Relax Ken. 

Let's pick up some of the stones and hold off on throwing new ones.

#Xander.


Thank you for your work in analysis of the Macao spin data. Indeed it seems the portion you tested has serious problems far more than we realised but only Gordon and Bryan as my colleagues were familiar with this book. Bryan had pointed out some general concerns years ago and we were aware of two passages at fault, certainly the 41 number overlap, but the degree of corruption is shocking.


I am endeavouring to seek an explanation, but as it is so many years ago, this may be academic. It is rather poignant that a fine book, so loved by many may have significant flaws, but that is another story.


I apologise for my statements regarding this issue over the spin data as I was in a state of shock at the time after having been a major advocate of Mr O'Neil-Dunne for many years.


You have done a fine job in the analysis.


XXVV
8 March 2014
0745

Hi All


As far as I'm aware when I scanned the data I put it into Excel using a separate tab for each day, so I will have a look at the file when I have some time to check these discrepancies, I had no reason to think that the data is/was flawed in any way and I think when I had a look at the deviation of the numbers overall I recall there was nothing too out of the ordinary


Will do my best, but as you're aware I've a bigger fight on my hands getting to the bottom of Betvoyager and my missing funds


Gordon

@Gordon


Your priority is dealing with the BV attitude which is also a shock. It has been a month of shocks!


Clearly there seems to be some sort of major stuff up and cover up with that Macao data to a level that is fraudulent if proven. I can't tell you how much time I had invested in studying that data for its sheer convenience and internal set out. Now I am mad at that lot!  Unless there is some other answer.


What it does show though Xander, despite all the apparent meddling and butchery and 'not so seamless' editing, the principle of repeating numbers is evident, yet oddly, at the more favourable range of tested data from a very wide variety of sources. It might have gone the other way. However for the time being we shall discard that package as a potential can of worms until further questions are asked and we all do more research.


Nevertheless I am very grateful to Xander for cleverly illustrating the dangers in using spin data sources, and just how careful we should be.


That is why I now use ONLY data I have seen and sourced myself and of course that is why it is usually in small parcels ( which of course can be 'seamlessly' tied together but even over that I now nervous).


I am glad all this has cleared the air, but there are more questions than ever now to be asked.

Sorry, do any tell me how do wf3 system works?
What is it about?
regards
ybot

Thanks ybot for your interest.

Leis be very clear from the outset. I have developed this simple method over the past 25 years or more with the help of several colleagues but especially one who is a well known analyst and savvy IT specialist. We observed earlier that chasing sleepers can be erratic and that hot number focus alone can leave you waiting a long time without live action.

The action is in the middle ground where warm turns to very warm and hot.  There is plenty of action in looking at repeats and we believed that a qualifying WF number appears twice and we target a third appearance.

This is not a unique method - it is an amendment to a generic bet and several well known authors use it. What makes the difference is the level of detail and efficiency in assessing targets and the MM in so doing.

I have written very fully on this and you will need to look at my writing on roulette forum and especially in my Blog section on this forum.

Good Hunting.
R.

 Hi xxvv,
I appreciate your informátion.
As any hot numbers system, has its weakness in the time to start and stop playing.
You can not know when to do it.
We could try to find out the cause a number hit twice is due to hit better than the others.
With random tools you are not capable to predict it
Chasing sleepers might be the best way to lose more than house edge because these sleepers could be defective
Playing after a repetition is not harmfull but -2.7% to 0.
I would like to know more about it
Warm regards

Quote from: Mr J on March 07, 2014, 02:33:53 PM
Listen, some (not all) of you guys are just not catching on. When Xander, Snowman, Caleb, Farnsworth, Keyser are ON SCENE, there is not much point of posting a method (as you see).

The "you can't win" & "you'll never win playing methods" will be STUFFED down your throat until you are foaming at the mouth. You're better off keeping your IDEA to yourself (imo). Besides, you really don't need approval from others, correct? That's one thing that took me years to figure out.

Oh, Bob Smith doesn't like my method? Well, f**k Bob Smith and the horse he road in on. (lol)

Xander, Snowman, Caleb, Farnsworth, Keyser has NO PROOF he does well with his AP (cough) tactics, so, why listen? Fair question, again, its only my opinion. The other ODD thing.....some of the members that AGREE with him.......DRUM ROLL........ play methods!    Pure comedy.

Ken

This post says so much in the way of intelligence and rationalizing out it's not even laughable Ken is so spot-on about attitude and aura basic 101 forumolgy!