3)...5
7 (1)....3
0 (*)
8 (1)....2
4 (1)....1
26 (3)...5
25 (3)...1
22 (2)...8
13 (2)...1
10 (1)...5
1 (1)....1
0 (*)
23 (2)...4
9 (1)....3
23 (2)...2
32 (3)...9
27 (3)...1
33 (3)...1
16 (2)...4 (Does the 2 qualify here?)
22 (2)...1
10 (1)...7
5 (1)....1
28 (3)...5
8 (1)....2 (I bet for the 1st and 3rd dozen here and WON)
cheers :thumbsup:
Quote from: Bayes on January 14, 2013, 01:39:07 PM
Well, it actually HASN'T done that well, because I didn't incorporate the zero factor. This must push up the number of busts, which theoretically would be enough to put the results negative, but even so, I've never seen a system which has done as well even on a no-zero wheel.
So when I upload the actuals file/results, I'll make sure I've taken account of the zero so you get the true picture.
I still think it would do even better on a million live spins Bayes. That's why this is exciting news for me. I only ever play this live. Now 935/0
Quote from: Bally6354 on January 14, 2013, 01:53:16 PM
Hello JL
I think I get it!
Is this correct?
16 (2)
35 (3)
10 (1)
22 (2)...3
8 (1)....2
15 (2)...2
31 (3)...5
7 (1)....3
0 (*)
8 (1)....2
4 (1)....1
26 (3)...5
25 (3)...1
22 (2)...8
13 (2)...1
10 (1)...5
1 (1)....1
0 (*)
23 (2)...4
9 (1)....3
23 (2)...2
32 (3)...9
27 (3)...1
33 (3)...1
16 (2)...4 (Does the 2 qualify here?)
22 (2)...1
10 (1)...7
5 (1)....1
28 (3)...5
8 (1)....2 (I bet for the 1st and 3rd dozen here and WON)
cheers :thumbsup:
Bally, I think it could be wrong, but I can't see exactly what you're doing. Basically, the trigger is when you see 2 "gaps" of 4 and they don't have to be consecutive as long as any gaps in between are less than 4. If any gap between 4 and another 4 is greater than 4, then you need to start re-tracking. When you have your 2 4's you wait for another 4 and bet that it will become a 5 - ie: bet the other 2 dozens. That's it. There's no magic to the number 4, I'm sure you could use other gap lengths and the results would be similar.
Quote from: Bayes on January 14, 2013, 02:47:04 PM
Bally, I think it could be wrong, but I can't see exactly what you're doing. Basically, the trigger is when you see 2 "gaps" of 4 and they don't have to be consecutive as long as any gaps in between are less than 4. If any gap between 4 and another 4 is greater than 4, then you need to start re-tracking. When you have your 2 4's you wait for another 4 and bet that it will become a 5 - ie: bet the other 2 dozens. That's it. There's no magic to the number 4, I'm sure you could use other gap lengths and the results would be similar.
Possibly Bayes. I have seen seven 5 gaps though live three times. Playing the zone.
It would be of a great suprise if the millon spis will last winning. We know every thing can happen, but it is probably not so the casinos will close or much change the rules to play. In a infinite (which we can always just be in as a limited part of it) it can happen JL and all here can win using it, at the probability is as the humans will be in extinct in 100 years. ( the game of JL I think has less probability, but not impossible). After a second thougth JL may have better chance than we are here in 100 years, that's hard to digest.
Quote from: Ralph on January 14, 2013, 03:08:00 PM
It would be of a great suprise if the millon spis will last winning. We know every thing can happen, but it is probably not so the casinos will close or much change the rules to play. In a infinite (which we can always just be in as a limited part of it) it can happen JL and all here can win using it, at the probability is as the humans will be in extinct in 100 years. ( the game of JL I think has less probability, but not impossible). After a second thougth JL may have better chance than we are here in 100 years, that's hard to digest.
Ralph you must know as everyone should know. Even if you found a HG and gift wrapped it and gave it to every gambler on the planet. The casinos will still be very safe.
Its never been the game. Its the mind of the person playing it that always breaks first. And if man is still here a 1,000,000 years from now. That will not have changed.
Quote from: Bayes on January 14, 2013, 02:47:04 PM
When you have your 2 4's you wait for another 4 and bet that it will become a 5 - ie: bet the other 2 dozens. That's it.
That's where one of us has it wrong!
I think you bet for the third 4 not to appear.
Like so....
05 (1)
32 (3)
23 (2)
28 (3)
05 (1)......gap of 4.......
22 (2)
09 (1).....gap of 2......
34 (3)
12 (1).....gap of 2.......
15 (2)
08 (1).....gap of 2.......
06 (1)....gap of 1........
25 (3)
06 (1).....gap of 2......
03 (1).....gap of 1......
32 (3)
05 (1)......gap of 2.......
33 (3)
05 (1).....gap of 2......
18 (2)
23 (2)
0 (*)
09 (1).....gap of 4.......
05 (1).....gap of 1......
18 (2)
12 (1).....gap of 2.......
14 (2)
15 (2)
18 (2)
07 (1).... gap of 4....... lost here betting the 2nd and 3rd dozen.
07 (1).....gap of 1.......
20 (2)
32 (3)
06 (1)....gap of 3........
14 (2)
21 (2)
29 (3)
29 (3)......won here. **I am assuming we would bet here**
28 (3) **Bayes is assuming we would bet here**
26 (3)
06 (1)
Hopefully JL can clear it up.
cheers.
you bet one the one that you say Bally, not the one that Bayes thinks ;)
I know the triggers well enough because i made the 8/1 tracker in excel :)
You always bet after the third gap that is doesn't become a 4-gap.
It's that easy
Stef
Quote from: Bally6354 on January 14, 2013, 03:32:26 PM
That's where one of us has it wrong!
I think you bet for the third 4 not to appear.
Like so....
05 (1)
32 (3)
23 (2)
28 (3)
05 (1)......gap of 4.......
22 (2)
09 (1).....gap of 2......
34 (3)
12 (1).....gap of 2.......
15 (2)
08 (1).....gap of 2.......
06 (1)....gap of 1........
25 (3)
06 (1).....gap of 2......
03 (1).....gap of 1......
32 (3)
05 (1)......gap of 2.......
33 (3)
05 (1).....gap of 2......
18 (2)
23 (2)
0 (*)
09 (1).....gap of 4.......
05 (1).....gap of 1......
18 (2)
12 (1).....gap of 2.......
14 (2)
15 (2)
18 (2)
07 (1).... gap of 4....... lost here betting the 2nd and 3rd dozen.
07 (1).....gap of 1.......
20 (2)
32 (3)
06 (1)....gap of 3........
14 (2)
21 (2)
29 (3)
29 (3)......won here. **I am assuming we would bet here**
28 (3) **Bayes is assuming we would bet here**
26 (3)
06 (1)
Hopefully JL can clear it up.
cheers.
Bally what I think Bayes meant was you wait for a 3 and bet it doesn't become a 4. A 4 can't become a 5 because its already a 4. Do you see my point?
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 14, 2013, 03:44:44 PM
Bally what I think Bayes meant was you wait for a 3 and bet it doesn't become a 4. A 4 can't become a 5 because its already a 4. Do you see my point?
ok thanks, I understand it but there is a difference between waiting for a 3 to become a 4 or a 4 to become a 5 which is what I interpreted Bayes as saying.
These things are better cleared up before anybody starts using it.
cheers.
Quote from: Bally6354 on January 14, 2013, 03:54:16 PM
ok thanks, I understand it but there is a difference between waiting for a 3 to become a 4 or a 4 to become a 5 which is what I interpreted Bayes as saying.
These things are better cleared up before anybody starts using it.
cheers.
Well number 1, the way I just explained is the right way. Number 2. No ones really going to use this except me.
That's why the game will always be safe, 242 is still too much risk. And it lost 20--30 times per million minus the zero.
I know already ths is an alltime winner especially on a live wheel. Remember I have yet to be challenged not just lose.
Random is running out of steam by the fourth 4. The vast majority of the time. I've only had 6 X 5 four gaps. In 935 games. This is when H.A.R shows its value.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 14, 2013, 03:44:44 PM
Bally what I think Bayes meant was you wait for a 3 and bet it doesn't become a 4. A 4 can't become a 5 because its already a 4. Do you see my point?
Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry for any confusion. You are actually betting that the GAP will be at least a 5, that's what I was trying to get across.
Thank you Bayes :thumbsup:
Do you just play this on the dozens JL?
7 on 1 vs Dublinbet Table 1 2400 spins
7 on 1 vs Dublinbet Table 1 4000 spins
7 on 1 vs first 20,000 spins from Bayes 1 Million set
Quote from: Bally6354 on January 14, 2013, 04:33:19 PM
Thank you Bayes :thumbsup:
Do you just play this on the dozens JL?
Yes they have the history because of the vast back results I have for THE ZONE.
As I said before my enthusiasm for this method and willingness to put 242 units on the line, comes from what I never saw in nearly 3,000 results. Remember I have yet to see this thing lose live.
Quote from: Bayes on January 14, 2013, 10:58:44 AM
Hey guys, I've just written a simulation of 7 on 1 and it appears to do very well on a single zero wheel. Losses are VERY rare and I can't seem to make it lose - after several million RNG spins the balance is still way up! :o
I'm pretty sure there are no bugs in the code, but I'm going to upload a 1M actuals file with bets marked on it and a running balance so you can all check it.
Later...
Are you joking? Please use the appropiate smiles.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 14, 2013, 01:46:56 PM
Thankyou my friend, not bad for a fake charleton scam artist. As I've been called. No doubt the likes of Spike and Giz will avoid this thread now.
Isn't that the truth! Now all I have to do is move to Europe and I have got it made!
Quote from: Chauncy47 on January 14, 2013, 05:45:08 PM
Isn't that the truth! Now all I have to do is move to Europe and I have got it made!
You could always rent an apartment Chauncy. Once you are strong enough not to have to work. Id cover your expenses.
Quote from: Ralph on January 14, 2013, 05:31:52 PM
Are you joking? Please use the appropiate smiles.
No. :nope:
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 14, 2013, 01:10:30 PM
Thanks again Bayes. 10% of whatever I make from this and the other methods will be donated to Victor and the forum. So many will benefit from this.
That's quite kind dear John. Thank you VERY much.
It's reassuring to know there'll be your monthly help :nod:
Quote from: Drazen on January 14, 2013, 12:32:54 PM
Now my only worry is that Vic will start to recieve death threats
:o I certainly hope it isn't the case! :pirate:
Quote from: Bayes on January 14, 2013, 06:19:26 PM
No. :nope:
I like your thinking and I am still on target with the growth of my BR ... so it will be good to have a few beers with you this summer or fall!
Quote from: VLS on January 14, 2013, 06:34:13 PM
:o I certainly hope it isn't the case! :pirate:
Relax Victor, human nature being what it is, not even 10 people will ever use this method faithfully. Meaning little threat to the powers that be.
Meaning no threats.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 14, 2013, 06:56:01 PM
Relax Victor, human nature being what it is, not even 10 people will ever use this method faithfully. Meaning little threat to the powers that be.
Meaning no threats.
You're right. Patience and Discipline
Quote from: Chauncy47 on January 14, 2013, 07:33:10 PM
Your right. Patience and Discipline
Two things that few humans have.
QuoteRelax Victor, human nature being what it is, not even 10 people will ever use this method faithfully. Meaning little threat to the powers that be.
Meaning no threats.
As far as the casino is concerned we are just crazy and casino has us in the palm of the hand.
Rest assured you will not get death threats. Not even approaches to talk about bribery.
Quote from: wannawin on January 15, 2013, 01:33:42 AM
As far as the casino is concerned we are just crazy and casino has us in the palm of the hand.
Rest assured you will not get death threats. Not even approaches to talk about bribery.
Casinos never worry. Their confidence is built upon what they know of human nature Everything else is just there to confuse and distract.
If enough people could be programmed to read between the lines they WOULD be in trouble. But that's never going to be the case. So it will always be a tiny minority that can beat them consistently.
While the masses pay for it all.
John, I'm just finalizing the simulation for 7 on 1 which takes account of the zero (that pesky zero is a pain in the a*** for coders as well as players); could you do me a favour and upload some of your tested spins? I want to check that the code generates the same results that you've got.
Cheers! :thumbsup:
Quote from: Bayes on January 16, 2013, 04:04:09 PM
John, I'm just finalizing the simulation for 7 on 1 which takes account of the zero (that pesky zero is a pain in the a*** for coders as well as players); could you do me a favour and upload some of your tested spins? I want to check that the code generates the same results that you've got.
Cheers! :thumbsup:
Hi Bayes are you referring to the tests I've done against your 1 million actuals?
Not necessarily, they could be any numbers, I just want to compare your results with those that the program generates. If you've been working through the 1M actuals file from the beginning then I could use that - just let me know how many units/bets you made in the first few hundred spins, that should be enough. Or I could post the output here and you could compare with your results.
Quote from: Bayes on January 16, 2013, 04:54:28 PM
Not necessarily, they could be any numbers, I just want to compare your results with those that the program generates. If you've been working through the 1M actuals file from the beginning then I could use that - just let me know how many units/bets you made in the first few hundred spins, that should be enough. Or I could post the output here and you could compare with your results.
Okay I've got 50 odd results for Dozen 1 on your actuals. Keep in mind im a technophobe. So I will try and copy paste them to here. Give me a while.
