JL - " With methods that all fail, when played continuously."

How would you know does come to mind.

This is truly funny. A guy says his three step Marti is going to vindicate his posturing. After 200 years that Martingale progression was actually right all along. It just has to locate the magical mystery points. And these points are only known by the legendary one himself.

I don't need to have someone like you tell me its H.A.R.

How do you know?

My published telemetry from my tests show a confirmation of the expected double losses that any average player will experience. I also included triple losses. HAR being used or not never changed these expected values of double and triple losses.

Now even in the most innocent of worlds it's possible to have a very long lasting lucky streak. By JL's own statements he has experienced a far less than average amount of double losses and no triple losses. That's proof that he is in a lucky streak. His conclusion of why he is doing better does not stand the light of day with regards to a scientific approach.  The approach here is to wait years. That is a huge waste of time.

Quote from: esoito on December 30, 2012, 12:00:14 AM
I'm struggling with that because I'm basically useless.

To me the answer is -31 (a negative number)

For this stage of my equation I've commanded the computer to only use unsigned numbers. Its impossible to have a negative number of slots on the wheel. So I have effectively eliminated the negative. Don't believe it? Look up unsigned numbers.

Quote from: esoito on December 30, 2012, 12:14:32 AM
Gizmotron wrote:   "Lies are the mainstay of this forum."

Your evidence?  Kindly provide objective substantiation  -- divorced from your subjective opinions.

Please don't forget the context. It was with regards to mother hens. I've already proven that HAR is a fallacy. At the start I wrote a sim that tested Six Million spins per test. Written into the sim was actual mindless hit & run tactics.

In every test there was no significant difference in using it or in leaving it out. It changed nothing.  I ran the tests more than 100 times. There was no significant difference. THE CLAIMS BEING MADE ON THIS FORUM REGARDING HAR BEING THE SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE ARE FALSE. MY CHOICE OF DESCRIPTION IS THAT THIS QUALIFIES THESE CLAIMS AS LIES. THIS CONCLUSION IS AN EARNED RESPONSE TO THE PAST DISPLAY OF CHARACTER ALREADY ESTABLISHED BY THIS CLAIMER.

If these are not intentional lies then they are the illusions of a person that has been fooling himself for many years, also his own claim.

I read all 13 pages. So I wanted to see what every number would do in a 300 spin test.

300 Spin test, results for all numbers. These results are for win points only. There is no data for non winners that are still non winners before spins reaching 300.

This section is the number of spins between hits -- the total number of hits --  total won or lost.

