Simulation on their own, aren't really proof of anything.  There has to be a logical reason as to why a method/system can work. 

Quote from: esoito on January 26, 2014, 07:34:56 AM
Moderator's comment

Fellow moderators, I suggest we keep this thread open whist it's reasonably civilized, and for as long as it takes for Albalaha to actually irrefutably prove his claims once and for all.

And to answer Pockets' patient questions.

It's finally time for Al to put up or shut up.

But wait... Is it really Al posting?
I think it's an impostor because Al clearly stated he was leaving the forum. 

Thanks for your understanding mods. I have nothing else to say and I will wait for Albalaha to answer me directly and not run away.  I will wait for the answers.  In between if anyone else wants any more explanation on the method I posted, ask me and I am more than happy to clarify

Quote from: Albalaha on January 26, 2014, 07:27:38 AM
people are distracting all from main issue.

Albalaha.  Who is deviating from main issue. The issue is whether you can prove what you claim before asking someone to justify their claims.  The issue is have you actually worked if out yourself before saying someone is wrong.  You haven't even asked me once that you don't understand what I post before claiming that it doesn't work and is a joke. The issue is you are making false claims without proof be it your methods or others. 

In fact Xander is just giving you a lifeline to distract and run away. Still waiting patiently - pockets.

Im bored--who is albihala?

Well Pockets, there pops 1 Q in my head 
I have checked your thread.
The attacking is clear for me, but where do you get it to start betting with 6 units and then lower until 1.
Why not start with 10 units for example ?

Stef

I won't reveal till these guys who claim to have grails do:
1. Spike
2. Gizmo
3. Bayes
4. Mr J
5. superman
6.. Marshall Bing Bell
7. weddings
8. Saint Pockets


                Anybody else? I will be 9th in the list to reveal what I have. Any problem?


By the way, Follow Saint Pocket's grail, as he said, can beat one and all.

      A simulation will prove him or me wrong. I can put W/L of three other numbers whenever required.

QuoteIn fact Xander is just giving you a lifeline to distract and run away

He may be your role model. He looks me as empty as Johnlegend and you.

QuoteAnd to answer Pockets' patient questions.It's finally time for Al to put up or shut up.

I have no reason to talk to U if you do not talk about me. All are same lurking and arguing genius. Nothing to prove, nothing to change the way you play. Not even a single genuine effort in that direction.

Empty talks beating around the bush.  Time for you to tell the truth Al. Why have you not left all public forums.  Now I have no choice but to believe others that it was a bait for people to buy your next method.  Final time ask. If you don't post your method you are telling a lie and you are a liar. I am openly challenging you and taking on your challenge.  If you can't accept the challenge it's an acceptance that you have nothing in the world of roulette. 

And mr. albalaha, one who gets frustrated when his name is spelt wrongly should know how to call me just pockets and not Saint pockets and stop calling my method grail when I have never claimed it to be a grail. I have heard liars don't have manners and I can see it here in practice.  One final time Albalaha.  I give you chance to prove yourselves. I am not responding any more until you don't answer me directly. You can write an empty post on top of this and be content that you had your final say and live happily ever after or come clean with your lies and methods.  Choice is yours.

Quote from: Xander on January 26, 2014, 07:46:05 AM
Simulation on their own, aren't really proof of anything.  There has to be a logical reason as to why a method/system can work.

Yes, but supposing you don't know what that logical reason is, does that mean you should ignore all data which points to some hypothesis which isn't consistent with your assumptions?


In any case, there needn't be any contradiction in the maths, because mathematical probability doesn't work in a vacuum, it only "works" relative to some prior hypothesis (even if it's not explicitly stated). So for example, the binomial distribution is only appropriate if certain assumptions are satisfied, i.e. trials are independent and the probability of success is constant from trial to trial. Then there's the implicit assumption that probability is only valid in the "long run" (whatever that means).


Regarding MBB's system, you'll have to ask him. I don't know what his bet selection was, but there were at least 2000 placed bets.