21
19
29
36
7
7
16
12
20
2
7
11
6**
34
24
35
12----04--dozen 1
8**
23
24
22
22
10----05--dozen 1
27
18
28
15
21
17
28
4-----08--dozen 1
30
1
8**
16
36
13
2-----04--dozen 1
24
4**
30
17
18
31
1-----05--dozen 1
29
27
25
3-----04--dozen 1
7
1
18
33
7
35
11
1
17
14
9
19
6
4
35
6
6**
19
34
0
26
30
13
35
16
11----09--dozen 1
7**
27
13
35
13
7-----05--dozen 1
12
7
10
24
26
5
22
24
6
25
10
31
35
10
30
13
6
26
29
3
15
2**
21
14
29
9-----04--dozen 1
14
7**
34
14
20
3-----04--dozen 1
14
30
0
28
15
36
5-----07--dozen 1
28
23
34
23
15
14
29
35
1-----09--dozen 1
0
23
24
16
17
20
12----07--dozen 1
19
11
36
16
12
28
9
27
5
7
18
28
4**
22----150
24
17
28
23
30
14
2-----08--dozen 1
27
29
32
22
16
36
20
1-----08--dozen 1
4
16
4
28
27
5
14
0
7**
25
18
29
18
34
19
23
19
11----09--dozen 1
3
3**
35
35
20
27
10----05--dozen 1
16
4
16
10**
15
17
26
24
33
17
19
33
16
9-----10--dozen 1
5
16
30
13
16
2
28
13
8
19
3
21
4
14
2
5
12
11
32
7
35
11**
20
17
16
14
2-----05--dozen 1
35
7
20
18
3**
24
30
31
30
17
26
23
10----08--dozen 1
30
30
6
16
10
26
27
8
28
4
9
24
22
10
3
20
3
21
3
3
7**
17
36
33
17
22
33
16
10----08--dozen 1
7
8
11
9
26
25
7**
36
25
24
29
34
35
28
2-----08--dozen 1
27
36
24
29
21
18
5-----07--dozen 1
14
34
17
19
27
17
3-----07--dozen 1
5
27
12
12
6**
19
18
18
30
15
22
4-----07--dozen 1
18
33
26
4-----04--dozen 1
19
33
28
7-----04--dozen 1
33
7**
29
17
14
14
29
10----06--dozen 1-----WIN STEP 1 FOR 7 ON 1--(01)
30
23
20
19
26
9-----05--dozen 1
36
31
5**
33
16
16
26
21
20
29
33
21
2-----10--dozen 1
33
27
26
4-----04--dozen 1
27
19
30
25
26
35
22
7-----08--dozen 1
26
17
23
23
7-----05--dozen 1
30
18
24
21
30
18
36
30
19
9-----10--dozen 1
9**
16
19
32
32
21
18
1-----07--dozen 1
7
12
4
24
4
20
1**
22
20
21
7-----04--dozen 1
26
23
15
21
0
27
9-----07--dozen 1
29
1**
34
14
36
4-----04--dozen 1
34
0
28
1-----04--dozen 1
15
0
14
15
30
14
28
0
9-----09--dozen 1-----WIN STEP 1 FOR 7 ON 1--(02)
27
33
9**
22
22
35
16
17
4-----06--dozen 1
13
24
26
28
16
18
2-----07--dozen 1
18
9**
20
35
0
13
17
26
15
12----08--dozen 1
6
34
36
6
9
4
10
1**
27
21
14
13
35
21
24
0
31
25
14
32
10----13--dozen 1
17
36
22
34
12----05--dozen 1
8
22
2**
27
32
13
31
17
21
32
29
15
28
19
14
12----13--dozen 1
6
36
4
3
12**
20
24
36
12----04--dozen 1
24
10
16
0
22
25
32
9-----06--dozen 1
22
27
28
20
1-----05--dozen 1
33
8**
28
35
18
14
14
33
22
21
24
31
29
8-----12--dozen 1
10**
18
18
14
8-----04--dozen 1
29
16
10
27
28
7
11**
29
13
14
4-----04--dozen 1
20
32
25
35
9-----05--dozen 1-----WIN STEP 1 FOR 7 ON 1--(03)
16
11
14
9
26
29
6**
16
36
33
12----04--dozen 1
24
13
30
24
26
13
22
9-----08--dozen 1
12**
22
34
17
18
32
35
1-----07--dozen 1
3**
15
23
16
25
12----05--dozen 1
3**
23
21
17
14
30
7-----06--dozen 1
15
13
23
23
25
0
21
18
12----09--dozen 1
27
23
34
24
8-----05--dozen 1
3
0
8
11
29
11
6
5**
18
26
24
29
17
18
26
28
13
22
6-----11--dozen 1
3
16
14
0
17
35
7-----06--dozen 1
29
26
25
25
17
19
35
36
15
13
26
13
25
23
33
0
17
10----18--dozen 1
4
5
36
12
19
11
11
35
1**
0
32
22
20
17
27
17
27
28
20
8-----11--dozen 1
33
2
18
0
1**
14
18
18
14
7-----05--dozen 1
30
18
32
25
29
19
5-----07--dozen 1
36
31
33
25
26
28
29
5-----08--dozen 1
0
8
32
1
11**
17
27
23
35
18
7-----06--dozen 1
3
20
4
6**
28
36
25
11----04--dozen 1
1
11**
25
26
36
8-----04--dozen 1
29
29
25
24
9-----05--dozen 1-----WIN STEP 1 FOR 7 ON 1--(04)
18
19
16
9-----04--dozen 1
30
32
19
26
17
0
9-----07--dozen 1
15
29
4
1
4**
0
31
35
5-----04--dozen 1
24
32
4
6
12
29
28
8
21
10
35
32
3**
17
15
32
10----04--dozen 1
20
18
31
30
27
24
12----07--dozen 1-----WIN STEP 1 FOR 7 ON 1--(05)
26
14
35
36
16
13
31
7-----08--dozen 1
16
25
11
30
28
15
7-----07--dozen 1
4
4
30
29
4**
36
28
22
4-----04--dozen 1
4
11
16
14
7
24
30
8
32
8
18
9
33
4
9**
33
20
26
1-----04--dozen 1
5
16
21
8**
20
13
19
12----04--dozen 1
21
22
6
23
1
8**
16
17
32
0----STEP 2 LOSS DUE TO ZERO
18
14
6-----07--dozen 1
7**
32
29
18
28
33
31
9-----07--dozen 1-----WIN STEP 3 FOR 7 ON 1--(06)
33
10**
15
24
27
2-----04--dozen 1
18
19
7**
26
26
26
11----04--dozen 1
19
8
22
20
9**
28
30
24
3-----04--dozen 1
0
7
20
24
1
7
16
17
11
12**
15
24
24
33
3-----05--dozen 1-----WIN STEP 2 FOR 7 ON 1--(07)
25
23
3
20
23
2
4**
20
19
35
34
36
0
18
28
21
7-----10--dozen 1
12
11
31
30
12
34
12
23
10
4
36
4**
33
15
33
7-----04--dozen 1
12
9
11
21
22
10
26
1**
20
36
14
36
28
8-----06--dozen 1
4
21
1**
20
0
23
33
6-----05--dozen 1
31
6**
14
25
18
34
10----05--dozen 1
27
20
15
8-----04--dozen 1
2**
13
31
17
28
7-----05--dozen 1
28
23
29
27
17
29
28
27
1-----09--dozen 1
29
35
35
15
30
18
15
30
12----09--dozen 1
1**
32
14
35
14
17
2-----06--dozen 1
35
21
23
26
29
3-----06--dozen 1
16
20
31
16
33
27
25
33
29
13
7-----11--dozen 1
20
20
16
12----04--dozen 1
16
15
15
28
8-----05--dozen 1
1
29
4
33
1
36
8
28
1**
17
27
28
30
5-----05--dozen 1
32
34
29
3-----04--dozen 1
23
6
27
11**
36
13
27
35
19
18
10-----07--dozen 1
26
11
9**
32
15
32
29
26
34
24
26
17
13
17
12----12--dozen 1
27
12
13
10
11
29
28
3**
36
25
27
16
14
10----06--dozen 1
21
8**
14
18
23
7-----04--dozen 1
11**
18
15
23
31
25
34
16
31
25
4-----10--dozen 1
13
23
33
35
19
14
4-----07--dozen 1
9
7
32
9
5**
29
16
25
24
6-----05--dozen 1
5
20
15
1
8**
14
33
33
32
0
24
35
2-----08--dozen 1
27
33
12
32
23
12**
26
32
13
9-----04--dozen 1
1
32
29
32
18
29
16
33
30
36
24
11----11--dozen 1
30
20
11
17
6
7
26
20
11
1**
28
34
29
33
11----05--dozen 1
5
32
27
29
34
4-----05--dozen 1
13
4**
21
19
13
31
17
27
10----07--dozen 1
22
34
22
6-----04--dozen 1
21
10
35
7
21
8
19
24
3
12
10
3
26
0
1**
31
25
15
36
28
35
33
34
1-----09--dozen 1
6**
20
16
17
5-----04--dozen 1
36
14
0
16
18
28
12----07--dozen 1
13
12**
23
31
36
12----04--dozen 1
12**
32
22
23
8-----04--dozen 1
5
13
33
5
17
5**
18
27
26
26
9-----05--dozen 1-----WIN STEP 1 FOR 7 ON 1--(08)
17
35
3
3
8
36
8
9
7**
36
32
21
24
18
26
1-----07--dozen 1
17
23
29
24
17
18
2-----07--dozen 1
18
6
33
15
1
0
11
26
28
12
4
7
34
5
35
6**
27
26
19
32
21
24
19
21
23
8-----10--dozen 1
29
1**
27
29
30
3-----04--dozen 1
14
21
16
21
6-----05--dozen 1
27
27
17
8-----04--dozen 1
22
13
10
5
5
31
22
3
32
15
5**
0
23
31
31
9-----05--dozen 1
5
28
4
19
9
1**
26
27
32
18
15
20
36
33
11----09--dozen 1
29
28
4
3
15
11**
22
27
17
7-----04--dozen 1
0
18
18
24
12----05--dozen 1
29
2**
26
34
31
24
31
1-----06--dozen 1
8**
25
23
18
26
30
28
26
16
23
15
29
15
13
23
3-----15--dozen 1
34
1
8**
28
24
26
26
34
26
8-----07--dozen 1
19
26
36
31
24
27
33
14
12----09--dozen 1
31
8
24
4
2
7**
33
0
29
1-----04--dozen 1
24
6
8**
15
34
19
2-----04--dozen 1
16
12**
31
19
32
33
2-----05--dozen 1-----WIN STEP 1 FOR 7 ON 1--(09)
18
11
25
24
1**
0
0
20
34
27
26
2-----07--dozen 1
32
31
27
4-----04--dozen 1
19
27
36
33
33
17
11----07--dozen 1
20
11
24
0
3
1
21
8**
32
27
22
32
34
30
31
26
29
6-----10--dozen 1
2
24
23
2
24
12
10
13
11
35
34
2**
15
13
33
33
1-----05--dozen 1
13
18
12
2**
13
18
29
23
1-----05--dozen 1
17
2**
26
23
23
36
34
4-----06--dozen 1
32
18
34
29
36
27
19
8-----08--dozen 1
9
21
18
7
2
9
13
3
3**
13
25
17
16
3-----05--dozen 1
8
32
11**
22
31
35
19
27
6-----06--dozen 1
28
29
3
34
12
30
2
6**
18
32
13
0
0
21
28
17
30
32
1-----11--dozen 1
24
25
10
1
4**
36
18
13
20
29
2-----06--dozen 1
32
20
9**
16
28
35
2-----04--dozen 1
10
26
1
14
32
12
8**
35
0
32
3-----04--dozen 1
8
33
8
10
7
18
1
4
2
2
9
3**
13
27
29
31
8-----05--dozen 1-----WIN STEP 1 FOR 7 ON 1--(10)
31
16
10
5
33
5
32
These are the first 10 Bayes is this enough??
Great! that's plenty, thanks John.
I don't get this -
4-----07--dozen 1
18
33
26
4-----04--dozen 1
19
33
28
7-----04--dozen 1 TRIGGER
33
7**
29
17
14
14 -- shouldn't you have bet HERE?
29
10----06--dozen 1-----WIN STEP 1 FOR 7 ON 1--(01)
Quote from: Bayes on January 16, 2013, 05:40:00 PM
I don't get this -
4-----07--dozen 1
18
33
26
4-----04--dozen 1
19
33
28
7-----04--dozen 1 TRIGGER
33
7**
29
17
14
14 -- shouldn't you have bet HERE?
29
10----06--dozen 1-----WIN STEP 1 FOR 7 ON 1--(01)
Yes Bayes I just highlight where the dozen comes to rest. Once it passes 4 its an automatic winner. And yes the two fours is the trigger.
I take it for granted because its so in my system. Sorry for any confusion.
Ok, no worries. :thumbsup:
John, here are the results which the program produced from your spins above. I'd appreciate it if you could look over them because there is a difference from your results, in particular, +11 units were made and not +10.
The numbers to the right of the spins show the gaps between doz 1, a "L" shows a bet which was lost, and an asterisk shows a trigger.
