QuoteThey 'say', single will always, hit 100times, in 100cycles, that 3700spins.

Who is this genius here who made this statement? It is even possible to get only 4-5 hits of a particular number in a 1000 spins span. None in the world can give an exact figure in random game. Am I sitting with kindergarten kids?

QuoteAnyone here knows, how many spins, the virtual limit for two-numbers to sleeps??

Expect the farthest two numbers to remain sleeper together for about 300 spins, in the worst time. Remember, a virtual limit is only an estimated limit and that can be crossed as well.

@BA,
         I read your opening post in this topic, yet failed to understand what are you going to bet, why and when.

I got it that it is something to do with law of the third. You assume there will be at least 18 to 30 unique numbers in the 37 spins cycle.

Now, how do you propose to extract profit here? How and when you will start to bet and what exactly you propose to bet?

Without any prejudice to any conclusion regarding whether your this system can work in long run or tank let me brief you regarding why Steve behaves this way to certain members.

  Whenever a member gets to talk that any system can win in long run, he starts feeling bad as this is harmful to his business of "cheating devices". He then ask any such person to either prove it immediately or he bans him. There are two reasons for such behaviour.

1. If someone has a concluding method and he writes that openly in any forum, who the hell will risk his legs being chopped by casino staff using cheating devices?

2. Such person will not write other silly topics ever and hence become useless for adding links to the google that fetches new kids to these forums seeing the ads, that is the main motive behind running such forums.

So, he is double harmful to Steve irrespective of what his system works in long run or not.

Steve claims that one of his Computers can do 15 numbers betting with 93% accuracy. This is the biggest joke of the millenium. If it is true what one needs to do is to enter high roller room and bet $10k chips and earn a few millions in no time. Why selling for the value of a single chip?

This person has been jailed for mass scam. Don't forget that.

QuoteExcel file provides pseudo-RNG results which means that in large totals it's repeating the same results more than normal.

There is no way to seed either Excel RAND or RANDBETWEEN function, which are rumored to be initialized from the computer's system time. Technically, a seed is the starting point for generating a sequence of random numbers. And every time an Excel random function is called, a new seed is used that returns a unique random sequence. In other words, when using the random number generator in Excel, you cannot get a repeatable sequence with the RAND or RANDBETWEEN function, nor with VBA, nor by any other means.

In early Excel versions, prior to Excel 2003, the random generation algorithm had a relatively small period (less than 1 million nonrecurring random number sequence) and it failed several standard tests of randomness on lengthy random sequences. So, if someone still works with an old Excel version, you'd better not use the RAND function with large simulation models but there is absolutely no trouble with excel 2007 or higher even for the longest simulation.

So, do not use the rhetoric excuse for failure of a method based upon fallacies on randomness of a PRNG.

   Blue Angel and Kav are two different people, in my opinion although they may be in same geographical zone. Reyth is in altogether different area (I think USA). Steve lacks any character himself to point on others.

Oh really?

You said earlier:

QuoteIndeed, Albahala uses the same philosophy on his betting and is one of the very few pro gamblers in this forum.

And now?

I am trying to discredit your silly innovation? Can I change the code of random session too? Anybody can look at the random session to see such things can only fail, at last.
   When you accepted and rather bragged to beat the worst session betting red only you did not say that why should I go for a party without music and when your method fails badly, you have childish excuses for that?
  Martingale can only fail unless you be lucky and long run doesn't not let anybody lucky for long. Please do not fool urself as well as others.
Guys like johnlegend did have such silly claims and when they found the reality they ran away to never come back, in utter shame.

@BA,
     Now your answer is forcing me to quote myself from gamblingforums.com post of mine

I saw a topic in roulette30.com which was written two months back:
http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=669.0

The author Blue Angel says: The worst 200 spins for RED in roulette history have been proven not enough in front of the "Fallacious Holy Grail"!

