If you take 300 spins sessions and randomize all permutations, you do the stats and you get a distribution no different than the original ones.
Then you randomize short bursts of 10 spins or so, to simulate HIT, and then you run.
Why and for how long will you escape fluctuation?
don't you think PB is a method with flawed principles?


I will tell you the truth in what you will find.
You can ride a good tram for a while but then everything will correct. There is no escape. It is like time. Everything gets older.
Thinking that you can slalom the bad results is ignorance.
You have the wright to have faith and hope. What you can not do is defy the nature of a system, and others intelligence too.
I have written to you you before that if you can present any logical corroboration of HAR you must do so, otherwise your insistence, for me, is at the fringe of disrespect for our minds.
We are not always correct, and truth is a relative thing. But there is a line, we can discuss ideas and exchange arguments.
So please, do not take this as persecution, open your mind, your eyes and your intellect to a sane, fair and objective discussion.


Best Regards.

If you take 300 spins sessions and randomize all permutations, -- what the heck does that mean?

you do the stats and you get a distribution no different than the original ones.
-- What the heck does that mean?

Then you randomize short bursts of 10 spins or so, to simulate HIT, and then you run. --That almost makes sense.

Why and for how long will you escape fluctuation? -- Who the heck knows?

don't you think PB is a method with flawed principles? -- No. I think that the flaw is magical thinking.


I will tell you the truth in what you will find. -- that's a relief . Your credibility is unquestionably flawless.

... and more gibberish

Quote
You can ride a good tram for a while but then everything will correct. There is no escape. It is like time. Everything gets older.
Thinking that you can slalom the bad results is ignorance.
You have the wright to have faith and hope. What you can not do is defy the nature of a system, and others intelligence too.
I have written to you you before that if you can present any logical corroboration of HAR you must do so, otherwise your insistence, for me, is at the fringe of disrespect for our minds.
We are not always correct, and truth is a relative thing. But there is a line, we can discuss ideas and exchange arguments.
So please, do not take this as persecution, open your mind, your eyes and your intellect to a sane, fair and objective discussion.


Best Regards.

@ Gizmotron
The above post is directed to JohnLegend.
Confucius - "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."


I present data to backup up my claims. that's all.

I will explain better: find all the permutations of 300 spins of a binary distribution. it is something like: 2.03703597e+90
Apply PB bet to each of them.
All the permutations will describe the well known bell curve.
And if you then take small samples from each of them and make a collection of bets, only in less than 1% of the possible cases you will get a std >= 3. Which would grant you the safe use of a progression to survive against average fluctuation.
I don't know how to explain it better.

---

@Gizmotron
Gibberish is your way of directing to others with such paternalism and lack of modesty.

Quote from: Gizmotron on December 22, 2012, 04:55:35 PM
.

Having you take me literally is nothing but childish. Look in the mirror Bub. You are the one claiming "we will all see, just you wait."  I've been around for years. I've seen lots of claimers just like you come and go. When you come back as alias Number Three would you please first take a big number two. Cause you are full of it.

Quote from: MarignyGrilleau on December 23, 2012, 03:15:14 AM
@ Gizmotron
The above post is directed to JohnLegend.
Confucius - "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."


I present data to backup up my claims. that's all.

I will explain better: find all the permutations of 300 spins of a binary distribution. it is something like: 2.03703597e+90
Apply PB bet to each of them.
All the permutations will describe the well known bell curve.
And if you then take small samples from each of them and make a collection of bets, only in less than 1% of the possible cases you will get a std >= 3. Which would grant you the safe use of a progression to survive against average fluctuation.
I don't know how to explain it better.

---

@Gizmotron
Gibberish is your way of directing to others with such paternalism and lack of modesty.

Marigny given your attitude to H,A,R and PB and all that I do. I should have no chance in hell of turning a fragile 200 units into thousands and eventually millions. YES?

This is why im putting myself on the line here. The rest talk a good fight but theyll never put it on the line. Bankrolls don't grow themselves. If everything I do is so flawed and ignorant as you put it. There is no possible way I can succeed.
That's the surprise for all who think like this on its way. You will then say, uh he was just lucky. And as I continue your hold on that belief will become weaker and weaker.