21 1
19 2
29 3
36 4
7 5
7 1
16 1
12 2
20 1
2 2
7 1
11 1
6 1
34 1
24 2
35 3
12 4
8 1
23 1
24 2
22 3
22 4
10 5
27 1
18 2
28 3
15 4
21 5
17 6
28 7
4 8
30 1
1 2
8 1
16 1
36 2
13 3
2 4
24 1
4 2
30 1
17 2
18 3
31 4
1 5
29 1
27 2
25 3
3 4
7 1
1 1
18 1
33 2
7 3
35 1
11 2
1 1
17 1
14 2
9 3
19 1
6 2
4 1
35 1
6 2
6 1
19 1
34 2
0 3
26 4
30 5
13 6
35 7
16 8
11 9
7 1
27 1
13 2
35 3
13 4
7 5
12 1
7 1
10 1
24 1
26 2
5 3
22 1
24 2
6 3
25 1
10 2
31 1
35 2
10 3
30 1
13 2
6 3
26 1
29 2
3 3
15 1
2 2
21 1
14 2
29 3
9 4
14 1
7 2
34 1
14 2
20 3
3 4 *
14 1
30 2
0 3
28 4 +1
15 5
36 6
5 7
28 1
23 2
34 3
23 4
15 5
14 6
29 7
35 8
1 9
0 1
23 2
24 3
16 4
17 5
20 6
12 7
19 1
11 2
36 1
16 2
12 3
28 1
9 2
27 1
5 2
7 1
18 1
28 2
4 3
22 1
24 2
17 3
28 4
23 5
30 6
14 7
2 8
27 1
29 2
32 3
22 4
16 5
36 6
20 7
1 8
4 1
16 1
4 2
28 1
27 2
5 3
14 1
0 2
7 3
25 1
18 2
29 3
18 4
34 5
19 6
23 7
19 8
11 9
3 1
3 1
35 1
35 2
20 3
27 4
10 5
16 1
4 2
16 1
10 2
15 1
17 2
26 3
24 4
33 5
17 6
19 7
33 8
16 9
9 10
5 1
16 1
30 2
13 3
16 4
2 5
28 1
13 2
8 3
19 1
3 2
21 1
4 2
14 1
2 2
5 1
12 1
11 1
32 1
7 2
35 1
11 2
20 1
17 2
16 3
14 4
2 5
35 1
7 2
20 1
18 2
3 3
24 1
30 2
31 3
30 4
17 5
26 6
23 7
10 8
30 1
30 2
6 3
16 1
10 2
26 1
27 2
8 3
28 1
4 2
9 1
24 1
22 2
10 3
3 1
20 1
3 2
21 1
3 2
3 1
7 1
17 1
36 2
33 3
17 4
22 5
33 6
16 7
10 8
7 1
8 1
11 1
9 1
26 1
25 2
7 3
36 1
25 2
24 3
29 4
34 5
35 6
28 7
2 8
27 1
36 2
24 3
29 4
21 5
18 6
5 7
14 1
34 2
17 3
19 4
27 5
17 6
3 7
5 1
27 1
12 2
12 1
6 1
19 1
18 2
18 3
30 4
15 5
22 6
4 7
18 1
33 2
26 3
4 4
19 1
33 2
28 3
7 4 *
33 1
7 2
29 1
17 2
14 3
14 4 +1
29 5
10 6
30 1
23 2
20 3
19 4
26 5
9 6
36 1
31 2
5 3
33 1
16 2
16 3
26 4
21 5
20 6
29 7
33 8
21 9
2 10
33 1
27 2
26 3
4 4
27 1
19 2
30 3
25 4
26 5
35 6
22 7
7 8
26 1
17 2
23 3
23 4
7 5
30 1
18 2
24 3
21 4
30 5
18 6
36 7
30 8
19 9
9 10
9 1
16 1
19 2
32 3
32 4
21 5
18 6
1 7
7 1
12 1
4 1
24 1
4 2
20 1
1 2
22 1
20 2
21 3
7 4
26 1
23 2
15 3
21 4
0 5
27 6
9 7
29 1
1 2
34 1
14 2
36 3
4 4
34 1
0 2
28 3
1 4 *
15 1
0 2
14 3
15 4 +1
30 5
14 6
28 7
0 8
9 9
27 1
33 2
9 3
22 1
22 2
35 3
16 4
17 5
4 6
13 1
24 2
26 3
28 4
16 5
18 6
2 7
18 1
9 2
20 1
35 2
0 3
13 4
17 5
26 6
15 7
12 8
6 1
34 1
36 2
6 3
9 1
4 1
10 1
1 1
27 1
21 2
14 3
13 4
35 5
21 6
24 7
0 8
31 9
25 10
14 11
32 12
10 13
17 1
36 2
22 3
34 4
12 5
8 1
22 1
2 2
27 1
32 2
13 3
31 4
17 5
21 6
32 7
29 8
15 9
28 10
19 11
14 12
12 13
6 1
36 1
4 2
3 1
12 1
20 1
24 2
36 3
12 4
24 1
10 2
16 1
0 2
22 3
25 4
32 5
9 6
22 1
27 2
28 3
20 4
1 5
33 1
8 2
28 1
35 2
18 3
14 4
14 5
33 6
22 7
21 8
24 9
31 10
29 11
8 12
10 1
18 1
18 2
14 3
8 4
29 1
16 2
10 3
27 1
28 2
7 3
11 1
29 1
13 2
14 3
4 4 *
20 1
32 2
25 3
35 4 +1
9 5
16 1
11 2
14 1
9 2
26 1
29 2
6 3
16 1
36 2
33 3
12 4
24 1
13 2
30 3
24 4
26 5
13 6
22 7
9 8
12 1
22 1
34 2
17 3
18 4
32 5
35 6
1 7
3 1
15 1
23 2
16 3
25 4
12 5
3 1
23 1
21 2
17 3
14 4
30 5
7 6
15 1
13 2
23 3
23 4
25 5
0 6
21 7
18 8
12 9
27 1
23 2
34 3
24 4
8 5
3 1
0 1
8 2
11 1
29 1
11 2
6 1
5 1
18 1
26 2
24 3
29 4
17 5
18 6
26 7
28 8
13 9
22 10
6 11
3 1
16 1
14 2
0 3
17 4
35 5
7 6
29 1
26 2
25 3
25 4
17 5
19 6
35 7
36 8
15 9
13 10
26 11
13 12
25 13
23 14
33 15
0 16
17 17
10 18
4 1
5 1
36 1
12 2
19 1
11 2
11 1
35 1
1 2
0 1
32 2
22 3
20 4
17 5
27 6
17 7
27 8
28 9
20 10
8 11
33 1
2 2
18 1
0 2
1 3
14 1
18 2
18 3
14 4
7 5
30 1
18 2
32 3
25 4
29 5
19 6
5 7
36 1
31 2
33 3
25 4
26 5
28 6
29 7
5 8
0 1
8 2
32 1
1 2
11 1
17 1
27 2
23 3
35 4
18 5
7 6
3 1
20 1
4 2
6 1
28 1
36 2
25 3
11 4
1 1
11 1
25 1
26 2
36 3
8 4 *
29 1
29 2
25 3
24 4 +1
9 5
18 1
19 2
16 3
9 4
30 1
32 2
19 3
26 4
17 5
0 6
9 7
15 1
29 2
4 3
1 1
4 1
0 1
31 2
35 3
5 4
24 1
32 2
4 3
6 1
12 1
29 1
28 2
8 3
21 1
10 2
35 1
32 2
3 3
17 1
15 2
32 3
10 4 *
20 1
18 2
31 3
30 4 +1
27 5
24 6
12 7
26 1
14 2
35 3
36 4
16 5
13 6
31 7
7 8
16 1
25 2
11 3
30 1
28 2
15 3
7 4
4 1
4 1
30 1
29 2
4 3
36 1
28 2
22 3
4 4 *
4 1
11 1
16 1
14 2
7 3
24 1
30 2
8 3
32 1
8 2
18 1
9 2
33 1
4 2
9 1
33 1
20 2
26 3
1 4 L
5 1
16 1
21 2
8 3
20 1
13 2
19 3
12 4 L
21 1
22 2
6 3
23 1
1 2
8 1
16 1
17 2
32 3
0 4 L
18 5
14 6
6 7
7 1
32 1
29 2
18 3
28 4 +1
33 5
31 6
9 7
33 1
10 2
15 1
24 2
27 3
2 4
18 1
19 2
7 3
26 1
26 2
26 3
11 4 *
19 1
8 2
22 1
20 2
9 3
28 1
30 2
24 3
3 4 L
0 1
7 2
20 1
24 2
1 3
7 1
16 1
17 2
11 3
12 1
15 1
24 2
24 3
33 4 +1
3 5
25 1
23 2
3 3
20 1
23 2
2 3
4 1
20 1
19 2
35 3
34 4
36 5
0 6
18 7
28 8
21 9
7 10
12 1
11 1
31 1
30 2
12 3
34 1
12 2
23 1
10 2
4 1
36 1
4 2
33 1
15 2
33 3
7 4
12 1
9 1
11 1
21 1
22 2
10 3
26 1
1 2
20 1
36 2
14 3
36 4
28 5
8 6
4 1
21 1
1 2
20 1
0 2
23 3
33 4
6 5
31 1
6 2
14 1
25 2
18 3
34 4
10 5
27 1
20 2
15 3
8 4
2 1
13 1
31 2
17 3
28 4
7 5
28 1
23 2
29 3
27 4
17 5
29 6
28 7
27 8
1 9
29 1
35 2
35 3
15 4
30 5
18 6
15 7
30 8
12 9
1 1
32 1
14 2
35 3
14 4
17 5
2 6
35 1
21 2
23 3
26 4
29 5
3 6
16 1
20 2
31 3
16 4
33 5
27 6
25 7
33 8
29 9
13 10
7 11
20 1
20 2
16 3
12 4
16 1
15 2
15 3
28 4
8 5
1 1
29 1
4 2
33 1
1 2
36 1
8 2
28 1
1 2
17 1
27 2
28 3
30 4
5 5
32 1
34 2
29 3
3 4
23 1
6 2
27 1
11 2
36 1
13 2
27 3
35 4
19 5
18 6
10 7
26 1
11 2
9 1
32 1
15 2
32 3
29 4
26 5
34 6
24 7
26 8
17 9
13 10
17 11
12 12
27 1
12 2
13 1
10 2
11 1
29 1
28 2
3 3
36 1
25 2
27 3
16 4
14 5
10 6
21 1
8 2
14 1
18 2
23 3
7 4
11 1
18 1
15 2
23 3
31 4
25 5
34 6
16 7
31 8
25 9
4 10
13 1
23 2
33 3
35 4
19 5
14 6
4 7
9 1
7 1
32 1
9 2
5 1
29 1
16 2
25 3
24 4
6 5
5 1
20 1
15 2
1 3
8 1
14 1
33 2
33 3
32 4
0 5
24 6
35 7
2 8
27 1
33 2
12 3
32 1
23 2
12 3
26 1
32 2
13 3
9 4
1 1
32 1
29 2
32 3
18 4
29 5
16 6
33 7
30 8
36 9
24 10
11 11
30 1
20 2
11 3
17 1
6 2
7 1
26 1
20 2
11 3
1 1
28 1
34 2
29 3
33 4
11 5
5 1
32 1
27 2
29 3
34 4
4 5
13 1
4 2
21 1
19 2
13 3
31 4
17 5
27 6
10 7
22 1
34 2
22 3
6 4
21 1
10 2
35 1
7 2
21 1
8 2
19 1
24 2
3 3
12 1
10 1
3 1
26 1
0 2
1 3
31 1
25 2
15 3
36 4
28 5
35 6
33 7
34 8
1 9
6 1
20 1
16 2
17 3
5 4
36 1
14 2
0 3
16 4
18 5
28 6
12 7
13 1
12 2
23 1
31 2
36 3
12 4
12 1
32 1
22 2
23 3
8 4 *
5 1
13 1
33 2
5 3
17 1
5 2
18 1
27 2
26 3
26 4 +1
9 5
17 1
35 2
3 3
3 1
8 1
36 1
8 2
9 1
7 1
36 1
32 2
21 3
24 4
18 5
26 6
1 7
17 1
23 2
29 3
24 4
17 5
18 6
2 7
18 1
6 2
33 1
15 2
1 3
0 1
11 2
26 1
28 2
12 3
4 1
7 1
34 1
5 2
35 1
6 2
27 1
26 2
19 3
32 4
21 5
24 6
19 7
21 8
23 9
8 10
29 1
1 2
27 1
29 2
30 3
3 4
14 1
21 2
16 3
21 4
6 5
27 1
27 2
17 3
8 4
22 1
13 2
10 3
5 1
5 1
31 1
22 2
3 3
32 1
15 2
5 3
0 1
23 2
31 3
31 4
9 5
5 1
28 1
4 2
19 1
9 2
1 1
26 1
27 2
32 3
18 4
15 5
20 6
36 7
33 8
11 9
29 1
28 2
4 3
3 1
15 1
11 2
22 1
27 2
17 3
7 4
0 1
18 2
18 3
24 4
12 5
29 1
2 2
26 1
34 2
31 3
24 4
31 5
1 6
8 1
25 1
23 2
18 3
26 4
30 5
28 6
26 7
16 8
23 9
15 10
29 11
15 12
13 13
23 14
3 15
34 1
1 2
8 1
28 1
24 2
26 3
26 4
34 5
26 6
8 7
19 1
26 2
36 3
31 4
24 5
27 6
33 7
14 8
12 9
31 1
8 2
24 1
4 2
2 1
7 1
33 1
0 2
29 3
1 4
24 1
6 2
8 1
15 1
34 2
19 3
2 4 *
16 1
12 2
31 1
19 2
32 3
33 4 +1
2 5
18 1
11 2
25 1
24 2
1 3
0 1
0 2
20 3
34 4
27 5
26 6
2 7
32 1
31 2
27 3
4 4
19 1
27 2
36 3
33 4
33 5
17 6
11 7
20 1
11 2
24 1
0 2
3 3
1 1
21 1
8 2
32 1
27 2
22 3
32 4
34 5
30 6
31 7
26 8
29 9
6 10
2 1
24 1
23 2
2 3
24 1
12 2
10 1
13 1
11 2
35 1
34 2
2 3
15 1
13 2
33 3
33 4
1 5
13 1
18 2
12 3
2 1
13 1
18 2
29 3
23 4
1 5
17 1
2 2
26 1
23 2
23 3
36 4
34 5
4 6
32 1
18 2
34 3
29 4
36 5
27 6
19 7
8 8
9 1
21 1
18 2
7 3
2 1
9 1
13 1
3 2
3 1
13 1
25 2
17 3
16 4
3 5
8 1
32 1
11 2
22 1
31 2
35 3
19 4
27 5
6 6
28 1
29 2
3 3
34 1
12 2
30 1
2 2
6 1
18 1
32 2
13 3
0 4
0 5
21 6
28 7
17 8
30 9
32 10
1 11
24 1
25 2
10 3
1 1
4 1
36 1
18 2
13 3
20 4
29 5
2 6
32 1
20 2
9 3
16 1
28 2
35 3
2 4
10 1
26 1
1 2
14 1
32 2
12 3
8 1
35 1
0 2
32 3
3 4 *
8 1
33 1
8 2
10 1
7 1
18 1
1 2
4 1
2 1
2 1
9 1
3 1
13 1
27 2
29 3
31 4 +1
8 5
31 1
16 2
10 3
5 1
33 1
5 2
32 1
OK.......not being critical.........don't delete me!
It seems about a half a mile between asterisks. How does a human actually do this in a casino? Am I the only one who pees?
Sam
Quote from: Bayes on January 17, 2013, 09:51:25 AM
John, here are the results which the program produced from your spins above. I'd appreciate it if you could look over them because there is a difference from your results, in particular, +11 units were made and not +10.
