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.

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

Quote from: Ralph on January 19, 2013, 07:55:21 AM
3400 spins and plus  8482. The method has downdraws as any "HG" this time about 4000 units.

Ralph you have created a way to beat online Rngs it seems. Totally unpractical to play in a real casino. But you have got the RNG world in a bag it would appear. Well done for that. 
I strive for methods that will travel. I can step into any casino or go online and the outcome will be the same. Each to their own.

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, 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: Bally6354 on January 18, 2013, 09:01:33 PM

You will see twice as many singles as doubles.

Twice as many doubles as triples.

Twice as many triples as four timers etc...

A single is 1/1.

A double (parlay) is 3/1.

A triple is 7/1.

A four timer is 15/1.

Bally in theory YES. In real play. it depends when you enter the cycle. You might see 10 doubles and no singles. You might see RRR-BBB-RRR-BBB-RRR And no doubles. Random is awesome it can form all manner of runs and patterns.

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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?