Quote from: JohnLegend on January 26, 2013, 05:25:02 AM
The wheel or the layout is not the way to beat roulette longterm for me. Keep in mind the history and beliefs about this game being impossible to beat longterm.

COME EXACTLY FROM THOSE PLACES. The average Joe turns up at the casino and bets against the wheel or layout. And the average Joe loses longterm.

The way to do it, is create your own matrix or layout. Scrutinize randoms behaviour in a different playground. Your findings can be life changing.

How would you know? They don't say "the blind leading the blind" for nothing.

I don't want to write a sim for this.

Can't you see that if dozen #3 sleeps for 16 spins in a row, and that you could have as many as three or four triggers, that the third dozen won't appear. All those triggers will lose. That's what sleepers have to do with this.

I'll wait for you to figure this out. This forum is so loaded with people that are the greatest roulette players in the entire world. I just told you where just one of the major pitfalls are. I could care less if you want me to believe all this. You "winners" have some huge lessons coming your way. When I did all this, I had $5 minimum bets. Back then the lessons where painful. Now days they let you play with penny bets.

Like they say, " no pain, no gain."

When I first saw this I misunderstood it. I can't get any data from the excel files. If there was data formatted as .txt that would help.

My experience with sleeping dozens is, to say the least, extensive. This system has an obvious death sequence. Whenever dozen 1 or 3 is a long sleeper  you get a bunch of triggers without a chance of a winner.  I have a program that searches for sleeping dozens. It catches everything from 5 to 20 sleeper in a row and reports how many happened in a 300 spin session.

Here is some more truth for you to learn. Those pet dozens created for the inside act no different than the layout dozens or columns. The same number of death sequences are common to all sets of dozens. Randomness treats it all the same because all modern wheels tend to be random. This belief that there is a difference is a magical belief. So I hope this helps you as you discover more truth about this game. If you can program then you can prove it to yourself. The more proof you know, the better off you will be.

Quote from: Ralph on January 20, 2013, 07:04:03 PMYes but we must look at the probability including some reasonable devination in our favour, we can not say the outcome must the same every 1000 times we try. If somebody claims an outcome we can not say it is not possible by just look att the 2/3 times trials.

I don't count on odds. I observe what is currently happening and how effective I am at synchronizing with effective bets. Odds and distributions have nothing to do with winning sessions for me. If you wait for it, the casino will pull its pants down like a virgin on prom night. Every once in a while randomness lines up for you like ducks in an arcade. You can shoot them down with ease. Normally, randomness offers you a steady opportunity, a chance to work out an aggregate win. And all along the way probability keeps churning out irrelevant numbers. If more people did what I do, there would no longer be a house advantage. People don't lose because it's mathematically divined. They lose because they plan in advance to lose and then execute their plan. For most people, there are stages of learning they must earn the hard way, before they can advance. That applies to many here. Just by being here, they admit to being on a path of learning. I'm so thankful that I was never stuck like JL is. I found the tools to move on. I  actually hoped I could really beat this thing. But who knows? Maybe the illusion of winning is good enough for some people. Maybe it's good enough for what you want from an online forum?

You should also be aware that the odds for losses in a row are calculated differently.

The odds to lose is 33%

The odds to lose twice is .33 x .33 = .10

The odds to lose three times is .33 x .33 x .33 = .033

You have a 97% of winning all three step, double dozen Marti's.

In other words, you will lose three times for every 100 attempts.

Great, and professor Jone 's magic elixir will fix your gout.

Quote from: spike on January 18, 2013, 10:49:52 PM
I'm done with this thread. Fender/Legend is proving
his ignorance with every post, let him continue alone.
Let him hold his breath till July 2018 if if likes. Who
cares.

Stating the obvious is nearly pointless. You are dealing with what's known as a true believer.

Quote from: soggett on January 18, 2013, 08:13:05 PM

I couldn't find it, can you post a link or something?

http://www.gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=8587&forum=Roulette_Message_Board

" I look at the last outcome and balance it against the last few outcomes and balance THAT against my experience with random and make my educated guess. There really is nothing more to it than that. On the next spin everything changes and I do it all again.

that's it in a nutshell. You can do the same thing with practice. I don't know any other way to explain it. I'm sorry that all my claims spring from such a simple method of play, but they do. "

Quote from: Bayes on January 18, 2013, 08:09:20 PM
Gizmo, JL didn't ask me to code it, nor is he paying me. I was just curious to see whether it worked, given the claims made by JL. Looks like another triumph for HAR. 

Bayes, JL  challenged me to get you to program my method. "This" is in reference to that. And by funny, I in no way was suggesting that you couldn't do it. You would wisely decline. It's too much work.

Dear John... Spike explained his method in one of those 16,000+ posts at GG. I'm there too. From near the very start I've been advocating "test as you go." That's me being deliberately vague. I had no idea, back then, that you could tell people how to really beat this game, and that there would be no danger in wrecking the opportunity.

That's funny getting Bayes to program this. It's complex. The amount of extraneous source code is so nebulous that the request is more at inflicting torture on someone. I would be happy to answer any question Bayes might have regarding my methods. I doubt that he would want to do such a massive body of work. Giving that, your methods have already proven dangerous to use for a life changing opportunity. July 19th will be the day of real-world simulation.

Quote from: Bayes on January 18, 2013, 11:00:27 AM
Ok, I have some results for the 1M spin file(attached). Note that this is for Doz 1 only. There are some stats at the end of the file. Note that "LB" means loss of bank. Sadly, the results went negative at spin 46,653 and never recovered.

Thank you for doing the heavy lifting. It looks like it fails around the expectation mark. Funny how large numbers helps to see things. Maybe I'll do more on my black box validator today. If that works, it would beat large numbers. I hope so. I would really resent a simple minded use of a well known progression, backed by a specific situation styled trigger, to be the first working method to beat Roulette.

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 17, 2013, 09:16:18 PM
In continuous play house edge means something. In H.A.R it means little that's why I play H.A.R it is the only sure way to negate the house edge.Again youll get it this year.

So that's it. Please explain how you use HAR in this system. With an average of triggers coming every 60 some odd spins how could you possibly pick a strategic point to start tracking for triggers?

Two years ago I created a sim that I was sure beat this game. I messed up on the zeros. Once I added them in, the sim dropped back to the expected rate. It was so insignificant, but it made the difference.