Quote from: Bayes on January 18, 2013, 08:19:35 PM
John, you couldn't read it? it's not a spreadsheet just a text file, you should have opened it using notepad or any text editor. Did anyone else have problems reading it???

The previous sim didn't test all 3 dozens, only one.

You mean the tests without the zero were only ONE DOZEN per million spins Bayes??

Quote from: Bally6354 on January 18, 2013, 08:10:26 PM
Surely the answer then is to play on the NO ZERO wheel at betvoyager and pay them the 10% tax from your winnings.

Could be Bally. If the zero realy does that much damage. But im not convinced on that. I believe H,A,R is the equivalent of playing on the no zero. Because in my first 950 odd games. Its done little damage to me.

Remember ZERO is just like anyother number it can get hot and cluster several hits together. And when its cold sleep for hundreds. But I will bet my catfish basket. That when im playing H.A.R im not getting the same devastation as that continuous 1 million spins is giving out.

Quote from: Bayes on January 18, 2013, 08:03:09 PM
On the 1M actuals. Total losses were 48 + 3 on the zero = 51. It's not so much the losses due directly to the zero which killed it, but those times the zero hits when you're in the post-trigger zone - how many busts would have been saved if there was no zero? according to my previous simulation, enough to make a profit overall. There are some stats at the end of the results file, I'll post the results for all 3 dozens tomorrow.

Bayes I couldnt read your spreadsheet. It looked like Russian backwards to me. that's why im digging deep here. A few nore questions please.

So you are telling me that the zero caused 51 losses on just Dozen 1. When on your previous test without zero. There was only half that many losses on all three dozens combined? It seems a bit incredible to me. But anyway I will continue to manually test your one million actuals. As live results are the only ones that mean anything to me really.

It might take me a year or more to do it. But I will do it. In the first 65 games just as in my real play. There have been zero challenges on the progression. There has to be something different between live results and sims Bayes. There really does.

Quote from: Gizmotron on January 18, 2013, 06:49:49 PM
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.

Well if he wants to play Mr perfect. He should bring it to this forum with clear concise rules. So that all can test it. And see if he is half as good as he thinks he is.

Then if he really can beat random with the even chances and no progression. He can do his im above eveyone else rountine. Otherwise he is more empty than a vacuum.

My methods are being laid bare. Whether you like them or not. You know what I use. The only thing I've to prove, is when they're played on a LIVE WHEEL H.A.R. The ultimate result is PROFIT OVERALL.

So while everyone and the kitchen sink thinks im mad. The numbers starting with the first milestone in July. Will tell the truth.

Then everyone who has criticized me has to explain how methods with no merit were able to do that to just 200 units. And it goes on from there.

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.

Bayes a few questions about your test. Were they conducted on the 1 million actuals. Or a sim? How many total losses did you find in the 1 million sample. And how many were as a result of the zero? Thanks for your time.

Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 18, 2013, 06:15:37 PM
John

Who is the Texan?

Sam

The one that goes by the name Spike.

Quote from: Gizmotron on January 18, 2013, 05:33:57 PM
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.

Giz do you really believe its necessary for a working method to beat a straight million spin sample, in order for it to be seen as a successful method?

If so lets see you put your method in Bayes hands for a million spins. And that arrogant Texan even show us a method to hand over to Bayes for a million spin test. If you both come out of the other end in positive numbers. You have my undivided attention.

He tells someone he has 16,000 posts on gamblers glen with no clue of how he actually beats the game. You go figure that one. And then he attacks others who say they can win at this game.

RESULTS UPDATE FOR CODE 4 HORIZONTAL

TOTAL GAMES PLAYED 300

TOTAL GAMES WON 300

TOTAL GAMES LOST ZERO

STRIKERATE 300/0

BALANCE =550 UNITS PLUS

LONGEST WAIT FOR A WIN STEP 9 OF 10.

Taken close to the edge for the first time in the last 50 games. But still doing nicely. Too early to get over excited about this method. But its the best single dozen method I've yet used.

42 of the last 50 games stayed inside the first 6 steps of the progression. Im very happy about this consistency.

