Here is what to do if the effectiveness falls off a cliff. You can use the positive bet selection that is currently failing and bet the opposite.

You can also look for the absence of characteristics. You then deduce what would happen if a certain condition where not to exist and that that feature of it not existing were to also continue. For instance, there could be chaos in the red & blacks. So you could ask yourself if there was an absence of consistent singles as well as an absence of consistent repeats then what would happen next if that were to continue. It's possible to follow the absence of characteristics.

Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 01, 2012, 03:39:26 AM
I ask rather request Spike and Gizmo to stop bashing someone, whether they like something or not. Half the forum is into debating PB. Worst thing is, most of them is going negative. I personally feel that PB is nothing better than martingale but it is OK if others are willing to play that way.
            Live and let others live too.

Hold on a minute there king. I've spent a lot of my time writing & testing algorithms that comply with each aspect of Pattern Breaker. That includes trying to figure out the exact rules for the hit and run process. Every time I provided data or telemetry I was personally attacked by JohnLegend. All I did was offer real information. Ask anyone here. Check it yourself. When did I ever call anyone stupid, a moron, or an imbicile? All I attempted to do was show evidence that conclusions were based on magical thinking, a well known expression used by professionals dealing with gambling issues. And to this point I have been accused of being a mathBoyz by JL himself. You need to back up your accusation or retract it.

Quote from: Blood Angel on November 30, 2012, 11:19:49 PM
So if you had afew of those going on at any one time, would you have an order of attack for example? A preference per se?

Yes. I favor bets on the dozens and columns. I also depend on the effectiveness of the session. Some sessions are better than others. Having situations that continue also have moments where everything changes on each first or second attacking bet. You can still get a perfect streak of losses even though you have real quality trends for bet selection. So I always favor watching the trend line for effectiveness. At no time do I continue on blindly.

On every spin I check to see if a new characteristic is forming or that any existing ones are changing. So I scan the chart. I can see a characteristic in approximately one third of a second.

Look for sleepers in the dozens and columns.
Look for singles, then doubles, triples, and larger in the dozens and columns.
Look for global effects for all this.
Look for perfect and almost perfect patterns in the dozens and columns.
Look for a perfect or almost perfect dominance in the dozens and columns.
Look for dominance in all of the even chance bets.
Look for sequences of singles, doubles, and triples and above in the even chance bets.
Look for perfect patterns in the even chance bets.
Look for sleeping zeros and wide awake zeros.
Look for any active attack bet ending.
Evaluate the effectiveness of the current state.
Repeat this process after every spin and before every bet.

I guess the need for a complete list of characteristics is the next step.

Quote from: Ophis on November 30, 2012, 02:01:08 PM
Exacly.

DEFINE what are you seeing and we will be able to code it and automate it.

Then you will need to write a set of classes that duplicate visual dexterity & pattern recognition. I could have done this years ago. I know all the basic forms of characteristics found and that have the capacity to continue. That includes their absence too. You can bet on the absence of singles, no matter how cluttered the chart might be with varying sizes of repeats. One thing will always be true. You can bet for the absence of the single to continue.

Regarding when I give up on a continuing dominance in the EC's, it depends. Most of the times there's a better trend, but if not I'll back a 70% dominance. I will drop back to minimum sized bets and wait. Where I play I have to place a bet on every spin if I want to keep my seat. Thems the rules.

So this works because of H.A.R. How do you know when to run? How do you know when to hit? This question is to all that are doing well with PB.

Peanuts hugh? I have a very new interest. I did extensive experimentation with a three step.

Wow, I would love to get numbers like that. I never tested a four step Marti for doubled dozens.  I wonder how often a 1 loss in a thousand occurs?

Bayes, I would never consider a question like that a criticism. I started this thread for the full purpose of having an intelligent conversation.

I always check to see if there is a global effect context that gives me a clue as to keep going or not. If I get that many reds in a row and then the next bet is black I want to know if this is the beginning of a change or is it just an anomaly.

If I was already at attack prices then I drop back to minimum bets until I know if a major change has occurred. I always react to the latest spin. I ask myself if it is a signal of change.

Feel free to discuss the unique marvels of PB's 3 step Martingale. If it's the same thing then why is the Legend's version different? Perhaps he knows exactly when to return to the casino for a blast of the good stuff.

Quote from: JohnLegend on November 29, 2012, 08:58:13 PM
Now you know why I play PATTERN BREAKER. YES, YES YES a hundred marthingale methods could do some attractive win loss streaks. But when they go wrong my gawd they go WRONG.

I know what im talking about Giz. And time will show it ALL I promise you all that.

P.S Subby appologies feel free to delete all this back and forth with Giz.

JL - " PATTERN BREAKER is capable of producing. Most of the time YES. you win 6 you lose 1 you win 4 you lose 1. You win 9 you lose 1.

THEN! Something special happens, that random entry into the cycle goes on a winning streak15,20,25 OR BEYOND. "

Quote from: Gizmotron on November 29, 2012, 08:37:02 PM
Sorry to break this to you but that is common of a straight uninterrupted 3 step Marti also. I just created a plain old 3 step Marti with no special waiting for the last of eight patterns and no "HAR" intervals. And guess what? You can't tell the difference between the win/loss sequences for this test and the w/L sequences for PB. They have the same long win streaks as the mumbo jumbo win streaks. Your balloon is popped. This is the definitive "cat's out of the bag" moment. There's no need to wait two years.

I dare any of you to compare PB win streak claims against those of a common 3 step Martingale. Be prepared to be amazed.

Quote from: JohnLegend on November 29, 2012, 07:31:57 PM
Success never gets old Giz. But do NOT take my word for it. This is what Speramus is all about. And what I am doing on BV. Two years from now even you may raise an eyebrow.

What the heck.

I have a thread going right now that is dedicated to telling specific instructions on how to attack randomness and the opportunities that it has to offer. In two years everyone will know that I have been right all along. See. Anyone can do it.

JL, I clearly believe that you have been lucky when it comes to your results for recovery bets. You think it's "HAR" and the common occurrences of win streaks. By your own statements you have yet to experience a triple loss. That alone is a validation of experiencing a lucky break. It's completely believable. It's also naive to think that your luck is because you know something that we don't. You are one of the free thinking type personalities that have an explanation for the most common forms of random occurrences. This is getting old and tired.