The numbers to the right of the spins show the gaps between doz 1, a "L" shows a bet which was lost, and an asterisk shows a trigger.
21 1
19 2
29 3
36 4
7 5
7 1
16 1
12 2
20 1
2 2
7 1
11 1
6 1
34 1
24 2
35 3
12 4
8 1
23 1
24 2
22 3
22 4
10 5
27 1
18 2
28 3
15 4
21 5
17 6
28 7
4 8
30 1
1 2
8 1
16 1
36 2
13 3
2 4
24 1
4 2
30 1
17 2
18 3
31 4
1 5
29 1
27 2
25 3
3 4
7 1
1 1
18 1
33 2
7 3
35 1
11 2
1 1
17 1
14 2
9 3
19 1
6 2
4 1
35 1
6 2
6 1
19 1
34 2
0 3
26 4
30 5
13 6
35 7
16 8
11 9
7 1
27 1
13 2
35 3
13 4
7 5
12 1
7 1
10 1
24 1
26 2
5 3
22 1
24 2
6 3
25 1
10 2
31 1
35 2
10 3
30 1
13 2
6 3
26 1
29 2
3 3
15 1
2 2
21 1
14 2
29 3
9 4
14 1
7 2
34 1
14 2
20 3
3 4 *
14 1
30 2
0 3
28 4 +1
15 5
36 6
5 7
28 1
23 2
34 3
23 4
15 5
14 6
29 7
35 8
1 9
0 1
23 2
24 3
16 4
17 5
20 6
12 7
19 1
11 2
36 1
16 2
12 3
28 1
9 2
27 1
5 2
7 1
18 1
28 2
4 3
22 1
24 2
17 3
28 4
23 5
30 6
14 7
2 8
27 1
29 2
32 3
22 4
16 5
36 6
20 7
1 8
4 1
16 1
4 2
28 1
27 2
5 3
14 1
0 2
7 3
25 1
18 2
29 3
18 4
34 5
19 6
23 7
19 8
11 9
3 1
3 1
35 1
35 2
20 3
27 4
10 5
16 1
4 2
16 1
10 2
15 1
17 2
26 3
24 4
33 5
17 6
19 7
33 8
16 9
9 10
5 1
16 1
30 2
13 3
16 4
2 5
28 1
13 2
8 3
19 1
3 2
21 1
4 2
14 1
2 2
5 1
12 1
11 1
32 1
7 2
35 1
11 2
20 1
17 2
16 3
14 4
2 5
35 1
7 2
20 1
18 2
3 3
24 1
30 2
31 3
30 4
17 5
26 6
23 7
10 8
30 1
30 2
6 3
16 1
10 2
26 1
27 2
8 3
28 1
4 2
9 1
24 1
22 2
10 3
3 1
20 1
3 2
21 1
3 2
3 1
7 1
17 1
36 2
33 3
17 4
22 5
33 6
16 7
10 8
7 1
8 1
11 1
9 1
26 1
25 2
7 3
36 1
25 2
24 3
29 4
34 5
35 6
28 7
2 8
27 1
36 2
24 3
29 4
21 5
18 6
5 7
14 1
34 2
17 3
19 4
27 5
17 6
3 7
5 1
27 1
12 2
12 1
6 1
19 1
18 2
18 3
30 4
15 5
22 6
4 7
18 1
33 2
26 3
4 4
19 1
33 2
28 3
7 4 *
33 1
7 2
29 1
17 2
14 3
14 4 +1
29 5
10 6
30 1
23 2
20 3
19 4
26 5
9 6
36 1
31 2
5 3
33 1
16 2
16 3
26 4
21 5
20 6
29 7
33 8
21 9
2 10
33 1
27 2
26 3
4 4
27 1
19 2
30 3
25 4
26 5
35 6
22 7
7 8
26 1
17 2
23 3
23 4
7 5
30 1
18 2
24 3
21 4
30 5
18 6
36 7
30 8
19 9
9 10
9 1
16 1
19 2
32 3
32 4
21 5
18 6
1 7
7 1
12 1
4 1
24 1
4 2
20 1
1 2
22 1
20 2
21 3
7 4
26 1
23 2
15 3
21 4
0 5
27 6
9 7
29 1
1 2
34 1
14 2
36 3
4 4
34 1
0 2
28 3
1 4 *
15 1
0 2
14 3
15 4 +1
30 5
14 6
28 7
0 8
9 9
27 1
33 2
9 3
22 1
22 2
35 3
16 4
17 5
4 6
13 1
24 2
26 3
28 4
16 5
18 6
2 7
18 1
9 2
20 1
35 2
0 3
13 4
17 5
26 6
15 7
12 8
6 1
34 1
36 2
6 3
9 1
4 1
10 1
1 1
27 1
21 2
14 3
13 4
35 5
21 6
24 7
0 8
31 9
25 10
14 11
32 12
10 13
17 1
36 2
22 3
34 4
12 5
8 1
22 1
2 2
27 1
32 2
13 3
31 4
17 5
21 6
32 7
29 8
15 9
28 10
19 11
14 12
12 13
6 1
36 1
4 2
3 1
12 1
20 1
24 2
36 3
12 4
24 1
10 2
16 1
0 2
22 3
25 4
32 5
9 6
22 1
27 2
28 3
20 4
1 5
33 1
8 2
28 1
35 2
18 3
14 4
14 5
33 6
22 7
21 8
24 9
31 10
29 11
8 12
10 1
18 1
18 2
14 3
8 4
29 1
16 2
10 3
27 1
28 2
7 3
11 1
29 1
13 2
14 3
4 4 *
20 1
32 2
25 3
35 4 +1
9 5
16 1
11 2
14 1
9 2
26 1
29 2
6 3
16 1
36 2
33 3
12 4
24 1
13 2
30 3
24 4
26 5
13 6
22 7
9 8
12 1
22 1
34 2
17 3
18 4
32 5
35 6
1 7
3 1
15 1
23 2
16 3
25 4
12 5
3 1
23 1
21 2
17 3
14 4
30 5
7 6
15 1
13 2
23 3
23 4
25 5
0 6
21 7
18 8
12 9
27 1
23 2
34 3
24 4
8 5
3 1
0 1
8 2
11 1
29 1
11 2
6 1
5 1
18 1
26 2
24 3
29 4
17 5
18 6
26 7
28 8
13 9
22 10
6 11
3 1
16 1
14 2
0 3
17 4
35 5
7 6
29 1
26 2
25 3
25 4
17 5
19 6
35 7
36 8
15 9
13 10
26 11
13 12
25 13
23 14
33 15
0 16
17 17
10 18
4 1
5 1
36 1
12 2
19 1
11 2
11 1
35 1
1 2
0 1
32 2
22 3
20 4
17 5
27 6
17 7
27 8
28 9
20 10
8 11
33 1
2 2
18 1
0 2
1 3
14 1
18 2
18 3
14 4
7 5
30 1
18 2
32 3
25 4
29 5
19 6
5 7
36 1
31 2
33 3
25 4
26 5
28 6
29 7
5 8
0 1
8 2
32 1
1 2
11 1
17 1
27 2
23 3
35 4
18 5
7 6
3 1
20 1
4 2
6 1
28 1
36 2
25 3
11 4
1 1
11 1
25 1
26 2
36 3
8 4 *
29 1
29 2
25 3
24 4 +1
9 5
18 1
19 2
16 3
9 4
30 1
32 2
19 3
26 4
17 5
0 6
9 7
15 1
29 2
4 3
1 1
4 1
0 1
31 2
35 3
5 4
24 1
32 2
4 3
6 1
12 1
29 1
28 2
8 3
21 1
10 2
35 1
32 2
3 3
17 1
15 2
32 3
10 4 *
20 1
18 2
31 3
30 4 +1
27 5
24 6
12 7
26 1
14 2
35 3
36 4
16 5
13 6
31 7
7 8
16 1
25 2
11 3
30 1
28 2
15 3
7 4
4 1
4 1
30 1
29 2
4 3
36 1
28 2
22 3
4 4 *
4 1
11 1
16 1
14 2
7 3
24 1
30 2
8 3
32 1
8 2
18 1
9 2
33 1
4 2
9 1
33 1
20 2
26 3
1 4 L
5 1
16 1
21 2
8 3
20 1
13 2
19 3
12 4 L
21 1
22 2
6 3
23 1
1 2
8 1
16 1
17 2
32 3
0 4 L
18 5
14 6
6 7
7 1
32 1
29 2
18 3
28 4 +1
33 5
31 6
9 7
33 1
10 2
15 1
24 2
27 3
2 4
18 1
19 2
7 3
26 1
26 2
26 3
11 4 *
19 1
8 2
22 1
20 2
9 3
28 1
30 2
24 3
3 4 L
0 1
7 2
20 1
24 2
1 3
7 1
16 1
17 2
11 3
12 1
15 1
24 2
24 3
33 4 +1
3 5
25 1
23 2
3 3
20 1
23 2
2 3
4 1
20 1
19 2
35 3
34 4
36 5
0 6
18 7
28 8
21 9
7 10
12 1
11 1
31 1
30 2
12 3
34 1
12 2
23 1
10 2
4 1
36 1
4 2
33 1
15 2
33 3
7 4
12 1
9 1
11 1
21 1
22 2
10 3
26 1
1 2
20 1
36 2
14 3
36 4
28 5
8 6
4 1
21 1
1 2
20 1
0 2
23 3
33 4
6 5
31 1
6 2
14 1
25 2
18 3
34 4
10 5
27 1
20 2
15 3
8 4
2 1
13 1
31 2
17 3
28 4
7 5
28 1
23 2
29 3
27 4
17 5
29 6
28 7
27 8
1 9
29 1
35 2
35 3
15 4
30 5
18 6
15 7
30 8
12 9
1 1
32 1
14 2
35 3
14 4
17 5
2 6
35 1
21 2
23 3
26 4
29 5
3 6
16 1
20 2
31 3
16 4
33 5
27 6
25 7
33 8
29 9
13 10
7 11
20 1
20 2
16 3
12 4
16 1
15 2
15 3
28 4
8 5
1 1
29 1
4 2
33 1
1 2
36 1
8 2
28 1
1 2
17 1
27 2
28 3
30 4
5 5
32 1
34 2
29 3
3 4
23 1
6 2
27 1
11 2
36 1
13 2
27 3
35 4
19 5
18 6
10 7
26 1
11 2
9 1
32 1
15 2
32 3
29 4
26 5
34 6
24 7
26 8
17 9
13 10
17 11
12 12
27 1
12 2
13 1
10 2
11 1
29 1
28 2
3 3
36 1
25 2
27 3
16 4
14 5
10 6
21 1
8 2
14 1
18 2
23 3
7 4
11 1
18 1
15 2
23 3
31 4
25 5
34 6
16 7
31 8
25 9
4 10
13 1
23 2
33 3
35 4
19 5
14 6
4 7
9 1
7 1
32 1
9 2
5 1
29 1
16 2
25 3
24 4
6 5
5 1
20 1
15 2
1 3
8 1
14 1
33 2
33 3
32 4
0 5
24 6
35 7
2 8
27 1
33 2
12 3
32 1
23 2
12 3
26 1
32 2
13 3
9 4
1 1
32 1
29 2
32 3
18 4
29 5
16 6
33 7
30 8
36 9
24 10
11 11
30 1
20 2
11 3
17 1
6 2
7 1
26 1
20 2
11 3
1 1
28 1
34 2
29 3
33 4
11 5
5 1
32 1
27 2
29 3
34 4
4 5
13 1
4 2
21 1
19 2
13 3
31 4
17 5
27 6
10 7
22 1
34 2
22 3
6 4
21 1
10 2
35 1
7 2
21 1
8 2
19 1
24 2
3 3
12 1
10 1
3 1
26 1
0 2
1 3
31 1
25 2
15 3
36 4
28 5
35 6
33 7
34 8
1 9
6 1
20 1
16 2
17 3
5 4
36 1
14 2
0 3
16 4
18 5
28 6
12 7
13 1
12 2
23 1
31 2
36 3
12 4
12 1
32 1
22 2
23 3
8 4 *
5 1
13 1
33 2
5 3
17 1
5 2
18 1
27 2
26 3
26 4 +1
9 5
17 1
35 2
3 3
3 1
8 1
36 1
8 2
9 1
7 1
36 1
32 2
21 3
24 4
18 5
26 6
1 7
17 1
23 2
29 3
24 4
17 5
18 6
2 7
18 1
6 2
33 1
15 2
1 3
0 1
11 2
26 1
28 2
12 3
4 1
7 1
34 1
5 2
35 1
6 2
27 1
26 2
19 3
32 4
21 5
24 6
19 7
21 8
23 9
8 10
29 1
1 2
27 1
29 2
30 3
3 4
14 1
21 2
16 3
21 4
6 5
27 1
27 2
17 3
8 4
22 1
13 2
10 3
5 1
5 1
31 1
22 2
3 3
32 1
15 2
5 3
0 1
23 2
31 3
31 4
9 5
5 1
28 1
4 2
19 1
9 2
1 1
26 1
27 2
32 3
18 4
15 5
20 6
36 7
33 8
11 9
29 1
28 2
4 3
3 1
15 1
11 2
22 1
27 2
17 3
7 4
0 1
18 2
18 3
24 4
12 5
29 1
2 2
26 1
34 2
31 3
24 4
31 5
1 6
8 1
25 1
23 2
18 3
26 4
30 5
28 6
26 7
16 8
23 9
15 10
29 11
15 12
13 13
23 14
3 15
34 1
1 2
8 1
28 1
24 2
26 3
26 4
34 5
26 6
8 7
19 1
26 2
36 3
31 4
24 5
27 6
33 7
14 8
12 9
31 1
8 2
24 1
4 2
2 1
7 1
33 1
0 2
29 3
1 4
24 1
6 2
8 1
15 1
34 2
19 3
2 4 *
16 1
12 2
31 1
19 2
32 3
33 4 +1
2 5
18 1
11 2
25 1
24 2
1 3
0 1
0 2
20 3
34 4
27 5
26 6
2 7
32 1
31 2
27 3
4 4
19 1
27 2
36 3
33 4
33 5
17 6
11 7
20 1
11 2
24 1
0 2
3 3
1 1
21 1
8 2
32 1
27 2
22 3
32 4
34 5
30 6
31 7
26 8
29 9
6 10
2 1
24 1
23 2
2 3
24 1
12 2
10 1
13 1
11 2
35 1
34 2
2 3
15 1
13 2
33 3
33 4
1 5
13 1
18 2
12 3
2 1
13 1
18 2
29 3
23 4
1 5
17 1
2 2
26 1
23 2
23 3
36 4
34 5
4 6
32 1
18 2
34 3
29 4
36 5
27 6
19 7
8 8
9 1
21 1
18 2
7 3
2 1
9 1
13 1
3 2
3 1
13 1
25 2
17 3
16 4
3 5
8 1
32 1
11 2
22 1
31 2
35 3
19 4
27 5
6 6
28 1
29 2
3 3
34 1
12 2
30 1
2 2
6 1
18 1
32 2
13 3
0 4
0 5
21 6
28 7
17 8
30 9
32 10
1 11
24 1
25 2
10 3
1 1
4 1
36 1
18 2
13 3
20 4
29 5
2 6
32 1
20 2
9 3
16 1
28 2
35 3
2 4
10 1
26 1
1 2
14 1
32 2
12 3
8 1
35 1
0 2
32 3
3 4 *
8 1
33 1
8 2
10 1
7 1
18 1
1 2
4 1
2 1
2 1
9 1
3 1
13 1
27 2
29 3
31 4 +1
8 5
31 1
16 2
10 3
5 1
33 1
5 2
32 1
I will have to take a look Bayes would be easier if you had marked each win in ascending numbers 1--11.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 17, 2013, 11:42:04 AM
OK.......not being critical.........don't delete me!