Quote from: Bayes on January 18, 2013, 11:17:56 AM
Sorry if I misled people with my initial results, but I did suggest that celebrations might be premature given that I hadn't taken the zero into account. I'll upload a file with the total results for all dozens, but TBH I expect a similar outcome. 

That won't stop me playing the method Bayes. If you went from positive to negative simply because of the zero.

Should that be an issue I would simply cover the zero on the big bets. The thing is this, H.A.R Im not even being challenged. As I've said before. If any method will make the argument for H.A.R its this one. I expect the longterm results to mirror those you had without the zero.

And that will once and for all prove what I've known for a long time. LIVE is the only way to be sure for me. I can't vouch for anyother format. Its the format that has been successful for me for many years.

The interesting thing for me speaking of the zero. Is how little impact its had on the 955 games I've now played. Few steps have been lost as a result of its existence.

The only way ill ever get H.A.R superiority stamped in reality is to do what im now doing. Turn a small modest bankroll into an ever growing fortune.

No one will be able to refute my claims then. Not even the dynamic duo.

Quote from: spike on January 18, 2013, 09:03:57 AM
I don't even like Gizmo and he knows more about
this game than you ever will. We have a state called
Texas. They have a saying there, when somebody
is a braggart with nothing to back him up, he's
'all hat and no cattle'.  That means he struts around
like a real cowboy, running his mouth, saying stupid
things, but in reality he's just a fancy hat with nothing
in the barn.

that's you.

Id say that sums you up. I MEAN you don't even have a method on the forum.

Giz any slander goes. The only thing im going to do is bruise a couple of egos around here. That's the reality.

Quote from: Gizmotron on January 17, 2013, 10:11:11 PM
John, please explain how HAR applies to this system? I can't test it if it has no explanation.

Giz you don't get it and neverwill. MAYBE cold hard cash might wake you up to the fact I've had this game in the bag for a long time. Then again maybe it won't.

Quote from: spike on January 17, 2013, 11:23:13 PM
If you think HAR has any validity, you don't understand
random at all. AT ALL! My god, its like talking to a wall.
So you played for 8 years, so what. Making the same
mistakes, not understanding the game for 8 years is
no accomplishment. Random is all there is to roulette,
get your mind off the stupid layout and concentrate
on what's important and you might get somewhere.

Oh I've been getting somewhere alright, you are simply not the authority on this game. YOU don't even have a method. NOTHING, nada.

Quote from: spike on January 17, 2013, 10:29:07 PM
Saying what you're going to do in 6 months
is not an answer to anything. Its what you
know now that counts, not what you might
know at some future date.

I proved that HAR is meaningless. A few years
ago I took my method and played in on 5
streams of real numbers at the same time.
Bet on stream 1. Then bet on stream 2. Next
bet on stream 3. Etc. Pretending I'm in a real
casino doing hit and run. The results were exactly
the same as if I'd stayed with just one stream.

Get it? HAR made no difference at all, how could it?
Random is random, whether its coming from one
wheel or 5 wheels. HAR is a waste of time.

Want to beat roulette? Study how random works,
understand the game. Hardly anybody here talks
about random, they treat it like its an obstacle
they have to overcome. Its not an obstacle, its the
tool you use to beat the game. Random IS the game,
for god's sake.

I've been beating roulette for 8 years. Its hardly breaking news that you have to beat random. The point is I will prove it. While you still talk about having an edge without any proof.

Talk is cheap. I did enough of it. Now im in the process of proving it. Youll still be talking the talk in July. Without one iota of proof.

Quote from: spike on January 17, 2013, 09:31:40 PM
My god. Its all ONE BIG GAME! Jumping to another
table or casino with hit and run does NOTHING
NOTHING NOTHING to change or negate the edge.

This is roulette 101 stuff. This is newbie folly. I
can't believe the smarter people here (Victor?),
let you get away with the statements you make.

Wrap your head around the fact that random is
random, jumping from one table of random outcomes
to another table of random outcomes changes
nothing. HOW COULD IT? Random outcomes are
not connected to anything, they're RANDOM.

Good grief.

You be around to explain What im going to show you. H.A.R means nothing.

It will be time to eat one huge slice of humble pie.

And you will still be going on about the edge you have with no proof.