KR says he goes around all the forums and finds everything fails. really, is it the method that fails OR THE PEOPLE PLAYING THEM?? That's the million dollar question. I already know the answer. And as time goes on some of you will come to know the answer too.

I don't understand one thing, why two dozens posts written to bash or support PB and its writer JL? He is written a method that he claims to win in long run and all others say he will not.
             Can't we wait for Speramus and superman and other guys who are using it, give verdict after playing it? Don't trust JL claims if you can't believe them. Personally, I think PB has no mathematical advantage and agree with most of the arguments against it by gizmo, spike, bayes etc.
            If PB is bad which one is good and playable as a winner method? It is good that Bayes explained the mathematical side of HAR but bashing any method on that is childish.
                We are all sitting on the same sinking boat. Every method is hit and run and trial and error. Isn't it?

Quote from: JohnLegend on December 22, 2012, 03:32:03 PM
Bayes I know this isn't a personal attack on me. But im giving my side of the story. All I say is this. If I sat there and played 40 games of Pattern Breaker in a row. You can be certain I would lose at least once. So now tell me why I can win 40 or more playing H.A.R if it has NO ADVANTAGE?

Shogun lost 5 times out of 7 playing HAR. This is far less probable than your winning streak of 40. I think that you need to learn some statistics. Your chance of having 40 winning streak is around 1 in 200. Hardly out of ordinary. You are wrong.

Quote from: Robeenhuut on December 23, 2012, 05:46:26 AM
Shogun lost 5 times out of 7 playing HAR. This is far less probable than your winning streak of 40. I think that you need to learn some statistics. Your chance of having 40 winning streak is around 1 in 200. Hardly out of ordinary. You are wrong.

Wrong about what matt? Statistics don't grow BRs Matt this is what you all will have to scratch your heads about in 28 weeks.

You can call me wrong until the cows come home. But none of you can explain how wrong will translate into great success. There is for example a new method sitting on this forum. NOT MINE. That is an ABSOLUTE DIAMOND. I already know this. While you are all arguing about the virtues or lackoff for H.A.R and PB whatever.

I've been putting it through the REAL arena of success and failure. And its another winner. Like I said of KRs attitude. IS IT THE METHOD/S that FAIL. OR THE PEOPLE PLAYING THEM?

I know the answer to this and more and more of you will come to know it in the next 6 months and beyond.
One thing I've noticed Matt is you are quick to criticize when you think you have the upperhand. Like when you thought you had me on this 70 wins on the fourth step for FIVE. Now you keep going on about Shoguns run from hell with PB.

But the overall picture remains the same. In only 200 games played he was still slightly above 7/1. Its the LONGRUN. I've carried 5/1 across 200 games AND STILL MADE A PROFIT. Now tell me how im going to fail.

IS IT THE METHOD/S THAT FAIL OR THE PEOPLE PLAYING THEM??

QuoteIS IT THE METHOD/S THAT FAIL OR THE PEOPLE PLAYING THEM??

Methods because they are not based upon any scientific or mathematical framework but on a blindfaith that this can't happen to me.
      No method here talks of how to handle "sessions from hell" they just believe that "sessions from haven" will come to rescue.

Quote from: KingsRoulete
                We are all sitting on the same sinking boat. Every method is hit and run and trial and error. Isn't it?

My method is probe & attack. I clearly wait for a continuing state of effectiveness and then probe its continuing effectiveness by attacking it. Anything else is just waiting. So it's not hit and run it's wait and attack. I wonder if there really is a difference.

Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 23, 2012, 06:22:58 AM
Methods because they are not based upon any scientific or mathematical framework but on a blindfaith that this can't happen to me.
      No method here talks of how to handle "sessions from hell" they just believe that "sessions from haven" will come to rescue.

So KR given your answer, attitude. there is NO WAY I can succeed. turn a mere 200 units into thousands and potentially millions right?