It seems about a half a mile between asterisks. How does a human actually do this in a casino? Am I the only one who pees?
Sam
Sam these are results for dozen 1 only. If we were tracking all three dozens, we would get a greater volume of games. Bayes million spin tests showed an average of about 1 game every 62 spins.
Thanks again, John
Sorry I didn't read the post more clearly.
With your permission and when my wife feels the need to buy me another gift--she bought me Stef and Nicks Excel Bot for Christmas--I will pay the guys to program your method into my bot and play on BV.
If Uncle Ralph says it's fair, that's good enough for me. I really need to hurry before he cleans them out!!
Sam
Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 17, 2013, 04:15:56 PM
Thanks again, John
Sorry I didn't read the post more clearly.
With your permission and when my wife feels the need to buy me another gift--she bought me Stef and Nicks Excel Bot for Christmas--I will pay the guys to program your method into my bot and play on BV.
If Uncle Ralph says it's fair, that's good enough for me. I really need to hurry before he cleans them out!!
Sam
Sam that's what the methods here for. I don't know about BV for this method. I gave Juiced91 some pocket money to have a go with it there.
I know one thing for sure. there's an online casino that will have to stop me at some point. Or I will eventually play my way to a million bucks over the next two years.
QuoteI gave Juiced91 some pocket money to have a go with it there
:thumbsup:
That's nice, hey Juiced?
Quote from: Superman on January 17, 2013, 04:25:09 PM
:thumbsup:
That's nice, hey Juiced?
Im a nice guy Superman, but lets not let too many people know that. :o
John, I've found the missing win in my results. The first win is at spin no. 117 which you DON'T have -
21 1
19 2
29 3
36 4
7 5
7 1
16 1
12 2
20 1
2 2
7 1
11 1
6 1
34 1
24 2
35 3
12 4
8 1
23 1
24 2
22 3
22 4
10 5
27 1
18 2
28 3
15 4
21 5
17 6
28 7
4 8
30 1
1 2
8 1
16 1
36 2
13 3
2 4
24 1
4 2
30 1
17 2
18 3
31 4
1 5
29 1
27 2
25 3
3 4
7 1
1 1
18 1
33 2
7 3
35 1
11 2
1 1
17 1
14 2
9 3
19 1
6 2
4 1
35 1
6 2
6 1
19 1
34 2
0 3
26 4
30 5
13 6
35 7
16 8
11 9
7 1
27 1
13 2
35 3
13 4
7 5
12 1
7 1
10 1
24 1
26 2
5 3
22 1
24 2
6 3
25 1
10 2
31 1
35 2
10 3
30 1
13 2
6 3
26 1
29 2
3 3
15 1
2 2
21 1
14 2
29 3
9 4 -- 1st 4 gap
14 1
7 2
34 1
14 2
20 3
3 4 -- 2nd 4 gap
14 1
30 2
0 3
28 4 +1 -- WIN at spin 117
All other wins in my results match perfectly with yours.
Well done Bayes. Okay so for some reason I skipped/missed that one. Must of been all the Jim Beem I was knocking back that day lol! Well 11 wins instead of 10 even better.
I will have to highlight that on my records. Thanks for the discovery.
JL, can you inform us how you recover from a loss of progression, as it could be weeks worth of effort just to get back to where you were before the loss, or do you risk multiplying your bet size to regain faster? as 243 units is a lot of games AND even more spins on a live wheel, many hours.
Quote from: Superman on January 17, 2013, 05:42:31 PM
JL, can you inform us how you recover from a loss of progression, as it could be weeks worth of effort just to get back to where you were before the loss, or do you risk multiplying your bet size to regain faster? as 243 units is a lot of games AND even more spins on a live wheel, many hours.
Superman that's hard for me to answer at the moment. As I have yet to lose after 950 games. I think Bayes holds the answer. When he finally does the true breakdown for this method. Id like him to go into fine detail.
Lets say it loses 35 times in a Million spins with the ZERO FACTOR included. That would still show a profit. Now the next thing to find out is the average spacing of these losses.
And for your peace of mind as well as excellent progression thinkers like Atlantis. It would be well worth knowing. How many of the 15---16 thousand winners hit on the first two steps of the progression.
Im not saying 242 units and five steps is the best way to play this. Im only doing so, because A, I can well afford it. And B, I've never seen a loss on a LIVE WHEEL. That's what everyone has to take onboard.
It may be playable in a far more acceptable way to many others. Lets wait and see.
QuoteI've never seen a loss on a LIVE WHEEL
IS 81 units X2 the most you've been asked to bet or have you not reached that size yet, if you have how often?
Quote from: Superman on January 17, 2013, 06:00:06 PM
IS 81 units X2 the most you've been asked to bet or have you not reached that size yet, if you have how often?
I've never been challenged ONCE yet Superman. I have gone to 27--27 Seven times in the 950 games I've played. But never 81--81.
In all the records I have for the Zone Superman nearly 3,000. There are only TWO challenges on the progression 81--81. But it survived them both and ended up being a 6 in both cases. That's where my enthusiasm comes from for this method.
Now I have no doubt Bayes will find plenty of losses in his million spin sagas. But if any method will make the argument for random entry into the cycle. H.A.R. You can bet your socks it will be this one.
I'm having difficulty accepting the results Bayes got. I spent this morning writing an app that is far more complex than this. It fails at just a little more than the amount you win at. I guess I'll be forced to write a sim for this and to test it myself. It's just not possible to use such a simple, mindless trigger and to beat this game. But if it does you will have more confirmation that it works. I'm sure it doesn't.
Quote from: Gizmotron on January 17, 2013, 08:04:01 PM
I'm having difficulty accepting the results Bayes got. I spent this morning writing an app that is far more complex than this. It fails at just a little more than the amount you win at. I guess I'll be forced to write a sim for this and to test it myself. It's just not possible to use such a simple, mindless trigger and to beat this game. But if it does you will have more confirmation that it works. I'm sure it doesn't.
First off even if Bayes tests were negative zero or no zero. I will still be playing this method for the rest of my days.
LIVE is the only way I will play this method, and H.A.R, and those two facts are going to make 7 ON 1 a virtual H.A.R grail.
The problem for you Giz and your counterpart. Is you think you know too much. As if your years guarantee unlimited wisdom.
Unfortunately they don't. I don't know it all, and you don't know it all. But one thing I do know. Is this method played as I play it. Is going to make some serious cash over the coming years.
Gizmo,
Wait until after tomorrow before you start coding it. My previous results didn't take into account the zero, but if you subtract the losses due to the zero (using the expected number of zeros) then the result is as per mathematical expectation. And don't forget that you get a trigger only once every 60 spins or so, which means that you would have to run a huge number of spins to get a million BETS, so the results I posted aren't quite as impressive as they might seem. I wouldn't say that in this case the trigger is simple and mindless. And aren't all triggers "mindless" in a sense? No matter how complex and "clever" the trigger is, it doesn't change the odds one iota.
MarignyGrilleau, I just did that this morning. It fails right along the mathematical lines that it should. In fact my complex version asks for five exact five sleepers in a row without a higher than five in a row occurring first in order for it to lose. And each bet is not consecutive. Each step of the progression is triggered by the next unique 5 gap (sleeper)
Having a unique trigger when to start placing five bets in a row is not that complex. Even if you have a magical moment when you start your sessions it won't make you a holy man.
Quote from: Bayes on January 17, 2013, 08:29:08 PM
Gizmo,
Wait until after tomorrow before you start coding it. My previous results didn't take into account the zero, but if you subtract the losses due to the zero (using the expected number of zeros) then the result is as per mathematical expectation. And don't forget that you get a trigger only once every 60 spins or so, which means that you would have to run a huge number of spins to get a million BETS, so the results I posted aren't quite as impressive as they might seem. I wouldn't say that in this case the trigger is simple and mindless. And aren't all triggers "mindless" in a sense? No matter how complex and "clever" the trigger is, it doesn't change the odds one iota.
The total mis-understanding here is what makes this bet different to another 5 step prog.
We arent betting against a code here. WE ARE BETTING AGAINST A VIRTUAL LIMIT. there's a world of difference. But ill prove that difference nonetheless. As I said before-if I have zero losses after 950 games. And not even a single challenge. I can see no worse than 15 losses per 10,000 games.
In my playing style. That will do very nicely.
Bayes, my sim, this morning, it does factor in the zero. A zero breaks the string of sleepers. In JL's rules the zero counts as a gap. But it loses if it hits on a fifth step of a progression. I guess you see that. So if all goes well this is just more of the same.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 17, 2013, 08:22:21 PM
The problem for you Giz and your counterpart. Is you think you know too much. As if your years guarantee unlimited wisdom.
And the problem with you is, you don't understand how
random works. You think you can trick it, outsmart it,
make it your slave. This monstrosity will be found to lose
right where its supposed to lose. Because it doesn't give
you the EDGE. To win consistently, you must have the
EDGE. You never talk about that, because you don't understand
it. You're too busy trying to be tricky..
Quote from: spike on January 17, 2013, 08:56:16 PM
And the problem with you is, you don't understand how
random works. You think you can trick it, outsmart it,
make it your slave. This monstrosity will be found to lose
right where its supposed to lose. Because it doesn't give
you the EDGE. To win consistently, you must have the
EDGE. You never talk about that, because you don't understand
it. You're too busy trying to be tricky..
Spike the day you have the nads to put up instead of talk a load of tosh. You might get somewhere.
You don't have an edge or the means to prove it. Just pure hot air. And condescending swipes. Put up or zip it.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 17, 2013, 08:40:59 PM
The total mis-understanding here is what makes this bet different to another 5 step prog.
We arent betting against a code here. WE ARE BETTING AGAINST A VIRTUAL LIMIT. there's a world of difference. But ill prove that difference nonetheless. As I said before-if I have zero losses after 950 games. And not even a single challenge. I can see no worse than 15 losses per 10,000 games.
In my playing style. That will do very nicely.
Rose colored glasses. I wonder why mathematics takes a holiday for this guy?
Quote from: Gizmotron on January 17, 2013, 08:48:16 PM
Bayes, my sim, this morning, it does factor in the zero. A zero breaks the string of sleepers. In JL's rules the zero counts as a gap. But it loses if it hits on a fifth step of a progression. I guess you see that. So if all goes well this is just more of the same.
Because the zero counts as a gap, it means you get more triggers, but it also counts as a loss so there are 13 chances to lose a bet instead of 12. That might not seem much of an increase, but with such a short progression it does make a difference over a large number of spins. IMO it's crazy to use a progression on anything over an EC because in order for it to be effective it has to rise fast, and in so few spins (the number of spins over which you use the progression), anything can happen.
Quote from: Gizmotron on January 17, 2013, 09:02:57 PM
Rose colored glasses. I wonder why mathematics takes a holiday for this guy?
Youll get your answer on July 19th. don't be shy then will you. Remember you can dispute sim results till your blue in the face. Cold hard cash has a sobering effect.
Two years ago I created a sim that I was sure beat this game. I messed up on the zeros. Once I added them in, the sim dropped back to the expected rate. It was so insignificant, but it made the difference.
Quote from: Gizmotron on January 17, 2013, 09:12:52 PM
Two years ago I created a sim that I was sure beat this game. I messed up on the zeros. Once I added them in, the sim dropped back to the expected rate. It was so insignificant, but it made the difference.
In continuous play house edge means something. In H.A.R it means little that's why I play H.A.R it is the only sure way to negate the house edge.Again youll get it this year.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 17, 2013, 09:01:35 PM
Spike the day you have the nads to put up
Anybody can put up stuff that doesn't work, why would
I have any interest in doing that. Its meaningless. You
put up something that beats the house edge? Where
is it, I missed that.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 17, 2013, 09:16:18 PM
In continuous play house edge means something. In H.A.R it means little that's why I play H.A.R it is the only sure way to negate the house edge.Again youll get it this year.
So that's it. Please explain how you use HAR in this system. With an average of triggers coming every 60 some odd spins how could you possibly pick a strategic point to start tracking for triggers?
Quote from: Bayes on January 17, 2013, 09:07:27 PM
and in so few spins (the number of spins over which you use the progression), anything can happen.
Finally, a voice of reason. Where this system fails is
when it loses, it loses big time. To think that never
happens, just because it didn't in practice, is folly.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 17, 2013, 09:16:18 PM
In continuous play house edge means something. In H.A.R it means little that's why I play H.A.R it is the only sure way to negate the house edge.
