Quote from: Bayes on January 14, 2013, 01:39:07 PM
Well, it actually HASN'T done that well, because I didn't incorporate the zero factor. This must push up the number of busts, which theoretically would be enough to put the results negative, but even so, I've never seen a system which has done as well even on a no-zero wheel.

So when I upload the actuals file/results, I'll make sure I've taken account of the zero so you get the true picture.

I still think it would do even better on a million live spins Bayes. That's why this is exciting news for me. I only ever play this live. Now 935/0

Quote from: Chauncy47 on January 14, 2013, 01:44:40 PM
Nice work JL !!!  Thank you for sharing!!   I have been traveling a lot to start this year off but pop in from time to time to see what's new.  Great Stuff, Great Appraoch, Great Thinking!  .... 

Thankyou my friend, not bad for a fake charleton scam artist. As I've been called. No doubt the likes of Spike and Giz will avoid this thread now.

Quote from: Drazen on January 14, 2013, 01:31:33 PM
Well John, this is the only method of yours that succeeded in tests.. Other were blasted like out of canon.


Bayes were trying to simulate H.A.R and it failed too. So only thing people had were your words actualy and few words of those who were playing your way also. I personaly think H.A.R (as most of like to call random entry and exit points in play) doesn't mean anything and that is logical if you think about it, but everyone on its own I say.


It would be interesting to see how this method would go with +2 -1 progression.


Now as it goes I expect that someone of those brilliant coders on few platforms we have here, will made tracker and people will be able to earn with no thinking and  knwoing anything at all. (Although I am jealous about giving knowledge and skills for longterm earnings to anyone so I know some will use this, who even doesn't know how many numbers or on the roulette, but what the heck..)  Earn? No. Better to say destroy casinos..


But will it go just like that? The proof is here so, it will be interesting to watch this thread in coming time.. 


Best


Drazen

Drazen you only have to succeed once. I still believe in my other methods. They require more work and MM.

I dreamt of getting a method that could win on auto pilot. Now it looks lke we have it. It still won't change alot in the roulette world.

But more people now know its possible. That's all I've ever wanted.

Quote from: Drazen on January 14, 2013, 12:32:54 PM
Congratulations to JL for his method. But if this hits in so good ratio, I think playing not so volatile MM should be fine also, as John said most of the time hits come on first two steps...


Now my only worry is that Vic will start to recieve death threats and he will have to close this forum...    LoL


So all should be advised to copy the rules until is not too late 


Best


Drazen

Drazen thankyou. I honestly didn't expect it to do that well against a million spins on an RNG.

Thanks to Bayes for all his hard work. What you have to know about me is im very conservative when it comes to risk. I would never risk 242 units unless I have a very good feeling about something.

Its only through years of results with the ZONE. That I aquired that feeling. If you don't see something happen on a live wheel in nearly 3,000 results. You have to look into it.

So we know now 7 on 1 can survive a million spins. Maybe Albalaha will believe that I wasn't making up my results now.

And Superman will like what he sees here too. He stands to gain alot financially from this until we are stopped.

Thanks again Bayes. 10% of whatever I make from this and the other methods will be donated to Victor and the forum. So many will benefit from this.

Quote from: albalaha on January 14, 2013, 04:29:56 AM
I know what is good and bad and want to warn others too regarding "dangerous progressions". Don't jump across fire repeatedly.

Albalaha, heres how I look at it. You could lose more than 242 units flat betting. And people do, if the methods no good.

I know people who have drawdowns into four figures. And spend days trying to recover. Now on the surface 242 looks like a crazy risk to win 1 unit.

But If my strikerate playing H.A.R ends up being several thousand to one. Its not so crazy anymore. As I said, I don't want anyone to play this progression.

I am financially strong enough to do this experiment. And that's why I've undertaken to-find out if its as good as it looks on past results live.

Quote from: Bally6354 on January 13, 2013, 07:49:53 PM
Good luck with it JL and I hope you take the casino to the cleaners.

Money won is always twice as sweet as money earned! 

Thanks Bally. This is only one of 5 methods I use.

Quote from: ADulay on January 13, 2013, 06:45:37 PM
This coming from the guy who publicly states in his signature "I have beaten the game of roulette".

Interesting.

AD

Well Adulay I was surprised at Albalaha's reaction. I understand he is a flat betting devotee.

But I have made it clear this method is for an advanced player with a huge BR. Who has done enough testing to realize 242 units is worth the risk.

What's amusing is if someone lost 242 units flat betting. No one makes any noise about it.

