JL is completely correct that PB has long sequences of wins, win streaks. I just had my simulation break out win streaks and display them. At 100 sessions at a time it's easy to see that long win streaks are very common. I just had 33 wins in a row on a 100 session test. That test produced a 6.7 to 1 hit rate. I also had two 25+ win streaks in a 100 session test that produced a 9 to 1 hit rate. It's not a verification or validation of PB but more it's a validation that PB can look like a winner in the short run but that it will always be a loser in the long run. 6,400 is not a large number sample.

Quote from: Gizmotron on November 29, 2012, 07:03:13 PM
JL is completely correct that PB has long sequences of wins, win streaks. I just had my simulation break out win streaks and display them. At 100 sessions at a time it's easy to see that long win streaks are very common. I just had 33 wins in a row on a 100 session test. That test produced a 6.7 to 1 hit rate. I also had two 25+ win streaks in a 100 spin test that produced a 9 to 1 hit rate. It's not a verification or validation of PB but more it's a validation that PB can look like a winner in the short run but that it will always be a loser in the long run. 6,400 is not a large number sample.

Gizmotron heres my problem with what youre saying. It simply doesn't pan out that way. Yes in the big picture 6.400 games may not be a large sample.

But do you really think I am going to surrender 6,000 units profit. Of course I can have periods of downturn and loss. But overall it will always level out and clearly ahead resume on the road to additional

profit. The type of bankroll devastation you talk of simply doesn't happen with a method like PB.
That's why I will play it until the day I die.

JL, I clearly believe that you have been lucky when it comes to your results for recovery bets. You think it's "HAR" and the common occurrences of win streaks. By your own statements you have yet to experience a triple loss. That alone is a validation of experiencing a lucky break. It's completely believable. It's also naive to think that your luck is because you know something that we don't. You are one of the free thinking type personalities that have an explanation for the most common forms of random occurrences. This is getting old and tired.

Quote from: Gizmotron on November 29, 2012, 07:22:39 PM
JL, I clearly believe that you have been lucky when it comes to your results for recovery bets. You think it's "HAR" and the common occurrences of win streaks. By your own statements you have yet to experience a triple loss. That alone is a validation of experiencing a lucky break. It's completely believable. It's also naive to think that your luck is because you know something that we don't. You are one of the free thinking type personalities that have an explanation for the most common forms of random occurrences. This is getting old and tired.

Success never gets old Giz. But do NOT take my word for it. This is what Speramus is all about. And what I am doing on BV. Two years from now even you may raise an eyebrow.

Quote from: JohnLegend on November 29, 2012, 07:31:57 PM
Success never gets old Giz. But do NOT take my word for it. This is what Speramus is all about. And what I am doing on BV. Two years from now even you may raise an eyebrow.

What the heck.

I have a thread going right now that is dedicated to telling specific instructions on how to attack randomness and the opportunities that it has to offer. In two years everyone will know that I have been right all along. See. Anyone can do it.

Quote from: JohnLegend on November 29, 2012, 07:01:54 PM
Spike you will be proven wrong and shallow in your thought process. I GAURANTEE YOU THAT.

Odd, that's what they all say and so far, none
of them have proved anything except what
they do isn't based on the reality how things
work.

Quote from: Gizmotron on November 29, 2012, 07:03:13 PM
It's not a verification or validation of PB but more it's a validation that PB can look like a winner in the short run but that it will always be a loser in the long run.

Throw a little curve fitting into the mix and that's
where we always end up with these scenerios.
Curve fitting is nasty, you can do it without even
realizing it. You think you have a winning system
when your thumb has been on the scale the
whole time, screwing up the true results.

Quote from: spike on November 29, 2012, 07:50:40 PM
Throw a little curve fitting into the mix and that's
where we always end up with these scenerios.
Curve fitting is nasty, you can do it without even
realizing it. You think you have a winning system
when your thumb has been on the scale the
whole time, screwing up the true results.

Bankrolls don't grow by themselves. Hard cash will prove my point. those are  my final words in this to you Spike and Gizmotron.

any update on this topic?

Doubt it.
Have you tried PB m, & if so what has been your experience?