Quote from: soggett on January 11, 2013, 06:00:29 AM
I don't think you understand
1 unit can be $1, $5, $50
if you say you made 1000 units - that means if you used $1 as a unit value you made $1000 and that is 1000 units
if you used $50 as a unit value you made $1000 and that is 20 units
see the difference?

a units is not the same as a $
it is to make calculations easier

so what are you using as a unit value?
and please in the future if you are using units do it right, it is confusing (you can make $1000 using $1000 as a unit but it would still be just 1 unit)

Good idea Ignatus, the reality happens when you start playing for real lolly. You say youve won 9 in a row.

But how many can you lose? This is basically known as sector betting. Its results hold more sway over the dealers spinning signature. I knew someone who played this way. You can lose over 15 in a row quite easily.

Quote from: Superman on January 10, 2013, 03:51:35 PM

What progression are you using JL

Im using a 5 step progression-1,3,9,27,81X2=242 Units risk.

Expensive. But if its the price of a H.A.R grail. You have to weigh it up.

The mistake some people made was they assumed I was pushing PB as a grail. That was/is not the case. You don't get close to a grail for 7 units.

But this 7 on 1 has me curious like nothing I've ever seen. The reason I think it works so well. Is it asks random to do something unusual.

No code or pattern to figure out. No spot on the layout or wheel to be hit in so many spins.

Its asking random to confine itself to a limit for an unsually long time.

Quote from: Bayes on January 10, 2013, 03:22:06 PM
John, that 1M spin file you're working through, are you just working through it playing all the triggers as you find them or are you skipping spins to simulate HAR like you would if you were playing for real?

I've been testing consecutively to see if I would catch a loss live. But as you know I will always play H.A.R. I just want to see how long it could go on a live wheel before losing.

I started with DOZEN 1 and have 58 consecutive wins with that so far. I haven't really put alot of time into this. Because everyone knows this method will lose consecutively on an RNG or BOT. But I've never seen more than a 6 live.

That's the curiousity.

Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 09, 2013, 09:39:57 PM
Vic

Don't kill yourself, man! 

Jl  So 7 on 1 is 8 on 1 with one missing?

Sam

Yes one less trigger Sam, its very strong  live and H.A.R. The strongest method I've ever worked with. Okay the buy in is expensive. But as I keep saying its all relative.

If I go 2000/1 long term its well worth it.

Quote from: Bayes on January 10, 2013, 07:32:34 AM
I agree.

John, perhaps you could post the rules for 7 on 1 in a separate thread? I don't remember the rules for 8 on 1 although I recall it was fairly simple. I can help out with the 1M spin file, but I will write a simulation of the system rather than test manually.

Im publishing 7 ON 1 on Saturday Bayes and Topcat.

Quote from: Superman on January 09, 2013, 09:41:33 PM

@ JL, I've just re-read the whole 8 on 1 thread as I did code it, you say it's now only 2 triggers, that's exactly how Twister was playing it on that thread
   
So that's what you now have in 7on1? plus you only play what progression now on 7on1?

Yes Superman, but its only being played live. It works better live. H.A.R and live. Its very strong. If I go 2,000/1 it would be no surprise.

Quote from: Bayes on January 09, 2013, 08:10:16 PM
Vic, if you and JL are agreeable, I could code the tracker, that way it will be done sooner. As long as it's only a tracker, not a bot or "clicker".
Just a suggestion. 

Bayes I have an agreement with Victor. He will get payed for the tracker/tester however long it takes. I will tell you where you might be able to help.

You know the 1 million actuals you loaded on the forum? Well I have started testing 7 ON 1 against them. Starting with dozen 1. Obviously manually it will take a long time. Maybe you can speed this up?

7 ON 1 is the same as 8 ON 1 Bayes. The only difference is we go from a double trigger to up to 7 instead of a treble trigger up to 8.

The method is for live play in 7 ON 1. As it was born out of something I never saw in 3 years and several thousand results playing the ZONE.

Im 915/0 with it. A live wheel just works very well for this method.

Quote from: Robeenhuut on January 09, 2013, 06:37:28 AM
Your good run of 910/0 with 1,3,9,27,81 is as probable as 28/0 in PB if you believe my math. Declaring it HAR H.G is a bit premature don't you think? And i would not bet on a single number with hard progression.

No I don't Matt. I don't think FIVE is a H.A.R H.G its lost once and has been challenged 78 times.

7 ON 1 hasnt been challenged ONCE. We might have different definitions of a H.A.R H.G Matt. But when you have a 5 step prog that hasnt been tested once. And virtualy all the winners come in the first 2 steps. You know you have something a bit special

Random exists. But its not the big untamed monster its made out to be. It has virtual limits. Points it simply cannot pass in realistic time frames. Or pass rarely.

Once you identify one of these VIRTUAL LIMITS. You are no longer at its mercy. You play with a confidence, A knowing, that no matter what stings of numbers it throws up.

Its now in your arena, waiting to be conquered.

