+ Register

[Blue_Angel]

Hello BA,

You mention that there are parameters which you have not discussed. These parameters have no impact on the method you have described (FHG) or do they? With this I mean, you have shared with us your winning method, we have all the information for this in your method description however, there are some "parameters" which can make playing less time consuming etc. For example what you just mentioned that after a session win we do not have to start all over with tracking but can begin again with the least hit EC.

I hope you have not left out an important aspect of your winning method, without which we can not win longterm.

What I've already shared with you is something very strong which aims in long term victory by the absence of defeat.

In some sessions the profit might be little but believe me the soonest way to reach a distant point is by slow and steady steps, it might seems that some other methods are gaining fast but if you could see those methods after a week or a month you would realize that your progress is greater.

Consistency, stability, persistency are the names of my method.
The benefits are not only financial but it's also a good opportunity to build patience and discipline, by becoming mentally stronger you are becoming the ruler of your life.

Last but not least, I'd like to offer you a hint about the ''hidden'' parameters;
It has to do with the selection, not the progression.
Just use your mind, use your imagination, don't be spoiled and expect everything in a ''silver platter''.

[Big EZ]

Here is a test I did of 1k placed bets with BLUES progression.
Highest bet was 16 units, and I ended with +83 units

I have attached:
the 3k random.org file I used for generating my W/L registry
1k flat bet graph played through this random.org sequence
1k bet graph with BA progression
sheet with the W/L and bet amounts for each bet

edit****
Forgot to add this is in cycles of 50 based off playing baccarat

[Blue_Angel]

Hey guys, can anyone copy the following and post it to the Steve's forum because he restricted my account.
Anyone??

''Hi Azim, thanks for your kind offer, really appreciated.

After waiting for the first 37 spins only on the beginning of each session, then you don't wait,you just bet every spin till the end of the session.
A session ends when the player is satisfied with the profit, there no standard spins to play or units to win.

You must set the counter for ALL 6 EC's to non stop recording from the beginning of each session till the end.

Every time there is another least shown EC you change to that one regardless of how many units the bet is, selection and progression are 2 different things!

Every time there are 2 or 3 EC's with the same hits, select the one which is missing for more spins (older), if after applying the second criteria there is tie between 2 or 3 EC's, then choose the one which its opposite EC has appeared most recently.

Whenever the balance reaches a new high you are resetting the betting amount to 1 unit regardless of which EC you are betting at that time.

So the answer to your question is yes, you carry on with your selection as long it remains least appeared.
You track without betting ONLY the first 37 spins of each session.

I'll be on your disposal if you need further clarification.

Angelo''

[TheLaw]

Just posted this on Roulette.cc.

Hopefully this can move it forward.

[Blue_Angel]

Just posted this on Roulette.cc.

Hopefully this can move it forward.

I just saw it, many thanks!

[Albalaha]

Peace, guys!!
  I was not posting here for pretty long time for some personal reasons but since this debate has my inputs directly or indirectly, I thought it fine to speak my mind myself.

    First of all, I do not have any enmity against the member blue angel or nickmsi.
Both are nice people and I have talked to them for long earlier.

Regarding this progression suggested by Blue Angel, I would just say, it is very easy to simulate in excel exactly as Blue Angel says. I have tested his version extensively. Marty can win any attack but the question is of max bet and drawdown that one is willing to have and casinos permit them too.
  Any random session can get a bet of even a few thousands, if you simulate enough, this way.
I am working on BA's method's tracker to prove my point. I know Azim or Reyth are working on the same too. Whoever comes first, will prove my point. I guarantee this.

   Stating that my way of picking bets is immune from dangerous hikes of martingale is indeed fallacious. Will be back here soon.

[Blue_Angel]

Peace, guys!!
  I was not posting here for pretty long time for some personal reasons but since this debate has my inputs directly or indirectly, I thought it fine to speak my mind myself.

    First of all, I do not have any enmity against the member blue angel or nickmsi.
Both are nice people and I have talked to them for long earlier.

Regarding this progression suggested by Blue Angel, I would just say, it is very easy to simulate in excel exactly as Blue Angel says. I have tested his version extensively. Marty can win any attack but the question is of max bet and drawdown that one is willing to have and casinos permit them too.
  Any random session can get a bet of even a few thousands, if you simulate enough, this way.
I am working on BA's method's tracker to prove my point. I know Azim or Reyth are working on the same too. Whoever comes first, will prove my point. I guarantee this.

   Stating that my way of picking bets is immune from dangerous hikes of martingale is indeed fallacious. Will be back here soon.

You are missing an important point, all these is NOT about just a progression, there is a selection too and NOT all the selections are the same!
Perhaps you want to pass it because you are very eager to prove that it fails, but what YOU are doing is NOT my method!

Even what Nick did is NOT my method, user betjack was betting always on Red and he lost after about 600 spins and with the same progression but different selection I've reached more than 1500 spins without even exceeding 16 units bet!

You want us to believe that everything is the same?!
Does the term regression towards the mean means anything to you??
Does law of large numbers ring a bell??
My progression alone without any bet selection criteria can win even 5.5 standard deviation!

Let's be realistic and realize that has never been worse than 5.5 SD in a LARGE sample of results, in a small sample like 20 spins you can see 20 Black or even 30 in a row, BUT I'm talking about a large sample which streaks like 30 in a row is just a piece of my hair for me, while someone who bets Martingale in the classic way he wouldn't win even with millions of units!
The truth is that there is HUGE difference between someone who bets the classic Martingale and someone like me who uses it differently, there is HUGE difference between someone who bets randomly and someone who uses statistics!
You don't want to understand?
Fine, it's YOUR problem not mine and you cannot prove that my method fails as long as you don't use my method!