My god. Its all ONE BIG GAME! Jumping to another
table or casino with hit and run does NOTHING
NOTHING NOTHING to change or negate the edge.
This is roulette 101 stuff. This is newbie folly. I
can't believe the smarter people here (Victor?),
let you get away with the statements you make.
Wrap your head around the fact that random is
random, jumping from one table of random outcomes
to another table of random outcomes changes
nothing. HOW COULD IT? Random outcomes are
not connected to anything, they're RANDOM.
Good grief.
Quote from: spike on January 17, 2013, 09:31:40 PM
My god. Its all ONE BIG GAME! Jumping to another
table or casino with hit and run does NOTHING
NOTHING NOTHING to change or negate the edge.
This is roulette 101 stuff. This is newbie folly. I
can't believe the smarter people here (Victor?),
let you get away with the statements you make.
Wrap your head around the fact that random is
random, jumping from one table of random outcomes
to another table of random outcomes changes
nothing. HOW COULD IT? Random outcomes are
not connected to anything, they're RANDOM.
Good grief.
You be around to explain What im going to show you. H.A.R means nothing.
It will be time to eat one huge slice of humble pie.
And you will still be going on about the edge you have with no proof.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 17, 2013, 09:55:44 PM
You be around to explain What im going to show you.
Saying what you're going to do in 6 months
is not an answer to anything. Its what you
know now that counts, not what you might
know at some future date.
I proved that HAR is meaningless. A few years
ago I took my method and played in on 5
streams of real numbers at the same time.
Bet on stream 1. Then bet on stream 2. Next
bet on stream 3. Etc. Pretending I'm in a real
casino doing hit and run. The results were exactly
the same as if I'd stayed with just one stream.
Get it? HAR made no difference at all, how could it?
Random is random, whether its coming from one
wheel or 5 wheels. HAR is a waste of time.
Want to beat roulette? Study how random works,
understand the game. Hardly anybody here talks
about random, they treat it like its an obstacle
they have to overcome. Its not an obstacle, its the
tool you use to beat the game. Random IS the game,
for god's sake.
Quote from: spike on January 17, 2013, 10:29:07 PM
Saying what you're going to do in 6 months
is not an answer to anything. Its what you
know now that counts, not what you might
know at some future date.
I proved that HAR is meaningless. A few years
ago I took my method and played in on 5
streams of real numbers at the same time.
Bet on stream 1. Then bet on stream 2. Next
bet on stream 3. Etc. Pretending I'm in a real
casino doing hit and run. The results were exactly
the same as if I'd stayed with just one stream.
Get it? HAR made no difference at all, how could it?
Random is random, whether its coming from one
wheel or 5 wheels. HAR is a waste of time.
Want to beat roulette? Study how random works,
understand the game. Hardly anybody here talks
about random, they treat it like its an obstacle
they have to overcome. Its not an obstacle, its the
tool you use to beat the game. Random IS the game,
for god's sake.
I've been beating roulette for 8 years. Its hardly breaking news that you have to beat random. The point is I will prove it. While you still talk about having an edge without any proof.
Talk is cheap. I did enough of it. Now im in the process of proving it. Youll still be talking the talk in July. Without one iota of proof.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 17, 2013, 10:53:27 PM
I've been beating roulette for 8 years. Its hardly breaking news that you have to beat random.
If you think HAR has any validity, you don't understand
random at all. AT ALL! My god, its like talking to a wall.
So you played for 8 years, so what. Making the same
mistakes, not understanding the game for 8 years is
no accomplishment. Random is all there is to roulette,
get your mind off the stupid layout and concentrate
on what's important and you might get somewhere.
Quote from: spike on January 17, 2013, 11:23:13 PM
If you think HAR has any validity, you don't understand
random at all. AT ALL! My god, its like talking to a wall.
So you played for 8 years, so what. Making the same
mistakes, not understanding the game for 8 years is
no accomplishment. Random is all there is to roulette,
get your mind off the stupid layout and concentrate
on what's important and you might get somewhere.
Oh I've been getting somewhere alright, you are simply not the authority on this game. YOU don't even have a method. NOTHING, nada.
Quote from: Gizmotron on January 17, 2013, 10:11:11 PM
John, please explain how HAR applies to this system? I can't test it if it has no explanation.
Giz you don't get it and neverwill. MAYBE cold hard cash might wake you up to the fact I've had this game in the bag for a long time. Then again maybe it won't.
Giz any slander goes. The only thing im going to do is bruise a couple of egos around here. That's the reality.
Quote from: spike on January 17, 2013, 10:29:07 PM
Want to beat roulette? Study how random works,
understand the game. Hardly anybody here talks
about random, they treat it like its an obstacle
they have to overcome. Its not an obstacle, its the
tool you use to beat the game. Random IS the game,
for god's sake.
Could you make a thread and talk about it? If you are right and this is the key shouldn't we have a topic about that and research it more? I for one would be interested, I know others would be too :nod:
weather HAR works or not - you can't possibly know
why?
because if the wheel is really random then you have no way of testing or knowing that ( leading to the fact that it makes no difference weather you play HAR or not? )
JL has 950 wins in a row, maybe he will hit 5 losses in a row tomorrow? its random so anything is possible - that's why we (at least me) love the game
just my opinion - I could be wrong :D
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 18, 2013, 05:35:52 AM
Oh I've been getting somewhere alright, you are simply not the authority on this game
How would you know..
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 18, 2013, 05:41:21 AM
Giz you don't get it and neverwill.
I don't even like Gizmo and he knows more about
this game than you ever will. 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.
that's you.
Quote from: soggett on January 18, 2013, 07:26:32 AM
weather HAR works or not - you can't possibly know
why?
because if the wheel is really random then you have no way of testing
Smart guy you are. You're correct. The only way
you would know is if you had a method that wins
more than it loses. If you had that, you could test
in a myriad of situations and determine what works
and what doesn't.
Guess what? Go and read my 16,000 posts on GG
(that's right, 16,000), and we'll talk again...
Quote from: spike on January 18, 2013, 09:03:57 AM
I don't even like Gizmo and he knows more about
this game than you ever will. 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.
that's you.
Id say that sums you up. I MEAN you don't even have a method on the forum.
Quote from: spike on January 18, 2013, 09:09:38 AM
Smart guy you are. You're correct. The only way
you would know is if you had a method that wins
more than it loses. If you had that, you could test
in a myriad of situations and determine what works
and what doesn't.
Guess what? Go and read my 16,000 posts on GG
(that's right, 16,000), and we'll talk again...
I agree with you
btw, it says "only" 15144 posts :D :D
will take a look, thanks
Quote from: spike on January 18, 2013, 09:09:38 AM
Guess what? Go and read my 16,000 posts on GG
(that's right, 16,000), and we'll talk again...
That all say how you're so amazing. Must be a blast to read them all.
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.
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!) :love:
Sam
Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 18, 2013, 02:59:16 PM
Chauncy
You a cheese head?
(Love them curds, man!) :love:
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.
Quote from: Bayes on January 18, 2013, 08:03:09 PM
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.
Bayes I couldnt read your spreadsheet. It looked like Russian backwards to me. that's why im digging deep here. A few nore questions please.
So you are telling me that the zero caused 51 losses on just Dozen 1. When on your previous test without zero. There was only half that many losses on all three dozens combined? It seems a bit incredible to me. But anyway I will continue to manually test your one million actuals. As live results are the only ones that mean anything to me really.
It might take me a year or more to do it. But I will do it. In the first 65 games just as in my real play. There have been zero challenges on the progression. There has to be something different between live results and sims Bayes. There really does.
Quote from: Gizmotron on January 18, 2013, 06:49:49 PM
Spike explained his method in one of those 16,000+ posts at GG.
I couldn't find it, can you post a link or something?
Quote from: Bally6354 on January 18, 2013, 08:10:26 PM
Surely the answer then is to play on the NO ZERO wheel at betvoyager and pay them the 10% tax from your winnings.
Could be Bally. If the zero realy does that much damage. But im not convinced on that. I believe H,A,R is the equivalent of playing on the no zero. Because in my first 950 odd games. Its done little damage to me.
Remember ZERO is just like anyother number it can get hot and cluster several hits together. And when its cold sleep for hundreds. But I will bet my catfish basket. That when im playing H.A.R im not getting the same devastation as that continuous 1 million spins is giving out.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 18, 2013, 08:12:02 PM
Bayes I couldnt read your spreadsheet. It looked like Russian backwards to me. that's why im digging deep here. A few nore questions please.
So you are telling me that the zero caused 51 losses on just Dozen 1. When on your previous test without zero. There was only half that many losses on all three dozens combined?.It seems a bit incredible to me.
John, you couldn't read it? it's not a spreadsheet just a text file, you should have opened it using notepad or any text editor. Did anyone else have problems reading it???
The previous sim didn't test all 3 dozens, only one.
Quote from: soggett on January 18, 2013, 09:35:21 AM
I agree with you
btw, it says "only" 15144 posts :D :D
will take a look, thanks
I have another 1000 posts under spike100 to make
it over 16,000 posts.
Quote from: Bayes on January 18, 2013, 08:19:35 PM
John, you couldn't read it? it's not a spreadsheet just a text file, you should have opened it using notepad or any text editor. Did anyone else have problems reading it???
The previous sim didn't test all 3 dozens, only one.
You mean the tests without the zero were only ONE DOZEN per million spins Bayes??
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 18, 2013, 06:07:19 PM
And then he attacks others who say they can win at this game.
I attack you because you make flat out wrong
statements about the game and about random.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 18, 2013, 01:48:17 PM
The only way ill ever get H.A.R superiority stamped in reality
The only way that'll happen is if the nature of random
changes. Fat chance.
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
QuoteYou mean the tests without the zero were only ONE DOZEN per million spins Bayes??
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.
Quote from: spike on January 18, 2013, 08:29:34 PM
I attack you because you make flat out wrong
statements about the game and about random.
Yeah well if that's the case you have to prove with a written method that you are RIGHT. Just stating the obvious about random doesn't bake the peach cobbler.
You claim you can beat this game without ever going anywhere but the even chances. And without using progressions. Wheres the method that shows you can do this?
Quote from: Bayes on January 18, 2013, 08:09:20 PM
Gizmo, JL didn't ask me to code it,
The problem with a system like this is, it's a real brick
wall monster. Just lose the progression once and
you're screwed. You hit the brick wall. But you don't
know when it will happen, you just know that it will.
And with roulette, its always sooner rather than later..
Could I get a summation on Bayes study? Was the system a success? Failure.
Can't understand the losses to zero.
Anyone?
Sam
Quote from: spike on January 18, 2013, 08:31:29 PM
The only way that'll happen is if the nature of random
changes. Fat chance.
Then prepare to have your ego blown to smitherines. Because its going to happen.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 18, 2013, 08:39:16 PM
Could I get a summation on Bayes study? Was the system a success? Failure.
Can't understand the losses to zero.
Anyone?
Sam
The method tanks with the Zero. And wins handsomely without it Sam. But Im getting similar results to the no zero with my Voodoo H.A.R So im staying in Voodoo land.
Quote from: Bayes on January 18, 2013, 08:31:55 PM
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.
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.
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 (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?"
Quote from: albalaha on January 19, 2013, 08:25:55 AM
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?"
Albalaha On july 20th 2013. Nothing much will have changed in the roulette world. You will still have the casual jaded observers. The know alls but tell nothings.
And the open minded. The only thing that will then be realized is I was telling the truth. July is simply the beginning of that realization aswell as being my 49th birthday. Now so long as the online casino doesn't stop me. The following July will be another story. Five methods will get me to my targets.
Two members on here will be very, very happy. And one forum owner will not worry about financing this forum or anything ever again. Once people start to realize im for real. I will give a financial projection of what I aim to achieve by my 50th birthday. :thumbsup:
Great, and professor Jone 's magic elixir will fix your gout.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 18, 2013, 08:57:32 PM
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?
John, I didn't record the number of GAMES, only the number of wins, that's the difference.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 18, 2013, 08:50:39 PM
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
Sam, the 3 losses due to zero were when the zero hit on the FINAL step of the progression, the others were when the zero hit at any step in the progression.
Tell you what I'll do, I'll remove all zeros from the spin file and re-run the test, that way we'll get a better idea of the difference zero makes.
Quote from: Bayes on January 19, 2013, 08:57:17 AM
John, I didn't record the number of GAMES, only the number of wins, that's the difference.
Okay Bayes, not to worry its business as usual for me. If you have the time. And id throw some coin in your direction for your trouble. Just out of curiousity. Could you put Atlantis's CODE 4 HORIZONTAL through the grinder?. Its doing very well.
I just want to see how it would do continuously. H.A.R it's a winner. :thumbsup:
Ok John, will do. I'd like to get to the bottom of this 7-on-1 test first though. My stats weren't very clear, I admit. Did you manage to open the file and read it? next time I'll just upload it as a plain text file, unzipped.
Quote from: Bayes on January 19, 2013, 09:07:43 AM
Ok John, will do. I'd like to get to the bottom of this 7-on-1 test first though. My stats weren't very clear, I admit. Did you manage to open the file and read it? next time I'll just upload it as a plain text file, unzipped.
No Bayes, I may have this game beaten but im useless on computers. Send me the foolproof version next time please.
And thanks for that. While getting to the bottom of 7 ON 1. A few stats that would interest me.
1, Longest losing game?
2, Number of losses beyond 8?
3, Number of losses beyond 5?-------This one in particular Bayes as my strikerate here is fantastic. 950 of my 960 played games have won by the third step of the progression.
Quote1, Longest losing game?
2, Number of losses beyond 8?
3, Number of losses beyond 5?
(1) - do you mean the longest number of spins from a trigger to a bust?
By (2), I assume you mean how long did the run of losses continue beyond what busted the progression?
(3) is how often did the progression go beyond 5 steps, correct?
Quote from: Bayes on January 19, 2013, 09:55:24 AM
(1) - do you mean the longest number of spins from a trigger to a bust?
By (2), I assume you mean how long did the run of losses continue beyond what busted the progression?
(3) is how often did the progression go beyond 5 steps, correct?
Lol! No Bayes.