01: 100, 54, 117, 16,  -- 4 -- -263
02: 67, 17, 67, 7, 10, 54,  -- 6 -- 42
03: 4, 74, 19, 6, 12, 3, 149, 17, 4,  -- 9 -- 53
04: 46, 1, 7, 75, 18, 13, 33, 66,  -- 8 -- 64
05: 90, 47, 71, 64,  -- 4 -- -293
06: 2, 53, 13, 11, 27,  -- 5 -- 74
07: 5, 21, 25, 43, 33, 50, 39, 16, 9, 5, 31, 9, 10, 1,  -- 14 -- 207
08: 131, 1, 1, 10, 10, 11, 59, 35,  -- 8 -- 135
09: 12, 1, 20, 31, 25, 25, 11, 16, 25, 12, 52, 64,  -- 12 -- 138
10: 61, 16, 21, 1, 111, 7, 10, 48, 1,  -- 9 -- 97
11: 11, 5, 93, 4, 36, 3, 11, 21, 15, 22, 3, 24, 17,  -- 13 -- 235
12: 21, 35, 20, 81, 5, 9, 24, 43, 19, 3,  -- 10 -- 131
13: 36, 8, 91, 44, 52,  -- 5 -- -39
14: 17, 6, 15, 4, 103, 102, 19,  -- 7 -- 3
15: 32, 63, 28, 47, 58, 5, 40, 25,  -- 8 -- 34
16: 39, 19, 2, 12, 15, 20, 12, 64, 73, 25,  -- 10 -- 96
17: 20, 14, 28, 12, 22, 42, 12, 9, 70, 5, 2, 59,  -- 12 -- 137
18: 134, 68, 24, 26, 1,  -- 5 -- 89
19: 197, 23, 15, 14,  -- 4 -- 16
20: 3, 85, 28, 30, 60, 31, 37, 8, 17,  -- 9 -- 50
21: 85, 26, 75,  -- 3 -- -146
22: 6, 75, 1, 58, 21, 21, 31, 6, 24, 20,  -- 10 -- 132
23: 7, 21, 197, 68,  -- 4 -- -181
24: 14, 1, 26, 18, 6, 91, 42, 13, 31,  -- 9 -- 82
25: 40, 29, 51, 55, 15, 22, 66, 5,  -- 8 -- 35
26: 52, 1, 4, 44, 75, 16, 11, 58, 7, 2,  -- 10 -- 125
27: 165, 26, 59, 1,  -- 4 -- -38
28: 92, 50, 73, 24,  -- 4 -- -147
29: 27, 46, 2, 8, 86, 4, 112, 5,  -- 8 -- 32
30: 8, 1, 99, 40, 19, 13, 25, 57,  -- 8 -- 56
31: 18, 53, 34, 12, 4, 1, 22, 125, 22,  -- 9 -- 33
32: 43, 50, 62, 54, 5, 30, 10, 1,  -- 8 -- 67
33: 1, 103, 6, 29, 48, 14, 6, 57, 25,  -- 9 -- 65
34: 22, 58, 114,  -- 3 -- -164
35: 25, 5, 1, 17, 2, 16, 20, 16, 22, 57, 7, 30, 62,  -- 13 -- 188
36: 19, 10, 8, 12, 87, 38, 11, 4, 15, 36,  -- 10 -- 120
37: 35, 28, 7, 21, 21, 60, 24, 4, 45, 47,  -- 10 -- 68
38: 10, 14, 21, 81, 2, 2, 149,  -- 7 -- -27

Telemetry: number of spins until hit * unit value * running total for that number,