In that topic he chose to beat the worst doing Red, i.e. 69/200 from a German casino record. although he did play it further to win this which is perfectly fine, he passed through this so called, "toughest" phase with his innovative use of Martingale in the spans of 37 spins.
Now, when I gave him a session which is betting on Red again, he says, why should he bet Red, it is like "party without music" or "sword without hands" and bla bla. It is interesting to note that the same person who believes that his method can beat the worst recorded, shying away from sessions that do not have such stretches. I put two sessions, called "horror" session and "superhorror" session where Red is not at the worst and his innovation is failing thousands and even hundreds of thousands of units, still.

I can see that most of the forums have become a garbage yard with such methods that are only blinding people to lose even faster in a false hopes without realizing the truth ever. I created the tracker to awaken people of such fallacies. Anyone can see a random session by going into the sheet called "random" and by pressing F9 in an empty cell. Anybody can witness losses of a few thousands or even a few hundred thousands with bets going even 100k units at times.

  BA, your inability to code is making you confused and myopic both together.

Any person with minimum coding skills can confirm what I just stated. You can't pick a bet which will remain safer than anything else randomly.

Peace, guys!!
  I was not posting here for pretty long time for some personal reasons but since this debate has my inputs directly or indirectly, I thought it fine to speak my mind myself.

    First of all, I do not have any enmity against the member blue angel or nickmsi.
Both are nice people and I have talked to them for long earlier.

Regarding this progression suggested by Blue Angel, I would just say, it is very easy to simulate in excel exactly as Blue Angel says. I have tested his version extensively. Marty can win any attack but the question is of max bet and drawdown that one is willing to have and casinos permit them too.
  Any random session can get a bet of even a few thousands, if you simulate enough, this way.
I am working on BA's method's tracker to prove my point. I know Azim or Reyth are working on the same too. Whoever comes first, will prove my point. I guarantee this.

   Stating that my way of picking bets is immune from dangerous hikes of martingale is indeed fallacious. Will be back here soon.

Quote from: Kav on January 10, 2015, 08:07:49 AM
Where did the 50%-50% rule go?

Nobody is sure of what to do and how to do. Such confusions lead to chaos. Everybody is busy in singing his own tunes.

A shoe on 7th Jan 2015. Shot at perfect time. End of shoe.
[attachimg=1]

Quote from: Sputnik on January 06, 2015, 10:32:57 AM
I did not think this could be done - but i use a wheel signature with a bias and random algorithm and i strike above 50% at all times.
Sure there will be varaince and fluctation, but this is the best i ever seen with a 50/50 bet situation.

This method play numbers with physical parameters.

WWWWWLWWWWWWWWLWWWWWLWLWLLWLWWWWWWLW

How much did u simulate, so far?

QuoteAbove 50% is not enough. Even at 55% you are still not out of trouble. If you can get beyond 55% and push toward 60% then things start to turn in your favour.

Cheers.

How can you say this? Even if I am at 51%, I will expect to earn 1 unit every 100 trials.

Quote from: Bayes on January 06, 2015, 07:56:44 AM
De nada.

Gracias

Two great wins today:
[attachimg=1][attachimg=2]

Well,
        I play all sorts of roulette, real casinos, online live dealer and even RNG because I consider them to be all random. Same thing goes with baccarat too but I have never tried/played RNG baccarat, not because I do not believe it same but I am not sure where to play. Can anyone point me the best place to play RNG baccarat where bet spread(table limit)is nice enough?
              Please do not argue that RNG baccarat is not baccarat. I need a fair and fast RNG baccarat having fair bet spread(1-200).

Hmm.
       168 Wins vs 168 Losses. Equilibrium. If we are sure of equilibrium, D'alembert will do great and safe. Actually, it is tough to get an equilibrium in the games with house edge/house fees, even in short run. Lots of MMs will work here, in the given case, from martingale to parlay, labouchere to fibonacci, Oscar's grind or pluscoup to gr8player progression.