As soon as you mention the word martingale. Everyone and the kitchen sink are up in arms.

I aim to prove that sometimes. JUST SOMETIMES, a martingale even seemingly this extreme is justified.

If the bet selection is that powerful it is.

Quote from: atlantis on January 13, 2013, 11:41:52 AM
Correct - and of course there are other double doz progressions mentioned elsewhere that *could* be utilised instead of the total 242 risk...

A.

Of course there are Atlantis, I don't want anyone to play this progression or even the method for real. I only published it to show one of my chief methods.

Quote from: topcat888 on January 13, 2013, 11:19:56 AM
ok, so I'm correct, by the time you won, you were on progressin step 5... 

No TC that was step 2 of the 5 step progression. I've never had to go to the 5th step yet in 930 games.

Quote from: topcat888 on January 13, 2013, 10:40:10 AM
So, if I am correct you won the second bet on progression step 5, correct..?

In that game TC this is where we bet.

09-----DOUBLE 4 GAP TRIGGER
05
18
12*
14
15
18
07----BET 1 STEP 1 LOST
07
20
32
06*
14
21
29
29----BET 2 STEP 2 WON AS DOZEN 1 didn't BECOME A 4 GAP
28
26
06

Quote from: topcat888 on January 13, 2013, 10:34:58 AM
Why are we interested if it became a 7 GAP or not..?? 

No particular reason TC. That was just where it came to rest in that particular game. All we are interested in is that the game won and it went beyond 4.

Quote from: topcat888 on January 13, 2013, 10:21:35 AM
John, something I don't get, is you state: I now commence betting against there being seven of these 4 gaps in a row

However, the last bet that won the game (the second bet) did not commence betting after three gaps from a dozen one number, see below:

09----DOUBLE 4 GAP TRIGGER OF DOZEN 1
05
18
12
14
15
18
07----BET 1 STEP 1 LOST
07
20
32
06 - Dozen 1 - second trigger..?
14 - count one
21 - count two
29 - count three
29 - Why did you not bet here..??
28
26
06----WIN BET 2 STEP 2 AS DOZEN 1 BECAME A 7 GAP.

Lol I would have bet there TC. I simply highlighted when DOZEN 1 hit again to show it became a 7 GAP.

Quote from: albalaha on January 13, 2013, 09:42:01 AM

I believe that this forum is not your private place so misleading things would affect all and not just me.


I can see that very advanced players can play this and would like to know any one of them.
                 JL,
                      You have every right to publish your methods here but please do not say that u have won 925 sessions with it, without a single loss. You remind me of Donny Millionaire whose all methods are nothing else but different style to play martingale or even dangerous progressions. Martingale takes time to lose but it loses so badly, recovery isn't possible.
      Casinos may call you to felicitate for this marvel of yours. 

Albalaha, the exact reason I am doing the challenge. Is your doubting thomas attitude. Twister won 500 odd games on an RNG with this. You don't have to believe in it or use it. Step back and relax. I will show what this can do over the coming months and years.

Quote from: albalaha on January 13, 2013, 09:01:11 AM
John,
        I don't have anything personal against you but willingly or unwillingly you are pushing newbies towards a "suicide point". You have said that u have won 900+ sessions without losing even once. If you get even just two-three losses in next 100 sessions, it would take you a month to recover.
              Are you claiming to win the world by July, with this?

I don't create trackers

Albalaha that is my risk. Why are you so concerned? The method hasnt even been challenged yet ON A LIVE WHEEL. Make sure you understand that.

I am showing one of the methods I use to win. The point isn't how much I win. But that I win consistently as I claim. To silence the doubters. Who have called me a liar and charleton. And you know ONE OF THEM very well.

Quote from: albalaha on January 13, 2013, 09:01:11 AM
John,
        I don't have anything personal against you but willingly or unwillingly you are pushing newbies towards a "suicide point". You have said that u have won 250+ sessions without losing even once. If you get even just two losses in next 100 sessions, it would take you a month to recover.
              Are you claiming to win the world by July, with this?

I don't create trackers

Albalaha im surprised at you. Your total overeaction it unwarranted. Very few play PB at only 7 units buy in. Do you really think anyone will play 7 ON 1 at 242 units buy in???. I simply published the method with Victor's consent to show one of the prime methods I will use to prove I am for real.

And where do you get 250 from. I am 930/0 for 7 ON 1.

Nobody else has to touch it. And I say to everyone else don't. Okay does that get through to you?