+ Register

[Albalaha]

Guys,
          I am no one to stop all these but please think of your standards too. Both of you are merely teasing each other now. Debate has been over way back.

[Robeenhuut]

Hello Matt, I've never waited 500 spins to get 2 or 3 games.

I am now playing 7 ON 1 on both dozens and columns. As its simply not even being challenged on dozens alone. Yes its betting against 7 consecutive 4 gaps after a double trigger. Keep in mind now Matt I only PLAY LIVE. Matt you know well I only truly trust live play. Its the format im profitting against. Therefore its the ONLY format you can truly use to make a comparison.

Anything else is the lazy mans way to try and perpetuate the myth on this games longterm invincibility. To some that myth must be upheld at all costs. That's where I come in, to show its always been a myth.

The idea was innitialy born out of the fact that over several years of results for the ZONE. I could only highlight two times 6 consecutive 4 gaps. I could find nothing greater.

I am also currently testing 7 ON 1 against 1 million real spins. One dozen at a time. For my own peace of mind. As I will know whether in a continuous play fashion it stands up or not. And this will also prove H.A.R as a superior play strategy for 7 ON 1.

I personally already consider it a virtual H,A,R grail. Its so difficult to land dead on top of a losing run. It could win for years. And when it does eventually lose it will be of no real significance. This is the best we can do in this game.

But if we CAN DO IT the game is beaten. No ifs, buts or maybes.

John

You can test much faster by pressing F9. You played on BV and you are ok with RNG? I saw 7 gaps 3 times within 5000 spins.
It went also 50000 spins without single loss.  You never know where you will land.

[Gizmotron]

Guys,
          I am no one to stop all these but please think of your standards too. Both of you are merely teasing each other now. Debate has been over way back.

Another mother hen. What's this? You lobbying for moderator too. This thread has a legitimate right to exist. It's about the clarification that hit & run has no capacity to improve the odds and therefore is only wishful thinking, fallacy, and confirmation bias all rolled up into altruistic hype.

[JohnLegend]

Guys,
          I am no one to stop all these but please think of your standards too. Both of you are merely teasing each other now. Debate has been over way back.

Yes Albalaha you are right. I pledge to leave this alone now. Let the results do the talking.

So no matter how obvious it is, im being ridiculed. Or singled out. I will abstain from becoming involved. The time will arrive where I need to argue no more.

[esoito]

Moderator's Comment

Gizmotron stated:  "This thread has a legitimate right to exist."

It does indeed...for as long as commentators play the issues and not have a go at the person posting.

Once or twice it's been a bit borderline.

And just remember -- nobody HAS to post in this thread. And nobody HAS to read this thread.

So those that don't like the debate can simply ignore it.

As to the ones left -- play nicely, folks.

[Albalaha]

I am not asking to delete the debate but to stop repetitive comments upon each other that looks more like mudslinging than debate. If it looks good and healthy, carry on.

[JohnLegend]

John

You can test much faster by pressing F9. You played on BV and you are ok with RNG? I saw 7 gaps 3 times within 5000 spins.
It went also 50000 spins without single loss.  You never know where you will land.

Matt I believe BV is fair at the level I played. What im not sure of is the formation of patterns. I believe there's a difference there to the physics of a real wheel.

I didn't pull this concept out of thin air, its power was always there. I just didn't see it. I believe it's a virtual limit of TRUE RANDOM. A live wheel. Im putting the time in to test it continuously on 1 million live results. Something I've never done before. That's how much I believe in this. Live on dozens Matt, its so strong. I could go after a SINGLE TRIGGER. And use a 6 step progression 726 units. And never lose or lose rarely with H.A.R

What people don't get about PB is its not the ideal model to prove H.A.R as a superior strategy to CONTINUOUS PLAY. Its odds of 7/1 don't offer an obvious advantage. Although there is still one in my experience. 7 ON 1 however will end the argument for alltime.