QuoteOne final time Albalaha.  I give you chance to prove yourselves.

There is an English adage, "beggars are no choosers". As everyone else has chosen not to reveal their methods, I am also not obliged to put my winning method here. What you have stated as winning #3 and all other numbers is plainly false and any sensible person can simulate it and let everybody know.

QuoteI don't know what his bet selection was, but there were at least 2000 placed bets.

What a great test. 2000 placed bets. I got scared. My 100k spins test (betting every spin) on testmystrategy and 10 millions spins on Ophis bet were not enough but 2000 placed bets concluded as HG. I thought Bayes to be the most sensible person here.

            It seems all frustrated gamblers of earth gathered here.

QuoteIf you don't post your method you are telling a lie and you are a liar.

It is like saying, if you do not give a million dollars to me, I will consider you a poor person.


If your so called method really beats #3 and similar cases, without reverse engineering with a standard bankroll and bet size, you do not need my HG.  Do save the earth. If I am albalaha and not albalaha, you are Saint Pockets, a man who broke all the banks. lol.

Quote from: Albalaha on January 26, 2014, 09:55:46 AM

What a great test. 2000 placed bets. I got scared. My 100k spins test (betting every spin) on testmystrategy and 10 millions spins on Ophis bet were not enough but 2000 placed bets concluded as HG. I thought Bayes to be the most sensible person here.
           

Al, you're missing the point. Your 100k spins test wasn't conducted under controlled conditions. How do we know that you didn't "cherry pick" that sequence? We have only your word for it. Like I said, you can post any number of charts and tabulated results (just like the system sellers do) but it doesn't count for much.

And it doesn't help your case much that you have sold systems.


Two questions for you:


1. Have you sold systems in the past? please answer yes or no.
2. If the answer to (1) is yes, WHY?

Of course no-one is obliged to post their system here, but I think there should be rule that IF they brag that they do have a consistent winning method, they should either post it or submit to a test. That doesn't mean that they have to give anything away in terms of the specific method of play, only that they should show us (meaning do the test but not post the rules). Unfortunately we have no facility for conducting such tests on this forum - yet.


If a test is done properly and under controlled conditions, it's surprising how few trials you need in order to say that a result is significant. Consult any standard statistics textbook for details.

Quote from: Bayes on January 26, 2014, 10:17:50 AM

Al, you're missing the point. Your 100k spins test wasn't conducted under controlled conditions. How do we know that you didn't "cherry pick" that sequence? We have only your word for it. Like I said, you can post any number of charts and tabulated results (just like the system sellers do) but it doesn't count for much.

And it doesn't help your case much that you have sold systems.


Two questions for you:


1. Have you sold systems in the past? please answer yes or no.
2. If the answer to (1) is yes, WHY?

        If you conduct a test of 2000 bets, it is "controlled condition" and not cherry picking and when I and Ophis simulate over 10 millions spins from various forums ( a few provided by you too), that is not "controlled condition". If we can pick "cherry" through bots of 10s of millions of spins spread over dozens of data, what kind of cherry picking is that?
         I have sold my e-book and systems to not less than 100 members and guests of various forums and through youtube. You can't see even a single complaint of cheating. I have written one among them called "finest method of defeating roulette" openly and that was appreciated by all too. What kind of method utilize only 1000 chips to play through 100,000 spins betting all and winning 568% net profit? Try whatever u know and show one such result on a public domain like testmystrategy.com. Let me see how u cherry pick such wins.

Quote there should be rule that IF they brag that they do have a consistent winning method, they should either post it or submit to a test. That doesn't mean that they have to give anything away in terms of the specific method of play, only that they should show us. Unfortunately we have no facility for conducting such tests on this forum.

             Charity begins at home. Pockets openly bragged that his method is beating all numbers of zumma from the best to worst. Why any of one can't simulate that, instead of so many arguments with me and preachings?
                         

See this archive page which neither I manipulate,nor u
I got in their "hall of fame" for this : https://web.archive.org/web/20111229181728/http://www.testmystrategy.com/