I agree with this.


As long as you're happy with a low strike rate playing one or two numbers is the way to go, just as MrJ is always telling us.


I like to use a positive progression. This has the effect of making sessions of a manageable length, resulting in either a reasonable win target reached or a stop loss.


Trebor

It's never been said better   


Is that your second language Ralph?

I've never looked for a pattern.


Have you any advice on which hours are worst?


Trebor

Ralph,


Do you suffer from the various "unable to connect" error messages from BV.


I do and I'm getting fed up of it.


Trebor

Ralph,


I don't have a problem understanding your posts. There are many native born English speakers with an inferior standard of English.


@sqzbox


In defence of our American friends, most of the spelling differences originate in the 18th and 19th centuries when standardised spelling was only just getting going.  In a way all it means is that there is still not a completely standarized (even in the OED) spelling system, but generally we all understand each other.


It's a living language, let it live.


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

Quote from: JohnLegend on December 22, 2012, 01:04:36 PM

You have to have iron self belief. Some people arent made to beat this game period. Trebor and Shogun both simmered around 7/1 after two or three hundred games. For them failure. But NOT FOR ME that's the difference. I know how to make this method pay EVEN when it drops below its break even point 7/1.

When its flying as it is at the moment for me. You don't need any smart MM you just let it GO. So NO, not everyone will get stellar results with PB. Most will fold before they ever see what is really possible.

They want INSTANT GRATIFICATION. And when it doesn't come they will bend and drop out. STAYING POWER. its lacking in most people Superman. 7/1 doesn't buy you a miracle. You have to work at it.
242/1 that's another story. Bayes has a surprise coming his way next year with that one.

If that's not saying it's my fault for having no staying power then I'm a chinaman (no offence).

JL,

I stayed away from the main PB thread so I wouldn't see you say about me what I have now seen you say.

For the record. I remain unconvinced about the virtues of HAR as it makes no sense to me either but decided to have a go testing according to your methods. I accept that if I had carried on my results might have become better, of course they might also have become worse.

This has nothing whatsoever with a lack of staying power or impatience on my part. There was always advice on how my results might improve if I made some subtle change to my playing, BV suddenly became suspect, for some unknown reason one EC was "better" than the other two, I was playing too many sessions, the list goes on.

I would love for you to be right so I hope your supervised test lives up to your claims and it remains verifiable.

I think I'm right that you claim to have been winning with your methods for at least 13 years.

Trebor

Looks like I'll bow out of my testing, at least as far as posting any results goes.


If it doesn't work for me on Smartlive there is now a ready made reason for my failure there to.  I guess the always will be.


Over and out


Trebor

It's a real wheel and I've not heard anyone question it although I've heard Smartlive haven't got an unblemished record regarding payouts etc.

I'll just do H & L as you suggest but since I was playing each EC in every session I don't see that makes it "chopping between even chances" .

Trebor

JL,

I'm testing (on paper) as I thought you were playing.

If every time I get poor results you turn round and say I need to change my methods there is no point me going on.

I'm not going to test on a live wheel in real time but this is what I propose to do.

Smartlive (autowheel) make available the last 185 numbers. I'll log on and play a session using only high and low once a day.
Please say if this is unsuitable in your opinion.

Trebor

I started my test playing on BV single zero as you described at the time.

I'll play along and do as you say but don't change the rules again please.

Trebor

@JL

Can't see how that info will alter reality but I'll go through the figures. I will say this, using progression I was reasonably up until the two double losses. Well that's progressions for you.

@ Subby.

I'm not doing a regular 1, 2 or 3 a day, just as and when.
Started beginning of November so averaging about 6 a day. That's two sessions playing all three EC's.

However I am playing hit and run. It looks to me like you're wanting to blame me for my poor results. As JL responded to me once I can only post the results I'm getting.

Trebor

Still plodding away.

Results as of 15/12/12.

Total games played           284

Total games won               249

Total games lost                 35

Double losses                      2

Strike rate                          7.1/1


Trebor

I've run this method about 20 times (haven't kept records) and so far I've reached 100 units mostly with less than a 500 drawdown.

I've had a couple that went to -900 and one that was at about -1500 before I lost the connection.

Maybe a 500 stop loss would be about right but obviously more testing needed.

Have you kept records of drawdowns Ralph?

Trebor