Remember I ran into two 7s myself on Columns on BV. Live I have something very special here Matt. It demands the patience of a saint with two triggers, with one its INSTANTLY PLAYABLE.. ITS REWARD. You just all wait for this. It will never ever be forgotten in the history of this game.

Everyone wants to know how you turn a forum into an icon of success. Just wait for this.

[Trebor]

Hi JL,

If 7 on 1 is really as strong as you say then "the patience of a saint" is not required.

Just bot it.

Trebor

[AMK]

Gizmotron,


I think you would agree that even by your standards your own play cannot be validated to be effective longterm.




You play in your style, and you have done well for years.


JL plays in his style and he has done well for years.




For people researching roulette you are both great examples of how we can be successful playing a game which is determined to be impossible to prosper from longterm. In this case longterm is several years.


Instead of going back an forth why not see the connection between you two, you are both successful playing with methods which cannot possible win longterm mathematically speaking.


Your comments about HAR are duly noted. But your comments about HAR being pointless to try could just as easily be said about your style of play which has also been duly noted.


All we can do as fellow roulette players is state how we have been performing and this is what I honestly believe everybody on this forum is doing.


To say another is lying etc just doesn't make sense. Sure there are those sort of people but the odds are very very small we will come across them : )

[esoito]

Aaaaaaahhhh...at last -- a Voice of Reason!

Well put, AMK! 

Your comments put this whole debate in the proper perspective.

Hopefully the main protagonists will take note and behave accordingly.

[Gizmotron]

I guess its time I stop attempting to make anything simple. Ralph, When I created a sim  for testing all the hot numbers, the telemetry showed me something worth researching. So I'm real glad you are doing this research. I learned about randomness by studying hot numbers and guessing ways to select the hottest numbers as they change. So, thanks to you I've had an original / worthy idea. I've not seen any good ones in years. People are so many years behind that it's easy to get tired of looking. Worst of all, if you tell them that this stage of development will only lead them to a dead end experience that they badly need. Well then the happy police come out of the woodwork. I can only imagine that going through this stage, live on the internet, well it must be embarrassing at points. This thread is about the absurdity that hit & run changes the odds. If you think it does then you are only going through a phase.  I'm so glad I don't have to defend these kinds of stages. I was kind of hoping that at least all the moderators were past the beginner level.

[Gizmotron]

AMK  -" I think you would agree that even by your standards your own play cannot be validated to be effective longterm."

The only reason for that conclusion is that I have not proved it yet. The only way to do that is to finish the computer program algorithm that will be indisputable proof. Sorry, but it will take others to tell you it actually works. Mathematicians will go completely insane. Nope, all I have to do is just about kill myself writing it. It will likely contain three hundred thousand lines of code. That's perfect code without a single syntax error. So I don't have to do anything but all the heavy lifting. Right now I'm intrigued by the single number concept of adding one unit to your bets on each win, while you are behind.  BTW, here is a little secret that you can count on. All configurations of bet combinations and/or groupings all equate to the single number bet. In other words Ralph is already done. He just doesn't know it yet.

[esoito]

Gizmotron: "I was kind of hoping that at least all the moderators were past the beginner level."


One might ask if you practise being offensive, or if it just comes naturally.

Take heed: Keep up this sort of behaviour and you will outstay your welcome.

[Gizmotron]

Gizmotron: "I was kind of hoping that at least all the moderators were past the beginner level."


One might ask if you practise being offensive, or if it just comes naturally.

Take heed: Keep up this sort of behaviour and you will outstay your welcome.

I have some really important work to do. You can try this without me mother. You have been a terrible moderator. Power tripper. You are tripping dude.

[esoito]

At all times I try keep the forum rules in mind when reading posts.

If moderators ignore the rules and moderate without referring to them, then what's the point of having any rules at all?

And how long would the forum last  without rules, and without people prepared to donate their time (goodwill and energy) to help run the forum as moderators?


The sensible thing to do is to inform Victor of your opinion.

Then he can decide what to do if he shares it.




Meanwhile, for a cooling-off period, the thread is locked until Bayes returns.