With full telemetry, for proof of accuracy of sim:
01: 33*1*3,18*1*21,4*1*53,74*1*15,150*1*-99, -- 5 -- -99
02: 6*1*30,34*1*32,65*1*3,68*1*-29,6*2*31,54*1*13,1*1*48, -- 7 -- 48
03: 1*1*35,12*1*59,22*1*73,81*1*28,40*1*24,7*1*53,58*1*31,35*1*32,30*1*38, -- 9 -- 38
04: 8*1*28,13*1*51,4*1*83,11*1*108,68*1*76,11*1*101,7*1*130,8*1*158,4*1*190,68*1*158,2*1*192,7*1*221,85*1*172, -- 13 -- 172
05: 76*1*-40,14*2*4,2*1*38,8*1*66,120*1*-18, -- 5 -- -18
06: 95*1*-59,14*2*-15,33*3*-6,2*4*130,51*1*115,20*1*131,66*1*101,8*1*129,5*1*160, -- 9 -- 160
07: 17*1*19,1*1*54,180*1*-90,45*2*-108,7*3*-21,20*4*43,20*1*59, -- 7 -- 59
08: 12*1*24,58*1*2,54*1*-16, -- 3 -- -16
09: 5*1*31,10*1*57,43*1*50,39*1*47,1*1*82,34*1*84,8*1*112,34*1*114,50*1*100,7*1*129,23*1*142, -- 11 -- 142
10: 81*1*-45,2*2*23,18*1*41,57*1*20,10*1*46,67*1*15, -- 6 -- 15
11: 47*1*-11,15*2*31,100*1*-33,35*2*-31,25*3*2,8*1*30,7*1*59,23*1*72, -- 8 -- 72
12: 30*1*6,35*1*7,42*1*1,43*1*-6,7*2*52,51*1*37,77*1*-4,10*2*48, -- 8 -- 48
13: 68*1*-32,7*2*26,43*1*19,8*1*47,57*1*26,36*1*26,34*1*28,13*1*51,27*1*60,6*1*90, -- 10 -- 90
14: 9*1*27,23*1*40,35*1*41,4*1*73,121*1*-12,49*2*-38, -- 6 -- -38
15: 11*1*25,99*1*-38,23*2*-12, -- 3 -- -12
16: 112*1*-76,146*2*-296,9*3*-215,2*4*-79, -- 4 -- -79
17: 56*1*-20,99*2*-146,14*3*-80,99*4*-332,3*5*-167, -- 5 -- -167
18: 3*1*33,17*1*52,76*1*12,88*1*-40,39*2*-46,51*3*-91,23*4*-39, -- 7 -- -39
19: 49*1*-13,4*2*51,4*1*83,64*1*55,104*1*-13,17*2*25,7*1*54, -- 7 -- 54
20: 27*1*9,235*1*-190, -- 2 -- -190
21: 23*1*13,16*1*33,38*1*31,58*1*9,64*1*-19,1*2*51,77*1*10,1*1*45,4*1*77,5*1*108, -- 10 -- 108
22: 85*1*-49,38*2*-53,113*3*-284,39*4*-296, -- 4 -- -296
23: 41*1*-5,4*2*59,33*1*62,4*1*94,70*1*60,19*1*77,102*1*11, -- 7 -- 11
24: 42*1*-6,31*2*4,41*1*-1,31*2*9,30*1*15,43*1*8,9*1*35,13*1*58,7*1*87,36*1*87,15*1*108, -- 11 -- 108
25: 14*1*22,50*1*8,63*1*-19,51*2*-49,8*3*35,5*1*66, -- 6 -- 66
26: 10*1*26,28*1*34,23*1*47,5*1*78,54*1*60,17*1*79,17*1*98,7*1*127,9*1*154,6*1*184,17*1*203,1*1*238,16*1*258,7*1*287,35*1*288, -- 15 -- 288
27: 46*1*-10,26*2*10,74*1*-28,19*2*6,40*1*2, -- 5 -- 2
28: 26*1*10,28*1*18,39*1*15,45*1*6,21*1*21,92*1*-35,29*2*-21,8*3*63, -- 8 -- 63
29: 2*1*34,149*1*-79,16*2*-39,23*3*0,19*4*68,3*1*101, -- 6 -- 101
30: 7*1*29,21*1*44,46*1*34,13*1*57,2*1*91,14*1*113,14*1*135,31*1*140,18*1*158,14*1*180,26*1*190,32*1*194,46*1*184, -- 13 -- 184
31: 52*1*-16,32*2*-8,47*3*-41,16*4*39,42*1*33,24*1*45,3*1*78,12*1*102,31*1*107,17*1*126, -- 10 -- 126
32: 19*1*17,44*1*9,6*1*39,17*1*58,16*1*78,17*1*97,88*1*45,19*1*62,22*1*76,7*1*105,2*1*139,35*1*140, -- 12 -- 140
33: 4*1*32,12*1*56,28*1*64,4*1*96,2*1*130,9*1*157,1*1*192,19*1*209,12*1*233,17*1*252,35*1*253,148*1*141, -- 12 -- 141
34: 29*1*7,77*1*-34,7*2*24,59*1*1,5*1*32,4*1*64,6*1*94,14*1*116,2*1*150,42*1*144,18*1*162, -- 11 -- 162
35: 22*1*14,9*1*41,12*1*65,68*1*33,14*1*55,3*1*88,8*1*116,17*1*135,29*1*142,57*1*121,25*1*132,1*1*167,7*1*196, -- 13 -- 196
36: 99*1*-63,40*2*-71,2*3*31,19*1*48,72*1*12, -- 5 -- 12
37: 34*1*2,54*1*-16,6*2*44,55*1*25,36*1*25,11*1*50,18*1*68, -- 7 -- 68
38: 24*1*12,13*1*35,43*1*28,84*1*-20,24*2*4,41*1*-1,15*2*41,2*1*75,15*1*96, -- 9 -- 96

Let's try a basic arithmetic test.