[Albalaha]

@BA,
     Now your answer is forcing me to quote myself from gamblingforums.com post of mine

I saw a topic in roulette30.com which was written two months back:
http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=669.0

The author Blue Angel says: The worst 200 spins for RED in roulette history have been proven not enough in front of the "Fallacious Holy Grail"!

In that topic he chose to beat the worst doing Red, i.e. 69/200 from a German casino record. although he did play it further to win this which is perfectly fine, he passed through this so called, "toughest" phase with his innovative use of Martingale in the spans of 37 spins.
Now, when I gave him a session which is betting on Red again, he says, why should he bet Red, it is like "party without music" or "sword without hands" and bla bla. It is interesting to note that the same person who believes that his method can beat the worst recorded, shying away from sessions that do not have such stretches. I put two sessions, called "horror" session and "superhorror" session where Red is not at the worst and his innovation is failing thousands and even hundreds of thousands of units, still.

I can see that most of the forums have become a garbage yard with such methods that are only blinding people to lose even faster in a false hopes without realizing the truth ever. I created the tracker to awaken people of such fallacies. Anyone can see a random session by going into the sheet called "random" and by pressing F9 in an empty cell. Anybody can witness losses of a few thousands or even a few hundred thousands with bets going even 100k units at times.

  BA, your inability to code is making you confused and myopic both together.

Any person with minimum coding skills can confirm what I just stated. You can't pick a bet which will remain safer than anything else randomly.

[Blue_Angel]

@ Albalaha,

You made up the sequences in order to disprove my method, unfortunately for you my method includes selection criteria, unfortunately for you I stop when my profit is good and not in 200 spins.

Is it roulette rule for someone to bet 200 sins exactly??
I could bet 50 or 150 or 350 if I wanted.

Your fictitious 200 spins sets cannot disprove my method but proving your IQ level.

[Albalaha]

Oh really?

You said earlier:

Indeed, Albahala uses the same philosophy on his betting and is one of the very few pro gamblers in this forum.

And now?

I am trying to discredit your silly innovation? Can I change the code of random session too? Anybody can look at the random session to see such things can only fail, at last.
   When you accepted and rather bragged to beat the worst session betting red only you did not say that why should I go for a party without music and when your method fails badly, you have childish excuses for that?
  Martingale can only fail unless you be lucky and long run doesn't not let anybody lucky for long. Please do not fool urself as well as others.
Guys like johnlegend did have such silly claims and when they found the reality they ran away to never come back, in utter shame.

[Blue_Angel]

Excel file provides pseudo-RNG results which means that in large totals it's repeating the same results more than normal.

If there was RX code we could test it with spins from B&M casinos which can make a big difference in large totals.

Everyone is free to believe what he wants...

[Blue_Angel]

Honorable mr Hourmouzis restricted my account just because I showed him an article which he didn't like but I didn't write it.

In his rampling even claimed that me and Kavouras (from roulette30) are the same person!

Every time I'm posting there it takes hours to appear, so I'll no longer post there.

Every sensible person knows that what Hourmouzis is selling is not his own creation, so why not a buyer to go directly to the technician who creates those roulette computers and save considerably by eliminating the mediator (Steeve) ?

If I can read advertisements about roulette computers, casinos' staff can too...so they know and do you think they are going to tolerate such devices inside their establishments?

Why mr Hourmouzis doesn't use his equipment to generate as much money as he wants rather than trying convincing prospects to buy, wouldn't it be easier and better for him?

Why mr Hourmouzis doesn't offer to his potential buyers the option to pay not in advance but from the generated profits, if he is so sure about the efficiency of the technology he is promoting he would accept to get a cut from the profits being gained by gambling with others money.

Visual ballistic cannot be applied by your ''naked'' eyes, you cannot realistically expect that you can calculate where the ball will land within a few seconds after the release of the ball.

It's impossible without roulette computer, however only very few are accurate sufficiently in order to win consistently.
However, they are not allowed inside casinos and are very expensive, let alone that someone wouldn't like the idea because he considers it as stealing.

About biased wheels theory, let's say I'm a smartass who goes day after day at a roulette table and writes results by the hours, eventually decides that the 2 wheels he was recording are not biased enough.
So he decides to visit another casino which is 1 and half hour drive, after days he sees that some numbers have been shown more than the rest and decides that at that casino and the particular wheel will bet only those numbers!
The specific numbers are destined to dominate even after a week, a month, a year and during all this time the casino doesn't know or doesn't care!

Does it make sense to you?

[RouletteGhost]

i like steve

but clear to see no winning method will survive there

his business is selling

this is against his best interests

[Tomla]

would love to see more testing on blue angels system

[Albalaha]

Excel file provides pseudo-RNG results which means that in large totals it's repeating the same results more than normal.

There is no way to seed either Excel RAND or RANDBETWEEN function, which are rumored to be initialized from the computer's system time. Technically, a seed is the starting point for generating a sequence of random numbers. And every time an Excel random function is called, a new seed is used that returns a unique random sequence. In other words, when using the random number generator in Excel, you cannot get a repeatable sequence with the RAND or RANDBETWEEN function, nor with VBA, nor by any other means.

In early Excel versions, prior to Excel 2003, the random generation algorithm had a relatively small period (less than 1 million nonrecurring random number sequence) and it failed several standard tests of randomness on lengthy random sequences. So, if someone still works with an old Excel version, you'd better not use the RAND function with large simulation models but there is absolutely no trouble with excel 2007 or higher even for the longest simulation.

So, do not use the rhetoric excuse for failure of a method based upon fallacies on randomness of a PRNG.

   Blue Angel and Kav are two different people, in my opinion although they may be in same geographical zone. Reyth is in altogether different area (I think USA). Steve lacks any character himself to point on others.