GGasoft,
         let me look at the results. Oh again, you are using $100 chips in good times and $1 chips later. For how many times do I need to tell you that what you are doing is reverse engineering and instead of being called a "maestro", you may be termed as a "joker".
Flat_Ino,
           In a small sample of wiesbaden, a single number may not come even once and there is no point of trying that number because whoever plays on that number will lose. Number 3 challenge is not a test of your method but it is an endurance test of a very good system. I play much more roulette than you do and I have read and written far more about it than you can do till your life. Although, I don't have easy access to land based casinos but I do 3-4 trips of about a fortnight each time (a few short trips too) every year and have accounts with not less than 200 online casinos. I play, study and do my indigenous researches with the help of more than 2 dozen bots/tracker developed exclusively for me by the best known programmers of this forum world. I give not less than 3-4 hours on testing and developing new ideas.


Captain,
        You said you did it but yet to put proof of your victory before anyone. Let us all have your methodology and test report which you claim to have won +79. You will get the second worst number too, to work upon the same principals, if there are any. I have beaten the game and I can beat it in both short and long runs. Even you can do that if you have a strategy that can survive the worst.

This challenge is meant for a real maestro. Kindergarten methods will fall flat here. Most of the people are looking for winning in those sessions, which can be won even with flat bet. A few talk of methods without knowing the real implications of that. So far, 100% failure over this challenge and whoever claimed to beat, could not prove anything serious.
           Ggasoft, Adulay and Flat_ino, if you feel you can play and beat this, prove your methods upon the entire data. If the method is really workable, that will win another number having similar traits too. If someone reverse engineers this data to get a fake win, he will be exposed very easily.
          A method that wins good performing number and that can handle the worst too, is truly difficult. I have yet to see any in any of the forums.

See the beginning of this debate.

QuoteCalm...calm...calm down, Al.

You can see what is provoking me to answer like this.

QuoteIgnore him people, he never acknowledges or thanks any contribution.

What you have contributed, so far? New Fallacies and innovative and copy+paste ideas to how to lose more and win less. If someone has really helped me, they are programmers like Victor, Steph, Ophis etc. I have never forgot thanking them.

Superman,
             You better fly in your own territory and speak sensibly. Nobody is calling you to do anything. It is an open challenge to fight with a perpetually bad bet. This challenge unmasks the standard of knowledge acquired by all of us in running around various forums and trying thousands of systems. Don't think much about this challenge. You can't help it.


GGasoft,
               Can you understand plain and simple English? You are showing winning with your bet in that area of the data where it is winning more and losing less, even flat bet.  See page number 3 of this topic to see the graph of number 3 being played flat bet. The challenge is to beat the entire session, not a chosen favorable area/portion of it. If you apply your approach throughout 15k spins, it will lose a few hundred thousands of units. Don't try to fool us and specially to yourself.

GGasoft,
              Even an average player will win this data till 700 spins because till then number 3 is doing very well and winning even flat bet.

Quoteother 500 spins on the fight then i decide , to bet 1 unit minimum value each spin until challenge end

This is what we call, reverse engineering. You are betting with $100 chips in good time and then suddenly u chose to go flat bet with $1. What kind of methodology is this? You are not fooling others but rather yourself.                       
          Go, play the entire session with a well defined system and then come up with your results, net profit, drawdown etc.                   

No volunteer for testing these? Strange.

I am not ignoring anybody. If you have a claim, the onus to prove lies with you, not me. If you can't do it yourself, let someone come up forward and test your idea, if it appeals, to someone. If you can't test your idea on entire data, consider yourself a loser, so far it is confirmed as a winner. Till then, keep patience.
            So far many came with raw ideas to beat it. Yet to see any clear method illustrated over the entire session and that is winning unambiguously.

I Think Nick/Steph can do it in the best way. I have no problem in calling you a "maestro" if you can achieve this which has not been solved by anyone else so far.
            Any taker of excel simulation of this technique?

Adulay,
           You never described as to how did u break it and just told that you won +79 units while betting flat. Is it sufficient?
Any one having two working eyes can see whether you told any method here, in my forum or not : http://albalaha.lefora.com/2012/11/11/albalahas-open-challenge-can-anyone-beat-the-worst/page2/


GGasoft,
              Please explain your method and put it in excel, so that everyone can see what exactly you did and how exactly you reach till end.
           Claims of  wins from both are imaginary and vague and highly unclear. It is like saying I killed a tiger with bare hands in jungle but no one saw me doing that, unfortunately. Put your methodology in writing here, so that anybody from Victor to Bayes to Stef/Nick or many more testers can verify that.

Meaning? That match was running then. Manchester could not win.

[Esoito Edit:  Ah. Thanks for that.  ]

Captain,
        You have only told the results without telling anything about the methodology. Those results may be imaginary because you claim to beat it with flat betting, which is quite indigestible in the presence case unless someone reverse engineers the flow of win/loss and use the weakest point of this particular data to show the win.
               If you have really beaten this (even with slightest profit) with a sensible approach which someone will use on a straight up bet, why are you shying away to show that to all?
                So far, nobody has done anything to go near beating this data.

Liverpool lost. Juventus won. Manchester awaited.

Look. I know it is not feasible to try 15k spins with 100 chips in hand. Will 5000 chips be enough to you?  My curiosity is to see how wisely you can bet in such adverse cases to ensure a net win without going too down in loss.

Good. I like your spirit.