1.00
-.83
_____
.17

.17 times 6 = 1.02

That's close enough. You have a 17% chance of hitting just 6 numbers.

Here's a basic formula

6 - 37 = 31

31 divided by 37 = .8378  -- 1 sleeper in a row

.8378 times .8378 = .7019  -- 2 sleepers in a row

.7019 times .8378 = .5880  -- 3 sleepers in a row

.5880 times .8378 = .4926  -- 4 sleepers in a row ...etc.

If this is confusing, you have a 83% chance of missing the sleeper on the first step.

Quote from: wannawin on December 29, 2012, 12:12:55 AM
One way to advertise is by offering free programs in many free software directory sites that accept submissions.

There is no way that I speak for others. And I'm not interested in ever trying. If anyone wishes to promote my software at the commonly known shareware sites you and not me can pay the Bill. Every total quality website wants to charge the applicable price of fame.

I'm not a total behind but the price of fame is on you and your inept path.

Quote from: Blood Angel on December 28, 2012, 07:43:03 PM
Lets say Red AND Even are both streaking (lets say both are at a run of 5).
Would you play both,and risk diluting the win if one loses, wait for one to stop before continuing with the one that's left,play just one of them....or something else entirely?

I would play big on both for one bet. At the same time I would place good money on every even-red number on the inside. There should be nine inside.

Quote from: Wally Gator on December 28, 2012, 07:30:59 PM

Well said.  It is all discipline.  Not many are able to do what you suggest, but for those few who acquire this level of discipline will find risk mitigated and reward abundant.  Explanation can only be realized through experience.

There it is. That's it in a nutshell. Only those with actual playing experience can know if they have what it takes to do this. I know well that I'm a terrible communicator. I wanted to share this. When I taught the ten students I never found out how well any of them did. I do know where the steep learning curve produced difficulties. Nathan Detroit got to me and suggested that I try a simpler approach. That's what this thread is.

I wish I could transfer experience.

wannawin, I don't think people are unintelligent. I think they are inexperienced. I doubt that many at this forum think that throwing away money is fun. They are looking for a secret to gambling winnings. I was no different. I spent years researching progressions and triggers.

Someday, asking questions in this thread will be of historical significance. Don't be someone that never bothered to get answers from me. I'm in a very telling mood. Some  day everyone will be able to give the answers.

Quote from: JohnLegend on December 28, 2012, 05:28:59 PM
Too late for what?

Sorry, you must wait until next July.

The very best way is to discover the truth behind my methods before everyone else discovers that truth. Of course, after that,  you let everyone know the truth. Oh, wait, that's  my plan already. Learning it after it's too late also works. Situational awareness combined with a common basic strategy is going to change the entire gambling world very soon. For the most part it's going to zero in on this dot com. My advice to all of you is to get off your butts and stop fooling around with progressions and trigger based systems. That's if you have enough playing experience to let things like that go. It's human nature to find the easy way first. This is a clear warning to all of you. There will be a time that it is too late.

Bally  - " There are times when this is going to produce an incredible run and you can soon ratchet up some profit just like you said."

I've always wanted to tell people that there are moments when you can completely dismantle the casino and its measly house advantage. Sometimes all reason and all intimidation seems to go right out the door. For a brief stretch of spins you can drop huge bets on the casino like a bombing mission in a B-52. It is the next best thing to a bank robbery. While it happens you win every bet, every spin. I let some of it ride while I take some off. The trick is to get up to high flat bets and to ride it until it dies.

"Fortune favors the prepared mind."