1, Longest losing game means how many steps before the longest game came to rest. So my progression plus the two virtual steps (Trigger) equals a total of 7 steps. Was the longest game 9 steps or 10 steps? Whatever.
2, Originally I was playing 8 ON 1 which went after a TRIPPLE TRIGGER then play the 5 step prog. So im interested to know how many of those 51 total losses were 8 steps or more.
3, In my H,A,R style of play, I have only been pushed beyond step 3 of my 5 step progression 10 times out of 960. I would like to know how this panned out on your sim Bayes. Thanks.
Ok, it will involve writing more code because ATM it's set up to reset when trigger goes to 7. But that's ok because then we'll get the whole picture of how the bet selection works and how many times it goes to 5,6,7, etc. If I code it so the that max is say 20, that should be enough. Of course a progression at that level will be unrealistic but it will be interesting to see how far it goes and we can still work out the loss to win ratio for any progression length including what you're currently using.
Quote from: Bayes on January 19, 2013, 10:31:45 AM
Ok, it will involve writing more code because ATM it's set up to reset when trigger goes to 7. But that's ok because then we'll get the whole picture of how the bet selection works and how many times it goes to 5,6,7, etc. If I code it so the that max is say 20, that should be enough. Of course a progression at that level will be unrealistic but it will be interesting to see how far it goes and we can still work out the loss to win ratio for any progression length including what you're currently using.
Yes thanks Bayes. Obviously freak losses can occur. But my main interest is STRIKERATE. Always has been. Although I have been doing it. I realize the 5th step of the progression is what really does the damage.
If it can be honed down into a 4 step progression. Or even a 3 step one. I would be more than happy with that. Im currently proofing a new method born out of Atlantis's excellent CODE 4 HORIZONTAL method.
it's a 4 step double dozen method. Called CODE V5. Its consistency over the first 3 steps of the progression. Is on par with 7 ON 1. And its turnover is much faster. So if it maintains its excellent performance. It will be on the forum next month.
Ok, I was having problems uploading the unzipped file here so you can download it from this link (http://www.sendspace.com/file/4i1455) (click where it says "click here to start download from sendspace").
Note that this file is for the actuals with the ZERO REMOVED, I'll add the with-zero file shortly. The file only shows wins (marked +1) and losses (marked L) together with the step at which the win or loss occurred. An asterisk marks the trigger (= 2). The busts are NOT shown but there are some stats at the end of the file which give a breakdown of how many wins/losses occurred at each step. The maximum losing run was 11:
Total wins = 7160
Wins on step 3 = 4731
Wins on step 4 = 1611
Wins on step 5 = 545
Wins on step 6 = 173
Wins on step 7 = 56
Wins on step 8 = 32
Wins on step 9 = 8
Wins on step 10 = 2
Wins on step 11 = 1
Wins on step 12 = 1
Losses on step 3 = 2429
Losses on step 4 = 818
Losses on step 5 = 273
Losses on step 6 = 100
Losses on step 7 = 44 ****
Losses on step 8 = 12
Losses on step 9 = 4
Losses on step 10 = 2
Losses on step 11 = 1
You can work out how different length progressions would have fared. The default system progression is 5 steps, corresponding to the "losses on step 7 = 44".
So from this, we can calculate that the profit is:
Profit = total wins − Number of progression busts × loss per progression bust
= 7160 − 44 × 242 = −3,488 units
I haven't worked out the profit for other progressions. There might be one which gives a profit.
This means that there must have been a bug in the previous simulation I did with the RNG spins. Sorry about that. :(
But I'm confident that the code here is ok - check a few random bets to make sure the bet selection is correct.
Quote from: Bayes on January 19, 2013, 12:07:08 PM
Ok, I was having problems uploading the unzipped file here so you can download it from this link (http://www.sendspace.com/file/4i1455) (click where it says "click here to start download from sendspace").
Note that this file is for the actuals with the ZERO REMOVED, I'll add the with-zero file shortly. The file only shows wins (marked +1) and losses (marked L) together with the step at which the win or loss occurred. An asterisk marks the trigger (= 2). The busts are NOT shown but there are some stats at the end of the file which give a breakdown of how many wins/losses occurred at each step. The maximum losing run was 11:
Total wins = 7160
Wins on step 3 = 4731
Wins on step 4 = 1611
Wins on step 5 = 545
Wins on step 6 = 173
Wins on step 7 = 56
Wins on step 8 = 32
Wins on step 9 = 8
Wins on step 10 = 2
Wins on step 11 = 1
Wins on step 12 = 1
Losses on step 3 = 2429
Losses on step 4 = 818
Losses on step 5 = 273
Losses on step 6 = 100
Losses on step 7 = 44 ****
Losses on step 8 = 12
Losses on step 9 = 4
Losses on step 10 = 2
Losses on step 11 = 1
You can work out how different length progressions would have fared. The default system progression is 5 steps, corresponding to the "losses on step 7 = 44".
So from this, we can calculate that the profit is:
Profit = total wins − Number of progression busts × loss per progression bust
= 7160 − 44 × 242 = −3,488 units
I haven't worked out the profit for other progressions. There might be one which gives a profit.
This means that there must have been a bug in the previous simulation I did with the RNG spins. Sorry about that. :(
But I'm confident that the code here is ok - check a few random bets to make sure the bet selection is correct.
Okay thanks Bayes, one thing to clarify. When you say step three in these breakdowns. Is that with or without the two step trigger?
Here are the stats for the file with zero included:
Total wins = 7285
Wins on step 3 = 4720
Wins on step 4 = 1642
Wins on step 5 = 589
Wins on step 6 = 206
Wins on step 7 = 77
Wins on step 8 = 37
Wins on step 9 = 11
Wins on step 10 = 0
Wins on step 11 = 1
Wins on step 12 = 0
Losses on step 3 = 2362
Losses on step 4 = 848
Losses on step 5 = 303
Losses on step 6 = 118
Losses on step 7 = 48****
Losses on step 8 = 13
Losses on step 9 = 3
Losses on step 10 = 3
Losses on step 11 = 2
So in this case, profit = 7285 − 48 × 242 = −4,331
It might seem odd that there are actually MORE wins here than in the no-zero case, but that's only because there are more spins. The crucial thing is that there are more busts too.
The file can be downloaded here (http://www.sendspace.com/file/zs2lzg).
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 19, 2013, 12:22:39 PM
Okay thanks Bayes, one thing to clarify. When you say step three in these breakdowns. Is that with or without the two step trigger?
The breakdowns start from the trigger (step 2), so a win on step 3 means the
first bet you make.
Quote from: Bayes on January 19, 2013, 12:31:55 PM
The breakdowns start from the trigger (step 2), so a win on step 3 means the first bet you make.
Okay Bayes thanks. It seems like 11 is the wall for this method. Ralph could boterize this. And win all day. Without any huge drawdowns.
John, the distribution of wins and losses of 7-on-1 follow the same pattern as just betting randomly with a 5 step progression. The conclusion is that there's no need for waiting and tracking, just bet ANY 2 dozens at any time to get approximately the same results. I know that's probably not what you want to hear... :annoy:
Quote from: Bayes on January 19, 2013, 01:47:45 PM
John, the distribution of wins and losses of 7-on-1 follow the same pattern as just betting randomly with a 5 step progression. The conclusion is that there's no need for waiting and tracking, just bet ANY 2 dozens at any time to get approximately the same results. I know that's probably not what you want to hear... :annoy:
Well no, but at present im getting what I want from it. At the end of the day profits what I want.
I never put all my eggs in one basket. PB could get me to where im going through sheer MM. Im still looking for that playable semi grail just as everyone else is.
Next in the grinder has got to be CODE 4 HORIZONTAL. Given the risk it holds alot more potential than 7 ON 1. CODE V5 looks like it will be the double dozen workhorse.
Superb turnover similar to CODE 4. But stronger. :thumbsup:
Ok, I've found the CODE 4 HORIZONTAL thread. Have the rules been tweaked or are they still the same as in Atlantis' first post?
QuoteCODE 4 HORIZONTAL VARIATION
======================
Bet that the second 2 elements of a code 4 horizontal line MATCH the first 2 elements recorded in the line...
For instance:
B3 is first 2 results recorded on a line - bet for B3 to repeat
For instance:
2C is first 2 results recorded on line - bet for 2C to repeat
Rotate the 1-1-1-2 (total 5u) progression.
If lose the whole progression (1-1-1-2) then restart the progression.
Also, restart the progression after ANY WIN gained on a line.
Important: ONLY PLAY AFTER 2 L's in a row have occurred on a line then resume betting on the line immediately below at positions 3 and 4 for a match of the first 2 results on the line. **STOP AT A WINNER ON A LINE**
EXAMPLE (using col-doz-col-doz matrix)
B3A3 - L w (waiting for 2 horizontal non-matches in a row)
B1A2 - L L trigger (2 L's in a row on a line)
Quote from: Bayes on January 19, 2013, 02:22:08 PM
Ok, I've found the CODE 4 HORIZONTAL thread. Have the rules been tweaked or are they still the same as in Atlantis' first post?
This is where we have now arrived at Bayes.
3C2A---LL
3C1B---LL
2A1C---LL----TRIGGER
1C1A---W---BET 1 STEP 1
We are betting against random showing us 16 of these losses in a row. Progression
1,1,2,3,5,7,11,16,24,36= 10 steps 106 units
Just confirming with JL in regard to CODE4-H...
Record sequences of 4 results in the format doz/col/doz/col
For example if the last 4 numbers were 16,19,3,28 then you record:
2a1a
Once you have recorded a line of 4 numbers like that you compare the first two elements (couplets) of the line with the last two pair of results on the line and if they match horizontally you record a "w". If they don't match you record an "L"
So you get:
2a1a Lw (the 2 and 1 do not match so it is a L; the column a's do match so that is classed as a w - win)
You build up your matrix with lines of 4 results eg:
2a1a Lw
3b1c LL
2b2b wW
When you get a situation where you have recorded 6 L's over 3 consecutive lines
LL
LL
LL
it is time to begin the progression:
2b3c LL
1a3b LL
2c3a LL - trigger to begin betting for a matching couplet on the next line eg:
2b3c LL
1a3b LL
2c3a LL -----six L's trigger
1a--------------------begin to bet now for match of doz1 then next spin bet for match on column a - BUT always stop at a winner on the line.
I use a 10-step progression: 1-1-1-2-3-5-7-11-16-25 = 72u
Example:
1a3c LL
1a2b LL
2b1c LL TRIGGER
2c2c w+2; w +2
3b1a LL
1c2b LL
3c2a LL TRIGGER
1c1c w+2 w +4
1a1b w L
3c2c L w
3c1b LL
2c3a LL
3a2b LL TRIGGER
3b1a L-1 L-1
2c2c w+2 w +4
Hey JL, Looking forward to codev5! :)
Atlantis.
Yep Atlantis, you got it. Yeah im proofing CODE V5 at the moment. Its got to win the first 500 games to make it on here. Im 245/0 at present.
John
I have an old Chinese proverb for you. "The man who chases two rabbits catches neither."
Not ragging on you, but if one system works why look for more?
Sam
Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 19, 2013, 05:27:21 PM
John
I have an old Chinese proverb for you. "The man who chases two rabbits catches neither."
Not ragging on you, but if one system works why look for more?
Sam
I do not need a bust to shift. I shift methods sometimes to not going into a boring routine.
And maybe the casino use players signature! :))
Yes, Ralph, but all your methods work. If I found a method that works, I'd stick with it.
Just my opinion.
John seems to run these things out like he had an assembly line!
Sam
Thing is that they are poorly tested before any claim should be made.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 19, 2013, 06:50:47 PM
Yes, Ralph, but all your methods work. If I found a method that works, I'd stick with it.
Just my opinion.
John seems to run these things out like he had an assembly line!
Sam
You are right and wrong at the same time Sam, PATTERN BREAKER is 4.5 years old. And ill be playing it till I draw my last breath.
7 on 1 is new. And although Bayes tests are discouraging. Remember they are sims and not H.A.R. Im still doing very well with it.
I've always used at least two methods. Atlantis CODE 4 H. Is too good to be ignored. It really is. So im using it. CODE V5 is the one yet to break on here. If it holds up it will.
It will put in an appearance. FIVES on the backburner. As 7 On 1 took presedence over it. I even have methods for the streets that I use from time to time.
Variety is the spice of life. So long as they're winning. They are there for use.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 19, 2013, 11:04:40 PM
You are right and wrong at the same time Sam, PATTERN BREAKER is 4.5 years old. And ill be playing it till I draw my last breath.
7 on 1 is new. And although Bayes tests are discouraging. Remember they are sims and not H.A.R. Im still doing very well with it.
I've always used at least two methods. Atlantis CODE 4 H. Is too good to be ignored. It really is. So im using it. CODE V5 is the one yet to break on here. If it holds up it will.
It will put in an appearance. FIVES on the backburner. As 7 On 1 took presedence over it. I even have methods for the streets that I use from time to time.
Variety is the spice of life. So long as they're winning. They are there for use.
What happened to FIVE? You had 1000+ winning run with that. And it was with 1,3,9,27 progression.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 19, 2013, 11:04:40 PM
7 on 1 is new. And although Bayes tests are discouraging. Remember they are sims and not H.A.R. Im still doing very well with it.
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?
Quote from: Robeenhuut on January 22, 2013, 06:10:49 AM
What happened to FIVE? You had 1000+ winning run with that. And it was with 1,3,9,27 progression.
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.
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. :thumbsup:
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? ;D 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? ;D 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. ;D 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. ;D 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 (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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence)
Marigny what is GAMBLERS FALLACY?
Quote from: spike on January 23, 2013, 07:54:44 PM
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'.
So mr how does someone win a unit before finding the next table? Do you just show up and bet on the first thing that comes in your head? No you have to track your method TO ARRIVE AT THAT BET.
Stop trying to get the upperhand Spike. You cannot. Your complete thought process is like that of the wizard of odds. He is someone with a closed mind who thinks maths explains everything. And you remind me exactly of him.
When I prove my point over the coming months and years. Youll be singing another tune.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 23, 2013, 08:22:46 PM
Marigny what is GAMBLERS FALLACY?
