Quote from: JohnLegend on January 17, 2013, 08:40:59 PM
The total mis-understanding here is what makes this bet different to another 5 step prog.

We arent betting against a code here. WE ARE BETTING AGAINST A VIRTUAL LIMIT. there's a world of difference. But ill prove that difference nonetheless. As I said before-if I have zero losses after 950 games. And not even a single challenge. I can see no worse than 15 losses per 10,000 games.

In my playing style. That will do very nicely.

Rose colored glasses. I wonder why mathematics takes a holiday for this guy?

Bayes, my sim, this morning, it does factor in the zero. A zero breaks the string of sleepers. In JL's rules the zero counts as a gap. But it loses if it hits on a fifth step of a progression. I guess you see that. So if all goes well this is just more of the same.

MarignyGrilleau, I just did that this morning. It fails right along the mathematical lines that it should. In fact my complex version asks for five exact five sleepers in a row without a higher than five in a row occurring first in order for it to lose. And each bet is not consecutive. Each step of the progression is triggered by the next unique 5 gap (sleeper)

Having a unique trigger when to start placing five bets in a row is not that complex. Even if you have a magical moment when you start your sessions it won't make you a holy man.

I'm having difficulty accepting the results Bayes got. I spent this morning writing an app that is far more complex than this. It fails at just a little more than the amount you win at. I guess I'll be forced to write a sim for this and to test it myself. It's just not possible to use such a simple, mindless trigger and to beat this game. But if it does you will have more confirmation that it works. I'm sure it doesn't.

I've spent enough time on collisions, even though I was impressed by their obvious excellent payoff value. I've decided to regulate them to Elegant Pattern status. Now that's not bad. But it's not optimal for times when extreme opportunity are few and far between. I've gone back to the proof sim.

Excellent. It's spam proofed. The only thing now is to ban those that spam it with new topics. The trolls can still revive tons of old threads. But they would give themselves away as trolls.

I agree. I think the spamming must be dealt with. I've bumped recently myself.

Why is July 19th the day, a milestone?

John, contacting anyone that believes you, including any made up friends, would be pointless. You are the best friend any casino owner would ever want. So go forth and multiply... and divide .... and...

Sorry john, but the only gap trigger here is the break with reality. I tested this progression a couple of years ago on these forums. It even used a logical method of searching for a weakness in randomness, an actual situational awareness kind of a trigger. It fails at just slightly more than all the money earned from the very long streaks of winnings. In other, more appropriate words, it's fool's gold.

I also do not believe you started playing this three months ago. Three months ago you were up to your neck in Pattern Breaker. I'm just not buying it. If you had the very best from your magic HAR then why does the need to find advanced methods dazzle you now? You are just faking yourself out. Please stop wasting your time. Find something that really works. Anyone can see that the philosophical discussion on randomness has cut into your effectiveness track. This trigger based, magical HAR HAR system of yours has nothing to do with randomness. It's pure rule based nonsense.

OK, I did some sim work on this. It probably correlates along the same conditions for other trend based bet selections. The same type of three states work about the same for these combinations. So there is no secret to be discovered, just because there are 8/4 differences for red or black in column 2 & 3 of the table layout.

It is my belief that the programmer never moved to Reno or quit his job.

Quote from: sqzbox on January 11, 2013, 12:18:44 PM
"Simultaneous" doesn't ring my bell.  To me, this means doing tricky-dicky things ...

" It seems to me that the first thing we need to ensure is that of statistical independence. Am I right in figuring that the statistical measures ARE independent?"

You might like this, statistical independence does not ring my bell either.

Quote from: Juiced91 on January 11, 2013, 10:07:11 AM
But that's then what im saying. A method was apparently found where it could be PROGRAMMED for a million+ spins. So did he program it to foolow the game or work of triggers. that's the question

I guess you need to see a common roadmap of how to do this. It's a program. It's best to seek a well defined result. I actually started mapping this thing out yesterday.   My conclusion was to have the software look for sleeping columns in col2 & col3 and to correlate them, when found, with dominance or pure streaks in the respective reds or respective blacks. Then I would have a chart of spins that include correlation in the form of yes or no to the combination situations. That's exactly what I would be looking for at this point. The program could tell me how often the two conditions combine. This is because it might be an interesting result. The percentage for yes might turn out to be higher than the expected value.

P.S. or it just becomes 6/37 = ##.#

interesting - compare:

12/37 x 18/37 = 0.1578

6/37 = 0.1621

If you round them both, then both percentages are 16%

Quote from: sqzbox on January 10, 2013, 06:56:41 AM
I guess we should start with basics.  It seems to me that the first thing we need to ensure is that of statistical independence.  Am I right in figuring that the statistical measures ARE independent?  That is, for example, we can calculate the probability of an outcome being in the first dozen AND black by simply multiplying the respective probabilities.  12/37 x 18/37 = 0.1578.  But this is only true if the probabilities are statistically independent.  Is this a true assumption?

I think what you are looking for might be best described as simultaneous. You can win the black bet but lose the first dozen bet. Furthermore, some of the black numbers are part of the first dozen. They are combined as a process of being the same slot on the wheel as well as different groupings from the table construct, at the same time. I'm suggesting that the way to combine them can only be achieved by using the inside numbers only. This way the formula becomes 12/37 x 6/37 = ##.#