Quote from: Robeenhuut on January 09, 2013, 05:43:28 AM
There is no such a thing as a worst mistake. Some prefer only inside, some only outside bets. If you bet with 1,3,9,27,81 progression to win 1 some consider a very bad bet. And losing it happens much often than seeing a number sleep for 300 spins.

You think so Matt. LOSING IT WHERE. Im now 910/0 LIVE with that bet. Not even challenged once yet.

My confidence in that bet was born on a live wheel. And it thrives on a live wheel. If a straight went to sleep for even 150 spins. How much would you have to bet to win 1 unit?

Quote from: Gordonline on January 07, 2013, 08:57:12 PM
Hi All

Whilst playing Live on Dublinbet today, I witnessed a Dealer spin 27 Unique numbers on the trot without a repeat.......considering on average you see 24 uniques and 13 numbers hit more than once in any 37 spin cycle, this has to be up there with rare events 

Below are the numbers that came out before number 29 stopped the run

1,35,16,21,23,3,29,25,14,22,27,19,28,30,2,31,33,4,11,6,5,10,36,18,17,32,12, then 29 !!!!


Kind Regards
Gordon 

That is unusual. But not rare Gordonline. I have witnessed 30 or more unique numbers consecutive on several occasions in my 20 years with this game. The most I've ever seen is 33.

They say you will die before random would ever show you 37 for 37. So even 30 is pretty amazing. That would be a nightmare for inside repeater bettors.

Straights can destroy a man. I've seen it on many occasions. The worst mistake is having a favourite number. And believing it will show inside 100 spins. And then one day it goes to sleep. And wakes up 300 plus spins later.
That one has destroyed more than a few gamblers.

Quote from: atlantis on January 08, 2013, 03:45:32 PM
Hi JL,
Good news about 7on1. You should post that system here too.
Yes I will also still play CODE4-H. I sure do believe it can be profitable alright - in either of its two current forms!
If they both use the same amk alternation then maybe we can fuse CODE4-H and CODEV5, get more bets by playing them both together?
I'm lookin forward to the reveal of your system. 

A.

7 On 1 is coming on Saturday Atlantis. Victor is designing me a tracker for it. that's why I've held off. He told me the tracker will be ready within this month.

I already play CODE 4 H and CODE V5 together Atlantis. If anyone can read between the lines and forge something even better. Its you Atlantis or possibly AMK. You are both brilliant testers and morphers of promising ideas.

I owe alot to both of you.

Quote from: atlantis on January 08, 2013, 02:44:37 PM

Hi JL,

It's great you've been watching these ideas and I am very pleased indeed if they have helped in any way towards the formula and creation of your "CODEV5".
I'll look forward to seeing it on the forum soon.

Best regards,
A.

Its simple Atlantis, but im still playing CODE 4 HORIZONTAL. what's been going through my mind is the brilliance of only playing half the grid.

People go on about randoms variance. Ebb and flow. They say its impossible to tame. To have any control over. I've never bought into that chain of thought.

Another one of my methods 7 on 1. isn't even being challenged live. But that has 242 units on the line. Thanks to you. CODE V5 looks capable of matching it. With less than a third at risk. You and Twister first helped me realize the vertical matrix concept 2 years ago.

It was strong but unplayable live. What I have now is something even stronger. But realistically playable live. So we go on. Through Twister, you Amk through myself. I think weve cracked it.

Atlantis, I think its time for me to reveal CODE V5. I think it's a virtual H.A.R GRAIL. Inspired by CODE 4 HORIZONTAL. And of course AMKs brilliant alternating concept. its back to the VERTICAL.

BUT in a different way. Its early days yet. But I have played 120 games and never been past step 3 of a 4 step progression. Classic 1.3.9.27.

I will present it later. Your idea to play only the second half of a four spin line makes all the difference. Delaying random breaks its flow. That's what CODE V5 does.

MONEY MANAGEMENT is absolutely crucial. Especially when using methods that have smaller odds. And are more likely to lose several times in every 100 games played.

Only experience can give you an indicator as to how best to utilize MM for the particular method you are using. When you have played several thousand games of a method.

The best application becomes crystal clear. When to raise and when to lower. We are betting money to win money. Therefore we must protect it as much as possible.

With PB I know its strengths well enough to know how to apply MM to it. It produces few double losses. So that's a prime time to recoup at least a portion of a lost game.

It produces many winning streaks of at least 5 games. That offers the option to utilize a multi level staking system. To bet at a higher level for 5 games. Then drop to a lower level until a loss occurs.

Minimizing lost units when you lose a game. A more vunerable method like PB calls for smarter MM. When you are using a method I am soon to introduce to the forum called 7 ON 1. it's a different ball game. You could still use mutli level staking.
But with an as yet unknown average strikerate. The tendency is to play it in auto pilot at a single level progression. And double that once you double the bankroll.

So money managements importance for me is of greater importance with more vunerable methods. That present more of a challenge to make longterm winners.