Quote from: albalaha on February 27, 2013, 06:56:19 AM
            I will reorganize the exclusive club of mine with handpicked people who can contribute with fresh ideas or who can help me in further researches.

I believe what you're looking for is a "focus group" and not a forum for discussion.

Good luck and here's hoping you'll be able to pull it off.   As you've seen, attempting to run a weak forum with uncommitted people is a struggle, at best.

AD

Is it just me or has the Newsbot blown a gasket?

AD

Quote from: albalaha on February 23, 2013, 07:45:18 AM
Ad,
       refer to my "exclusive section" at our private forum. There is a topic called" how to fight the worst enemy of gambling-variance".

Just went over and checked.  Seems I'm no longer a member of the "exclusive section".

Oh well.

AD

Hmm, if you can "see" the singles with that clarity, you can obviously just play the singles.

If not, you can stay on one side for 2 or 3 plays and still make the profit.

It's basic stuff for sure but a lot of players don't see it that way.

The basic premise is:  "Solve for the 3's" and you've got it made!

AD

Quote from: albalaha on February 22, 2013, 11:04:04 AM
It seems you are not aware of my "extreme variance control technique" which can take care of monster side of variances.

Al,

  It seems I'm also not aware of your "extreme variance control technique" either.

  Where might one find this link or thread so I can bring myself up to speed on it?

  AD

Will you guys please quit horsing around.

This is serious stuff!

AD

Quote from: Ralph on February 16, 2013, 06:31:55 AM

The result will differ every time we play, if it is fun or real does not matter.

Actually, it does matter, depending on where you might be playing.
I'll just assume that this test is not going on with a real table but an RNG game.
Manipulation of the data is certainly possible in that case.
AD

Quote from: albalaha on February 06, 2013, 02:30:25 AM
Anybody with any suggestions?

What will the person with the "correct" answer get for all this work?

AD

Quote from: albalaha on January 13, 2013, 09:20:04 AM
John,
          You claim to win 925 sessions, without a loss, with this. It is indigestible in itself and an exaggeration.

This coming from the guy who publicly states in his signature "I have beaten the game of roulette".

Interesting.

AD

Quote from: topcat888 on January 08, 2013, 06:45:44 AM

Having said all that, here's Table 2 throwing out four 4's in a row...

Mercy!  If that had been an "air ball" machine, the resulting screaming about "rigged" wheels and electronic countermeasures would be filling up the forum by now.

Stuff happens.  Deal with it, eh?

AD

Quote from: VLS on January 06, 2013, 02:45:43 PM
Hmm, we'll need to run a poll to know if others are experiencing a similar behavior with the two images.

It is interesting indeed. If it's our (server) side it sure will help to debug this.

Can we assume that the images are being uploaded as attachments rather than being "linked" to an off site graphics account?

This is a linked image posted full size.  No attachment icon using this method.

AD



AD

Quote from: albalaha on January 03, 2013, 04:37:37 AM
        Ad,
                Challenges are meant for takers. If you do not have courage to take one, just watch it. Do not spoil any topic like this.

Fair enough. 

I will remove myself from "The Challenge" as most realistic people have already done.

Carry on.

AD

Quote from: albalaha on January 02, 2013, 05:23:29 AM
AD,
           With due respect, I ask you to stop speaking like this.

Speaking like what?   Asking straight forward questions to silly challenges?

Quote from: albalaha on January 02, 2013, 05:23:29 AMWhat kind of challenge do you face and win?

Another "challenge" type question, eh?   I face the same challenge as anyone else at the casino.  Play to bring a profit out at the end of the accounting period.  That could be a session, a day, a week, a month.   Wins and losses are much larger than spin to spin or hand to hand.

Quote from: albalaha on January 02, 2013, 05:23:29 AM
Ok do one thing, beat zumma 1600, in whatever manner you can and show all. Is it OK?

Again?   Why would I want to do that again?   Many people have "beaten" both houses of Zumma and once posting the results, are usually discounted for a variety of reasons by people who can't figure it out on their own.   Besides that, "beating" Zumma is merely a good way to see if your BASIC plan of attack is a valid one.

Hmm, perhaps I should make a run through the Zumma stuff again, if not only to see if my current methods and style still hold up against "The Book" as well as in REAL LIFE.   Thanks for the idea.

So, would there still be a point to posting it here?  (It's a rhetorical question, of course.)

AD

Quote from: albalaha on January 01, 2013, 04:34:00 AM
Ad,
         In that way, even it is "futile" to have debates here since nobody has a proven method that can keep on earning. If you are gambling with a belief that you will either get a good session or average ones, of whatever u bet, you are merely living off a fallacy and feeding casinos.

Al,

   My "fallacy" has performed nicely for the last 3 1/2 years.   I can't complain, but then I am not a static player.  I have changed methods when I see something that I believe is a better play for me, after extensive testing and paper play, of course.  On several occasions, I have moved back to a tried and true performer when  I felt the need to do so.

   Nothing in roulette looks better to me at this time than my normal play at baccarat.

   As to your "challenge", there is no equivalent wagering problem than can be made in baccarat.   That "3 out of 300" or whatever it is, just does not exist so there's no reason to work on it!

  AD

Quote from: albalaha on January 01, 2013, 03:13:38 AM
Everyone surrendered at my open challenge proving my point.

No, I'd say that everyone realized an exercise in futility when they see one with that "challenge" and have just allowed it to die a natural death.

I still think you need to present it in a more defined way to make it an acceptable "challenge".   As it stands, it's not worth the effort to pursue.  In fact, it appears to be rather pointless.

AD