The method handles NOTHING, that's the players job. What if a method has no session from hell? Now there's a thought.
What if it suffers a loss so rarely that it is merely a minor setback? And played H.A.R it might lose once in 3,000 games at worse. And H.A.R has no value they say.

Maybe it can't be seen on a method with a small buy in like PB by most. But it will certainly be seen on the next one I publish. You don't bring a single club to the golf course and expect to lift the trophy. You have a bag full of tricks to get the job done.

Quote from: Gizmotron on December 23, 2012, 06:25:22 AM
My method is probe & attack. I clearly wait for a continuing state of effectiveness and then probe its continuing effectiveness by attacking it. Anything else is just waiting. So it's not hit and run it's wait and attack. I wonder if there really is a difference.

I think there is no difference. Can your so called "wait and attack" face "sessions from hell"? Can they survive the blunt attack of variances? Can they gain in negative sessions? If your answer is "yes", you are the best person in the world to learn the art of gambling.

P.S.: All the negative aspects which I talked of is in the context of your betselection, irrespective of how do u chose them.

Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 23, 2012, 06:22:58 AM
      No method here talks of how to handle "sessions from hell" they just believe that "sessions from haven" will come to rescue.

I don't have sessions from hell because I deliberately refuse to bet during them. Hint number one: the absence of useful effectiveness.

Gizmo,
you didn't answer my last three questions after reading P.S.

Quote from: JohnLegend on December 23, 2012, 06:06:06 AM
Wrong about what matt? Statistics don't grow BRs Matt this is what you all will have to scratch your heads about in 28 weeks.

You can call me wrong until the cows come home. But none of you can explain how wrong will translate into great success. There is for example a new method sitting on this forum. NOT MINE. That is an ABSOLUTE DIAMOND. I already know this. While you are all arguing about the virtues or lackoff for H.A.R and PB whatever.

I've been putting it through the REAL arena of success and failure. And its another winner. Like I said of KRs attitude. IS IT THE METHOD/S that FAIL. OR THE PEOPLE PLAYING THEM.
I know the answer to this and more and more of you will come to know it in the next 6 months and beyond.
One thing I've noticed Matt is you are quick to criticize when you think you have the upperhand. Like when you thought you had me on this 70 wins on the foruth step for FIVE. Now you keep going on about Shoguns run from hell with PB.

But the overall picture remains the same. In only 200 games played he was still slightly above 7/1. Its the longrun. I've carried 5/1 across 200 games AND STILL MADE A PROFIT. Now tell me how im going to fail.

IS IT THE METHOD/S THAT FAIL OR THE PEOPLE PLAYING THEM??

My point was that according to stats your runs of 40+ wins are nothing out of ordinary and don't demonstrate advantage of HAR approach. With Shogun stats my point was that his bad run was just less probable. Naming it RFH is a bit of overstatement. What about your 100+ winning streaks. RFH as well but H now stands for Heaven.  Its just ups and downs. Using statistics can verify claims that you can only have some stats playing HAR. As to FIVE i based my stats on your initial claim that you later changed. As to a new method you called DIAMOND is it the one with 5 triggers?

Quote from: Robeenhuut on December 23, 2012, 06:50:01 AM
My point was that according to stats your runs of 40+ wins are nothing out of ordinary and don't demonstrate advantage of HAR approach. With Shogun stats my point was that his bad run was just less probable. Naming it RFH is a bit of overstatement. What about your 100+ winning streaks. RFH as well but H now stands for Heaven.  Its just ups and downs. Using statistics can verify claims that you can only have some stats playing HAR. As to FIVE i based my stats on your initial claim that you later changed. As to a new method you called DIAMOND is it the one with 5 triggers?

There was no change Matt, just a misunderstanding by you of how the BET TRIGGER worked. FIVE is a winner. It demands PATIENCE of the highest order. So does 7 ON 1.

DIAMOND, that's for you to figure out. There are two new gems on the forum. Both are worthy of serious interest and perseverance. Neither will get them except from me. Its time more people put the work in for themselves. And stop waiting for the miracles to be handed to them.