First of all i don't get the CAPS. I also do not understand why you come up with that question, what's the connection?
wiki
"The Gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy (because its most famous example happened in a Monte Carlo Casino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_Casino) in 1913),[1][2] and also referred to as the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_independence) trials of some random process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_process), future deviations in the opposite direction are then more likely."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy)
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 23, 2013, 08:28:03 PM
So mr how does someone win a unit before finding the next table?
You say to win a game takes an average of 62 spins. I
just don't see how switching tables after 62 spins is
hit and run.
Quote from: MarignyGrilleau on January 23, 2013, 11:16:02 PM
First of all i don't get the CAPS. I also do not understand why you come up with that question, what's the connection?
wiki
"The Gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy (because its most famous example happened in a Monte Carlo Casino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_Casino) in 1913),[1][2] and also referred to as the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_independence) trials of some random process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_process), future deviations in the opposite direction are then more likely."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy)
The question is PRICELESS in my situation. My methods are the opposite of gamblers fallacy.
Nearly every method is based on that exact fallacy SOMETHING IS DUE. PATTERN BREAKER isn't. 7 ON 1 isn't. FIVE isn't. In fact they all work because they are saying you are not due. And if you want my stake youve got to do this RIGHT NOW.
When that finally sinks into enough minds. You will know how I Won.
Until then you carry on stuck on the same track of jaded indifference.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 24, 2013, 12:24:48 AM
The question is PRICELESS in my situation. My methods are the opposite of gamblers fallacy.
Nearly every method is based on that exact fallacy SOMETHING IS DUE. PATTERN BREAKER isn't. 7 ON 1 isn't. FIVE isn't. In fact they all work because they are saying you are not due. And if you want my stake youve got to do this RIGHT NOW.
When that finally sinks into enough minds. You will know how I Won.
Until then you carry on stuck on the same track of jaded indifference.
By now i do not think you will even read an answer. And i just don't have the energy.
Keep going champ!
Quote from: spike on January 23, 2013, 11:57:27 PM
You say to win a game takes an average of 62 spins. I
just don't see how switching tables after 62 spins is
hit and run.
You don't see anything Spike other than even chances and level stakes. Youve made that quite clear. The deal is ONE GAME and gone. What I will prove is H.A.R as I execute it. Is superior to continuous play.
You stay on the same track too long you will lose.
You keep hopping from track to track. You will miss that loss for longer periods. IF YOUR BET SELECTION is any good to start with.
Lets be clear on that. A poor bet selection is doomed however you play it. And the people who don't see any advantage in H.A.R often are guilty of using very weak methods to begin with.
Its the total package. To succeed in this game. Maybe one day you will find the courage to talk straight and present a clear cut method.
Then people might see you know something, until then you are just a detractor with nothing better.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 24, 2013, 12:35:11 AM
You don't see anything Spike
Yup, I don't see how moving to another table after
62 spins is hit and run. The average table produces
25 spins an hour. A real table, not some online piece
of stuff. 62 spins is 2 and 1/2 hours worth. Its not
hit and run after that long a time, its more like Snooze
and Crawl..
Quote from: spike on January 24, 2013, 10:55:16 PM
Yup, I don't see how moving to another table after
62 spins is hit and run. The average table produces
25 spins an hour. A real table, not some online piece
of stuff. 62 spins is 2 and 1/2 hours worth. Its not
hit and run after that long a time, its more like Snooze
and Crawl..
If you track 61 spins and then make one or two bets I think it can be called HAR. I do not think you switch table during tracking! :))
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 24, 2013, 12:24:48 AM
My methods are the opposite of gamblers fallacy.
John have you been thinking about changing your signature in forum? This sounds much less egoistic, and still explains lots of things about you and your play.
Best
Drazen
Quote from: spike on January 24, 2013, 10:55:16 PM
Yup, I don't see how moving to another table after
62 spins is hit and run. The average table produces
25 spins an hour. A real table, not some online piece
of stuff. 62 spins is 2 and 1/2 hours worth. Its not
hit and run after that long a time, its more like Snooze
and Crawl..
I play mostly online these days. there's 120 odd spins an hour. I don't wait for-60 odd spins. I play 3--5 methods in a typical session. If the opportunity comes along I take it. there's not always a long wait.
You ought to know that. I have logged in and had a bet waiting for me hundreds of times. I don't labour over it. If I don't get the opportunity in my session I let it go.
I've never waited 100 spins for a game and neverwill. I have PATTERN BREAKER, DIVIDE AND CONQUER, MATRIX VERTICAL 3, TEMPLATE 7, FIVE. New gems CODE 4 HORIZONTAL and CODE V5 and of course 7 ON 1 to keep me busy. there's never a dull moment.
Quote from: Drazen on January 24, 2013, 11:15:42 PM
John have you been thinking about changing your signature in forum? This sounds much less egoistic, and still explains lots of things about you and your play.
Best
Drazen
What is my signature?
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 24, 2013, 12:24:48 AM
My methods are the opposite of gamblers fallacy.
You have no idea do you?
>:D
Quote from: MarignyGrilleau on January 24, 2013, 11:58:47 PM
You have no idea do you?
>:D
Whatever Marigny, losing methods and strategies of play. don't succeed longterm. So you can explain to me how having no idea achieved the things I will.
John
Any chance of screen capture of betting history of any online casino you play at?
Quote from: Robeenhuut on January 25, 2013, 06:52:12 AM
John
Any chance of screen capture of betting history of any online casino you play at?
Something to back up the claims should be mandatory.
As this over some time so it will also show the red figures , and not only selected sessions.
Quote from: MarignyGrilleau on January 23, 2013, 11:16:02 PM
wiki
"The Gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy (because its most famous example happened in a Monte Carlo Casino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_Casino) in 1913),[1][2] and also referred to as the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_independence) trials of some random process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_process), future deviations in the opposite direction are then more likely."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy)
This may not apply or affect some methods (eg: matrix methods) when played H.A.R.
A.
Quote from: Ralph on January 25, 2013, 09:05:10 AM
Something to back up the claims should be mandatory.
As this over some time so it will also show the red figures , and not only selected sessions.
That's what the challenge is all about Ralph, Matt. Started with 200 units on PP. And you will see what im able to do with that before they stop me. Superman is my verifier. And recieves 50% of everything for his part in this. April will be the first update. July the first milestone.
From there im certain ill have your attention.
Ralph
Referring to your chart........
You won over 1,400 Euro in just over 46 minutes. Is that correct?
Sam
Quote from: Atlantis on January 25, 2013, 09:28:20 AM
This may not apply or affect some methods (eg: matrix methods) when played H.A.R.
A.
It might effect them Atlantis, but it can't stop them being successful. Random has to do certain things within a certain spin frame. The layout was designed to throw the masses into chaos. And off the scent.
Its when you put random into another playground, and scrutinize its behaviour away from the wheel and layout. You begin to see patterns. And common limitations that give you a way to beat random.
The matrix concept is one such way. Then smart thinkers like you and AMK take it to an even higher level with the alternating format.
Now random becomes as easy to read as todays newspaper. It has to do certain things in a certain spin frame. It can't get around it.
Some people already know this. The masses can't and won't ever take it in.
Theyll always be falling into Einsteins lap. And what all mathematicians say is a mathematical certainty. I.E its simply impossible to overcome the house edge in the longterm.
I haven't believed that for years. The question is, how much would someone have to win before it starts to register in the minds of more than a few people?
If casinos are so sure that no mechanical method can overcome the house edge. Why do they limit or ban people who win consistently?. You only have to think about that to realize.
They are far from sure. The arrogance of a mathematician or someone who believes math is the law when it comes to this game. Is if someone proves they can beat the house edge at will. Longterm and consistently, then hundreds of years of teachings. Arent sound.
And this is huge. Because unlike religion, we arent talkng about personal faith here. We are talking about people who believe math is absolute truth and reality.
So how do you convince someone like that there's something missing from the story? The only way it can be done, is through longterm consistent winning. In a systematic fashion. That's what I and others will do on this forum.
Love it Sam!
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 25, 2013, 10:58:58 AM
That's what the challenge is all about Ralph, Matt. Started with 200 units on PP. And you will see what im able to do with that before they stop me. Superman is my verifier. And recieves 50% of everything for his part in this. April will be the first update. July the first milestone.
From there im certain ill have your attention.
So what's your current balance on PP?
Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 25, 2013, 03:16:56 PM
Ralph
Referring to your chart........
You won over 1,400 Euro in just over 46 minutes. Is that correct?
Sam
Yes, but is not anything else than 1 Euro play. I use to make more UNITS at the same time in other sessions, but then using 0.01 or 0.1.
Quote from: Robeenhuut on January 26, 2013, 07:27:17 AM
So what's your current balance on PP?
The first update will be in April Matt. The second update and first milestone in July. The third update in September. And 4th update and second milestone in December.
I run this like a business. Its not about getting rich fast. Its about steady overall bankroll growrh that proves what im doing can't be down to just luck. it's a test of your patience to wait for these updates Matt.
But after the second one in July you will know I mean business. And more than a few people will begin to realize. I know what im doing. Especially the owner of anothet forum. The lies he spread about me im just biding my time.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 26, 2013, 10:16:36 AM
The first update will be in April Matt. The second update and first milestone in July. The third update in September. And 4th update and second milestone in December.
I run this like a business. Its not about getting rich fast. Its about steady overall bankroll growrh that proves what im doing can't be down to just luck. it's a test of your patience to wait for these updates Matt.
But after the second one in July you will know I mean business. And more than a few people will begin to realize. I know what im doing. Especially the owner of anothet forum. The lies he spread about me im just biding my time.
Im just curious John. You can prove all doubters that you are right by just posting transaction history from an online casino you play at. Ladbrokes if memory serves me right ? ;D Now you are on PP.
Quote from: Robeenhuut on January 28, 2013, 07:47:10 AM
Im just curious John. You can prove all doubters that you are right by just posting transaction history from an online casino you play at. Ladbrokes if memory serves me right ? ;D Now you are on PP.
Im everywhere Matt, lets let Superman earn some of that money this year. He will be my public relations man.
Nobody will give a hoot until about september. Then I will never have to prove another thing. You just watch this year. Its the year that changes more than a few minds.
JL, I just wonder about the possible flaw in your method. You claim it will never lose. In such a case I should divide the table max with the progressions needed and use higher value chips. If your method does not work with other than lower chips, you have not told us why. Or may it be so you need the lower chips value due to the table max divided with the ground chip becomes the progression needed?
Some of my methods frankly is so, and have a risk to lose, if minor.
Quote from: Ralph on January 28, 2013, 08:53:53 PM
JL, I just wonder about the possible flaw in your method. You claim it will never lose. In such a case I should divide the table max with the progressions needed and use higher value chips. If your method does not work with other than lower chips, you have not told us why. Or may it be so you need the lower chips value due to the table max divided with the ground chip becomes the progression needed?
Some of my methods frankly is so, and have a risk to lose, if minor.
Ralph, I don't claim it will never lose. Bayes already showed it will lose in his simulation. What I said was I've yet to see a loss in nearly 4000 potential losses. And today I have hit the 1000 mark in wins.
RESULTS UPDATE FOR 7 ON 1 FOR 28/01/2013
TOTAL GAMES PLAYED 1000
TOTAL GAMES WON 1000
TOTAL GAMES LOST ZERO
STRIKERATE 1000/0
Well 7 ON 1 has hit the magical 1000 barrier in consecutive wins today. I don't know how to feel about this method. It didn't stand up to Bayes tests. But I have yet to lose a game. I've had one challenge on the progression in 1000 games.
So it stands that I've never seen more than six consecutive 4 GAPS on a live wheel. In almost 4,000 potential games. One thousand now played.
I know how everyone feels about that heavy high risk progression. I don't like the risk on the 5th step myself. 81---81 is alot to put on a single bet for a 1 unit return.
I only take this risk because I can well afford to do so. If I have the patience to wait for a treble trigger as I was doing on 8 ON 1. I will get less games, have to wait longer. But only have 80 units on the line.
Everything has its price with this game, and the two things we never have enough of in this life are in the balance here. TIME AND MONEY.
FIVE my other method that deals with 4 GAPS. Also has broken the 1000 winning game barrier. And only has 80 units on the line. But I have 3 losses on record. One suffered in real play. But all things considered its overall still the most successful method I've played.
I have to decide whether to continue pursuing 7 ON 1 at 242 units risk. Or to play both 8 ON 1 and FIVE in tandem with eactother. Both only risking 80 units a piece.
I would like to warn all the newbies, that the above results claimed as facts, are in fact fiction. Any resemblance with reality is pure coincidence.
note: Anyone who shows results without any backing up to support it, is merely making an empty claim without anything of substance to show. Despite all the promises placed on the future...
Quote from: MarignyGrilleau on January 28, 2013, 10:55:44 PM
I would like to warn all the newbies, that the above results claimed as facts, are in fact fiction. Any resemblance with reality is pure coincidence.
note: Anyone who shows results without any backing up to support it, is merely making an empty claim without anything of substance to show. Despite all the promises placed on the future...
Any resemblance with reality is pure coincidence. What on earth are you talking about? You may choose not to believe my results Marigny. But don't be making statements like that.
You will be one of the first to shy away from admitting you were wrong 5 months from now.
It would be very easy to prove me wrong immediately if you had verifiable sessions. But you don't. So what i say above stands as the present truth. Please realize that i do not hold any grudge against you, but i recon people wanting to improve their game @roulette will look into this forum. Just for consideration of those, i take the liberty of assuming the sceptic side.
I would be very happy if in fact your systems could beat the game. Me and hundreds of others. No doubt about that.
Just keeping expectations honest here.
Cheers
:thumbsup:
Quote from: MarignyGrilleau on January 28, 2013, 11:37:32 PM
It would be very easy to prove me wrong immediately if you had verifiable sessions. But you don't. So what i say above stands as the present truth.
It stands as nothing. Its my results. I will prove I win with ever growing REAL SUMS OF MONEY. Not endless bot tests in fun mode. But REAL HARD CASH on a LIVE WHEEL. Read that over and over until it sinks in.
Then when I've 25 folded my bankroll for starters. I will come looking for you to explain how all these losing methods managed that. Be ready.
?...