They gladly resolved the issue today:

QuoteDear albalaha3,

We apologize for the problem with deposits. The error was caused by the electronic wallet changing technical parameters regarding transactions.

We have credited your account with the funds you were owed and have added Free Money for any inconvenience this may have caused.

Thank you for your understanding and again, we want to apologize for the interruption in service.

Regards,
The BetVoyager Finance Dept.

[/size]

I made a deposit with betvoyager on Saturday 27th July which did not show credited with betvoyager. I made another small deposit again to understand what went bad. Both were confirmed by my skrill but no action have yet been taken by bv. Today is the third day and I m still waiting for my money. My prompt complain did not help. Any of you have the same problem?

In my observations, about 6 new unhit numbers show easily from the remaining in the next cycle of 37 spins. Exceptions do not become the rule but as a cautious approach, even if we take 3 nbrs to hit, there need not be only single hits of them. If we bet all of these 12 nbrs as our fixed bet, we have to get minimum 6 to maximum 15 hits in the coming cycle. We have lots of database of real casinos plus random.org to analyse the same.

                    If we take minimum 6(as I assert) to be true, is it possible to brute force a confirm win?

Your logic doesn't seem to work in real world and you failed to show any evidence of what you stated to be true. Come up with proofs and till then give your hollow mind a bit of rest. Mathematically, casino gambling is unbeatable so why the hell you are into a gambling forum? Go and try to teach math to primary kids. Are you an agent of Steve the scammer, trying to prove only his device works to win?

Quotethose 12 numbers about a third will come out in the next cycle.

You mean to say that in next 37 spins only 4 of them are most likely to hit while 8 remain unhit?

@TheMagician,
                It is my first and last warning to you to keep your tone under check while replying my topics. Instead of reading what I wrote and coming up with any reasoned contradiction you started to bark upon me here. Even Bayes, a renowned member here and moderator of maths section approved the idea of having virtual limits in his posts and to replies to my PMs. If you can not discuss sensibly, stay away from my topics.

Although it is true that every single spin is totally independent of the last ones but sequential probability is also as much true. It is true that due to the lack of interdependence of spins, even 10 or 20 reds could hit in a stretch but it is also true that 30 or more reds(or any other EC) have never been seen in an unbroken succession. This is due to degree of certainty of the counterpart EC hitting and breaking the unbroken chain of continuing hits of one particular EC till eternity.
                              Remember, I am cautiously using the term, "Virtual Limits" or assumed limits as I do not want to deny the maths that tells there can not be any actual limit. The smaller coverage a bet has, the higher is the risk to go across the virtual limits that I am going to suggest here.
In my researches, analysis, studies, plays, simulations, I can suggest the virtual limit to be 15x of the break even point of a bet.

So, the virtual limits for an Even Chances bet like Red in roulette or banker in baccarat is 30 spins/hands. It means, one EC(like red) may not hit till 29 consecutive spins.

The virtual limit of a double dozens/double columns/24 numbers is 23 spins

The virtual limit of a dozen/column is 45 spins.

The virtual limit of a linebet/double street/6 numbers is 90 spins

The virtual limit of a street/ 3 nbrs is 180 spins

The virtual limit of 2 nbrs played together for one hit is 270 spins

The virtual limit of a single number is 555 spins.


Again, I insist that there is no actual limits of any bet but these limits have never been crossed in any real data, to the best of my knowledge, belief and information. Please correct me with citing as to where this limit was ever broken in a real casino, if possible, with proof.

I am no fan of a method that brute forces a net win in one good hit. I consider progressions like Martingale a failure too, considering the probabilities that could show in successive bets in roulette or any other game frustrating such ideas as fools' gold.
  However, such ideas could yield us with 99.999% accuracy(I leave 0.001% for exceptional cases that might creep in without asking for our permission even in our first attempt), if and only if we attack the virtual limits of a bet. What is the virtual limit of a non hitting dozen is debatable too but I consider 45 spins as the virtual limit.
                                                                      Now, waiting for a dozen numbers to not hit about 37 spins or more in a stretch will be insane but still doable, in a particular way, that I will explain later. How about brute forcing those 12 numbers for a single hit in first to 8th bet maximum?

Quote from: The Crow on July 19, 2019, 11:00:10 PM
Inside betting is best way to bet, any where from 1 to 18 numbers. I can only speak from my own experiences. The word "harsh" only exist in one's mind when one is losing. The only thing I find harsh about playing roulette is; it is boring.

If anything, if a player finds roulette exciting and fun, that player has a gambling problem. Now that my friends is a harsh reality.

The Crow

I agree absolutely. Roulette is extremely boring for a sensible player.

What is hot or cold is tough to explain by itself. Further, what is not hitting or least hitting in our historical data could go active to average hitting to hot any moment. Every number has same probability to hit or not hit irrespective of historical data which is only subject to virtual limit.
      For example, I consider 30 spins to be a virtual limit for any EC to hit. If I use a brute force(martingale in that case) of merely upto 5 steps on an EC which did not hit for last 25 spins in a stretch, I m 99.999% likely to win. Other than this, I do not see any use of so called sleepers. One can attack its virtual limits with a sensible brute force technique.

Are you fan of inside betting in roulette? How many numbers do you like to bet? If you pick one number only, it could take 1 spin to 500 spins(or even more) to get just one hit. No progression will help.

How about two? Hmm. any random pick of two numbers may take you upto 200 spins for its maiden hit in worst days. Same goes for any set of numbers, irrespective of how you choose them.

Can we make it safer, slightly?

Any combination of three dozens in three spins are equally probable, be it 123 or 111 or 231 or any other combination of 1,2 or all three dozens, you  can make or expect. That will be 3.6% in European Roulette. Now, you can multiply this % with number of combinations you can have.Three different could come as 123,231,321,132,312,213, i.e. six ways. Hence, you have a probability of 3.6 x 6=21.6% to get three different dozens in three consecutive spin.  Similarly, chances of any combo of ECs in three spins is 11.5%.

QuoteI have finally received 2 detailed message (PM's/Emails) from members here that have paid and taken Gizmo's course/teachings/school, etc.

Even I visited his school, saw his software but could find no evidence of his method being better than playing anything else. Anyways, I still do not blame him. He genuinely feels that he can identify emerging patterns and can even exploit them, which I feel, is a misnomer.
Patterns could be seen but any prediction on its continuance or end right there will equally work. Therefore, it still remains as much random.
         Even I mentored some high stakers in the past and some wannabies too. The main problem with a non professional/non experienced player is that, he remains unrealistic and can't manage proper bankroll usually. He wants to earn very fast as well. Gambling is not meant for kids. It is purely adult stuff and only meant for people with extra cash, patience and time.

Marty or any other unrealistic progression is no solution to the trouble posed by randomness.

Quote from: alrelax on August 25, 2018, 02:52:52 PM
And what you just said, "Will it not end with a huge loss taking away whatever you have won so far as any other progression does?", is basically what happens almost every single time, everywhere I ever play.  Even with the better skilled players. 

There are very easy defense tactics for the player, but most if not all, will believe way too much in themselves and be governed only by their own misconception of the game.

It happens with everybody because everybody uses same erroneous approach of increasing bets without any safeguard. The worst moments wait for the highest bets to get you the inevitable total loss. An empty belief that I won't get that worst moment will keep killing those stereotype progressions.

    Sadly, the topic headline doesn't match with what we are discussing herein. We aren't using any kind of maths/stats to improve from where we started. Unless a progression can successfully pass through the virtually possible worst patches without killing itself, it is not playable, in my humble opinion.