Saliu can not be termed as a "shill". He might have stolen concepts from other scientists/mathematician but basically he talks of sense and mathematics and never pushes you towards casinos.

Hey Friends, 
   Merry Christmas    to all my friends and to their families. Enjoy the day and help the poor people enjoy the day with you who can not afford to buy as many goodies.     New year is also knocking at the door. I had many plans for this year which could not be implemented, so far but I have worked very hard to make things smoother than ever.  Number 13 is considered inauspicious in the most part of the world but I would starve to change this perception in my life. You do the same. Best of luck. Have Fun.

So there is nothing like degree of certainty, as he says?

May God give you strength and speediest recovery to your Mom, Proof.

what does this tracker do, Vic?

I take this opportunity to ask Bayes and Gizmo too, as to what do they say about Fundamental Formula of Gambling written by Ion Saliu?
For reference : http://saliu.com/Saliu2.htm
                It is an interesting debate for someone who understands maths, statistics and probability all.

I think, in another post Gizmo said that playing HAR is nothing but adding an extra layer of randomness and I do not think anything can define HAR better. Since randomness knows no rules, it will work differently for different people and in different sessions with different systems.
               No one can guarantee any profit or loss of playing HAR over long period of time. It is always random.

I am not trying to bash any rational idea but rather talking of handling those bets that are not running that good.
            I hope I am not at a wrong place talking to wrong people.

QuoteEvery sets are different, the 15000 spins supplied are equal unique as if it were only number 3 in all 15000 spins.

We are only talking of things on record i.e. zumma and working on  tough numbers/ bet selections with a systematic approach. There is a world of difference between hypothesis and reality and this reality is lying open to world.
        I wonder how Ophis talk about testing a billion spins (he can not be serious here) and you talk of "only number 3 in all 15000 spins (that is not possible with even trillion spins). Wake up guys.

Great idea.  Even if a free registered member contributes, he should be elevated and even if a well known one doesn't offer anything valuable, he should be downgraded too. Make it: either perform or pay or roam around teasers.

QuoteI got systems that beat one set of 1kkk spins... but they will lose on another set.

why are you joking buddy?1kkk means 1 billion spins. Which system is doing that, please let me know?

QuoteAs I thought, and you are asking everyone to do it for you or to see if anyone actually can, as you said, I will stick with what I know works, thanks for the nudge. Same old Sumit lol

If somone does this positively, I won't take away that in my pocket. It will benefit all.

Quote[size=0.85em]I have no time for it, but as the numbers are known before the play, it  may be possible to  design a method for the spins, and if it will be possible it is still not sure it will past 15k other spins.[/size]


[/size]

[size=78%]    [/size]If someone just reverse engineers this number to form a method which will suit only this, the same won't work upon other 4 worst number of zumma or any other data having similar problem.[size=0.85em]

Those who feel that this challenge is a wastage of time, should move to other debates and do not spoil this topic.

Quotethis is a very good challenge, hope someone figures out how to beat it

I am afraid, most of the members are only moving from forum to forum to find a holy grail. No one wants to work for that himself.

QuoteSumit, cut to the chase, do you have a way of beating it? if you say you do you must be prepared to prove it, or are you still in the selling market?

                If I can beat this and can prove my method too and like to sell that as well, you won't be able to pay its price. So better don't waste your time and mine too.

As I said it so many times, it is not only about number 3. Number 3's performance is an evidence that your choice of bet selection may suffer from perpetual variance too. If I give 5 worst numbers of zumma as a bunch of bets of your choice, you will bleed dry, trying to fight them all.
          It is a question of handling a betselection which is perpetually underperformer. Be it an EC or a single number.
The real problem with you is u never got to learn serious stuff ever on any of the forums. When asked to play, one man is losing more than 51k chips. Others could not even dare to try anything. A few just uttered some raw ideas without knowing its impact. A few like you who could not find anything, came to fight with me.
             If you are not used to any serious and useful debate, go play martingale upon ECs, in one way or other.