Noticed Robin hood after u again JL...  ...

JL has nothing to prove to me, he has shown me an idea on how to play. And i have CHOSEN to play it, and it works for me.
You carry on JL doing what u do best, some people appretiate what u are doin mate.  ...

And for the record, i have made a profit from PB, and i am grateful !

Quote from: JohnLegend on November 30, 2012, 01:33:52 PM
Bayes will Matt ever let this go? Yes I survived 70 bets on the 4th step, many on your RNG. But they werent consecutive. They were interrupted by wins on the other three steps. Sometimes days apart.

that's where the confusion is

All the Math is based on 70 consecutive wins

On a side Note PB is goin well on Bacc 

Quote from: Tarantino on November 30, 2012, 02:12:01 PM
Noticed Robin hood after u again JL...  ...

JL has nothing to prove to me, he has shown me an idea on how to play. And i have CHOSEN to play it, and it works for me.
You carry on JL doing what u do best, some people appretiate what u are doin mate.  ...

And for the record, i have made a profit from PB, and i am grateful !

Thanks Tarantino, yes I had noticed he jumped overhere because he realized im not coming back to the other forum YET!

Look all I do is report how I play and what it gives me. I am as amazed as anyone else when I get some incredible results. If I hadnt won 70 times on the 4th step non consecutively I would never have said so.

What have I got to gain from making that up? Its simply what H.A.R has given me. Now when you think about it, if a method like PATTERN BREAKER with only 7/1 odds can win 100 times in a row played H.A.R.

What could a method like FIVE with 80/1 odds or 8 ON 1 with 242/1 odds do? That's all you have to consider.

When you play H.A.R to LOSE YOU MUST LAND DEAD ON TOP OF A LOSS. Now if H,A.R can dodge that fatal pattern with only 8 possible combinations 20,30,40 or even 100 plus times.

You don't have to be a genius to realize it could take thousands of attempts to land dead on top of that fatal pattern with odds of 242/1. Why people find that so hard to believe is beyond me. And its the reason I've set out to prove these things are possible.

Quote from: Bayes on November 30, 2012, 08:29:49 AM
BTW, a winning run of 100 in PB is equivalent to an EC streak of 21, so it IS possible, but of course not very common.

As for a winning run of 1000, forget it. 

I agree absolutely no one will EVER win even 300 times in a row with PATTERN BREAKER let alone 1,000. It simply will NEVER HAPPEN.

Im not even sure about Pilots 180. Lets just say he had the greatest freak run ever likely to happen with this method if its true.

I've had a few 100 plus wins. BUT, they were when I only played HIGH and LOW. And only played 5 games maximum a day. Since I started playing ODD EVEN and 10--15 games a day.

The best streak I have had live is 34 for high and Low. I will always tell it as it is. If it works I will say so. If it doesn't I will drop it. Not all my methods were world beaters you know. I've had a few white elephants. VERTICAL 8 didn't hold up. The MATRIX SLIDE slid into negativity.

TRILOGY ended up being pretty average. But when a method works, I will say so. 

Quote from: Bayes on November 30, 2012, 10:46:15 AM
It does seem odd that almost every win on the 4th bet was uninterrupted by any wins on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd bets.

However, the calculations all assume, of course, that the system has no advantage, and since I never got my head around FIVE, I can't do any tests on it, not to mention that apparently it's impossible to simulate hit & run. 

But it's right to be sceptical about these stats until JL shows us that they're plausible. One thing about them is that you WOULD expect to get more wins on the first bet and proportionately fewer on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th bets. The theoretical breakdown over 1120 bets is this:

1st bet -  727
2nd bet - 255
3rd bet -  90
4th bet -  31

JL's stats are pretty out of whack compared to these, but at least they follow the same pattern in that there are increasingly fewer wins on successive bets.

Bayes

Since you are the one that has any grasp of statistics let me put it this way. We have here 1120 winning bets on double dozens and some losing ones. Forget about steps. Can you calculate the odds of having this sequence:  LLLW not consecutively 70 times in a row for double dozens bet?  So each time after you lose 3 bets you win the 4th one.
How about the odds of seeing B 70 times each time after you see RRR?  These events don't have to be consecutive. 

Quote from: Tarantino on November 30, 2012, 02:12:01 PM
Noticed Robin hood after u again JL...  ...

JL has nothing to prove to me, he has shown me an idea on how to play. And i have CHOSEN to play it, and it works for me.
You carry on JL doing what u do best, some people appretiate what u are doin mate.  ...

And for the record, i have made a profit from PB, and i am grateful !

Im after his stats if you have not noticed that. I just  see something unusual in having few runs with odds over 1M in a few thousand games with PB and FIVE. 

 

Quote from: Robeenhuut on December 01, 2012, 04:35:16 AM
Bayes

Since you are the one that has any grasp of statistics let me put it this way. We have here 1120 winning bets on double dozens and some losing ones. Forget about steps. Can you calculate the odds of having this sequence:  LLLW not consecutively 70 times in a row for double dozens bet?  So each time after you lose 3 bets you win the 4th one.
How about the odds of seeing B 70 times each time after you see RRR?  These events don't have to be consecutive. 

Matt I don't think FIVE is comparable to your example. RRRB is a consecutive formation. With FIVE the main thing that threw most people was THE BET TRIGGER. It could be all over the place. Before around the same time.


And after the game trigger. That's what most people couldnt grasp. And what makes what you deem impossible. Possible. Its not a rigid 1,2,3,4. Like a MATRIX method.


In essence, by the time I got to that fourth step it was actually a fifth step some of the time (with the 2nd step GAME TRIGGER UNPLAYED ) and a fourth step other times. That may be why it survived so long. I've been thinking on this sometime now.

Because don't get me wrong, I was as amazed as you are. But I think that the complexity of the BET TRIGGER. Is what makes it so powerful.

And indeed hard to grasp. So to summarize many of what you thought were consecutive 4 step wins. Were in reality FIVE STEP WINS. Can you understand what im saying here Matt?

I will use the diagram below to try and bring Bayes in on this understanding. Also wading through my results. for what you think is a miracle 70 4 step wins in a row. of the 70. 29 were in reality 5 step wins. And the longest string of PURE 4 steps wins I have during the 70 is 6.

EXAMPLE 1
44--GAME TRIGGER (UNPLAYED)
44--STEP 1--BET TRIGGER
44--STEP 2
44--STEP 3
44--STEP 4------All 4 steps started and qualified after the G/T

EXAMPLE 2
44--BET TRIGGER---And step one bet as it started before the game trigger but qualified after the G/T
44--GAME TRIGGER (UNPLAYED)
44--STEP 2 BET
44--STEP 3 BET
44--STEP 4 BET

So what im saying Bayes is 29 of the 70 games that Matt asumes were consecutive 4 STEP winners. Were in reality 5 STEP winners with the second step (GAME TRIGGER) unplayed. Because what FIVE has in common with PATTERN BREAKER. Is we are leaving the BET SELECTION.

Entirely up to RANDOM. This is where I believe both draw their power from. We arent fighting the grain we are flowing with it. And of course random can't be rushed. It does things in its own time.