Got this in a slot game. count wilds.
[attachimg=1]

Once again. 800xwin. WOW

[attachimg=1]
     

I am trying to compile a few of the slots and other games wins where winnings were great looking and a very rare combination of luck appeared making me say wow
                          One from today, win is only $8 but I got it with a bet of only 1 cent. I opted only 5 numbers to play, 1-12-22-32-43. I got all 5 together in a hit. A win of 800x of the bet.

[attachimg=1]

Wow. using affiliate links to earn commission from various casinos while claiming a flaw, tempting to play dirty Martingale. I pointed towards this fraud, way back. Please read: http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/4314606/Open-internet-scam-by-casino-affiliates#.VJjyPsCDA

@ Bayes,
                 Do you think I need your certification to prove my point? When we did beat over 10 million spins, we openly invited Victor himself to see the bot but he failed to turn up.
             Regarding my email, it is 6 years old now and I do not change my username or email like you did from Bayes to Slacker and back to Bayes.
            No jokes and chitchats in my debates.

Quote from: Teorulte on December 12, 2014, 04:52:35 PM
I had this tested a decade ago by John Boyd, and tested it myself and variants of it.  Eventually bets keep escalating and never stop.

That is what I said in my post.

In a bad loss versus wins ratio, u can keep increasing +1 without winning ever.

QuoteYes, believe it or not the win over millions of spins was a coincidence. Post the rules of your system; I'll write a simulation and prove it to you.

Lol. Do you think that Ophis can't code it properly or I hand tested more than 10 millions spins? It was coded by the best bot coder that we ever got on Victor's forum.

QuoteTurbogenius posted more than one million-spin system on Gambler's Glen years ago, and I've produced a couple myself, but they are unplayable and generate so little profit that they're not worth the trouble.

Here, you admit yourself that they were worthless. That makes all the sense.

          I still have the bot with me and I can still simulate any data, even millions in a few minutes. I do not need any help of yours to see that clearly. I tested 3 million spins given by you and a few million other spins from all over internet. I even got a few hundred thousands spins by a member Magoo. If winning all these is merely coincidence, you may, by coincidence, become Obama.
                        Is winning 32 no deposit bonus playing mostly slots with wagering conditions ranging from 30x to 120x on bonus money, is a co-incidence too?
                                        If randomness looks like ocean to you, it is only because lack of knowledge regarding how to handle it. To me, it is merely a 20 meter swimming pool that I can swim across, a few times, daily. If you can't break stone by hands, do not say, it is not doable. Just say, I can't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zStzttOP-2U
                   

Randomness will shuffle the wins and losses in any manner that may not suit you. Although there is a virtual limit of it but you can not beat all probabilities that worst hit rate can offer you.
                 Do not put/arrange wins/losses are per your system, otherwise you will be beating everything under the sun, in your hypothetical world. In real world, they will only disappoint you.

QuoteAnd besides, I've seen a few million-spin winners in my time, and they are all pretty much unplayable, even with a bot.

Oh, really? I haven't seen even one in public domain like mine. If you have witnessed many, why not show me at least one?
           

Quotesome asymmetry or "limit" of randomness which they can exploit.

Once you told me that there is a virtual limit of it and now denying it. randomness is not like a dream that travels with the speed of light. It can merely speed up like a supersonic plane, that too, only momentarily. There is, always a virtual limit. It has a finite strength that can be measured too.
            If you believe that randomness can deliver any kind of variance and till any stretch, you are mistaken.
       

QuoteSo although your systems may have "done well" over a few million spins, they will not continue that way.

Now, this is not a comment of your standards. Millions of spins are large enough to ward off  any temporary bias in my favor that can show in my results.

QuoteWithout a logical reason why your system has won, the millions of spins don't count for much, I'm afraid. Do you have one?

Haha. So you really think over 10 millions spins got beaten without even a logic? Is it merely a co-incidence? Such co-incidence is rarer than you go to walk your dog and end up at Jupiter. Logic was simple: taking care of the virtual limit of every possible bet of roulette and using a reasonable push.

if in 20 spins, 15 losses are followed by 5 wins, even basic Oscar Grind will bring you to break even(-15,+1+2+3+4+5). A parlay can make you earn huge but the question is expecting a 1/32 event( WWWWW of your chosen EC) to happen just for you, when u need, is not so wise.
                Those who expect cluster of wins that should offset previous losses keep waiting till golden day comes. After a very bad stretch, never expect an equally great cluster. You can merely expect average hit rate thereafter. That is the core of "regression towards mean" and "law of large numbers". What you are expecting, is a fallacy.

My reasons: I enjoy interacting with others who share my interests
                                          AND
                    Other reasons not mentioned here, including:
                   1. To be in touch with good programmers who helped me become farsighted with their skills which were not possible manually. I     
                       even learnt to simulate most of my ideas myself on excel. 
                     
                   2. To make people aware of fallacies and wrong assumptions and to promote positive and healthy gambling.

@Bayes,
                I mostly agree with whatever you say but I won't agree over this:

QuoteAll systems, no matter how complex or ingenious, when you work through the maths, come out negative. It cannot be otherwise.

Before beating all zumma books, 10 million spins of roulette and the worst number of zumma I used to think like you but the game ( say randomness) is not as wild as we imagine. If we try to play all over, nothing in the world will let us win but same is not true with playing with taking care of sequential probability and virtual limit of variance in mind.

Lots of "systems" here and there. For price and for free but do they hold if we keep playing? Answer is no. Will someone dare to include the reasoning or logic to play this or that? Be it roulette or baccarat or even slots, what to play, when to play and why play that way is absolutely missing.
           Will people ever dare to put what, when and why too, in their so called systems? Three answers are necessary for both betselection and money management(progression, regression, flat betting, stop loss and loss recovery all included) but everybody shies away from them. I see lots of copy paste guys here and literally everywhere. A few prefer to write a single topic to 5 or more forums they belong to. A few write "daily systems" without even testing them enough. Will we ever see serious and worthwhile debates with serious simulations, tweaking and finalizing?

@alrelax,
           Buddy. You might consider "long run" as a hypothesis and a long stretch of thousands or hundreds of thousands of spins that you may think that you will never face but in reality, you can face the worst of millions spins in your very first hour of play or you may not see that ever.
         We consider long run simulation as standard simulation because long run is made of many small sessions. If you have seen 3 millions spins of German casinos, they are not collected in a stretch but upon different tables over years. When we talk of analyzing the games with any given "logic", statistics and probability (physics too, for "advantage players") come to guide us. They need not make us big winners but surely saves us from losing foolishly with ideas based upon fallacies like "law of averages".