Quote from: albalaha on January 04, 2013, 06:15:18 AM
JL,
                         Your so-called "method" can not put the small ball in your desired pockets, when u bet upon them. Do not make claims that are faulty in itself or based upon "fallacies" only.
             What kind of double dozen bet u have that "virtually always" hit 4 times out of 8 attempts? Do you do some voodoo on those numbers to ensure this? "virtually" and "always" do not hold together.

They don't have to, the VIRTUALLY is enough to show a longterm profit. there's no voodoo involved. Just an identification of a VIRTUAL MINUMUM bet selection. Once you have this. it's a different game altogether. This will all be proven over time in my challenge.

Quote from: albalaha on January 04, 2013, 05:56:59 AM
JL,
       What is smart MM, as per you?

It depends on what you are using it for. For example, I have a double dozen method where I know I will virtually always win 4 out of every 8 bets I place. Now mathematically flat betting that's knowledge has no edge and will lose me money. But using a progression until a profit is secured.

I will win the vast majority of the time. Giving me an overall profit. Its the knowing Albalaha, the confidence is already there. When you see something happen hundreds of times, to every time it doesn't. The flip a coin mentality no longer exists.

Quote from: albalaha on January 04, 2013, 04:55:05 AM
Why can't any of the money management strategies work?



It's because they do nothing qto change the mathematical properties of the gambling proposition you've entered into. There's only one useful element to money management, and that's to have enough money in your pocket to play each situation correctly. If you've got that, you've optimized your money management. As for starting, stopping, pressing up and cutting back –- you're just jerking yourself around. Let's take the "quit while you're ahead" strategy as an example.

Suppose you were flipping a coin with your buddy every day for a dollar per flip. He'd play forever, but you could quit any time you wanted to. So you decide you'll play until you get just one dollar ahead, then quit for that day and come back tomorrow. Now, playing like that, what percentage of your days do you think would be winners? The answer is a little over 80%.

Well, 80% may sound like an impressive session win rate, but it's not good enough to make you an overall winner at the game if that's your sole strategy. Why not? Because you're still going to end up winning 50% of all your flips, and you can't get away from that. In a game with house edge, it is even worse.

The fact that you've hand-picked the points where you'll step back (quit) and admire your progress has done nothing to cause you to win more flips overall. All you're going to do is have a whole bunch of $1 winning days, and a few scattered days where you lose $3, or $5 or $10. Overall, though, the pluses and minuses will still add up to zero.

You see, gambling is a long run journey landscaped with many hills and valleys. When you quit simply because you're ahead, you're merely choosing to park on a hill rather than in a valley, but the road is still taking you to the same place. And that place is determined solely by the percentages of your gambling proposition.

The same would be true if you always quit for the day after losing, say, five flips in a row. All quitting here would do is put time in between your last flip and your next. You've got the same chance to win your first flip tomorrow as your next flip right now. So you might as well say, "I quit!", take out a notebook, log down your losing session, and immediately flip your next flip. Your coin flip odds remain 50-50, and 50-50 is still going to basically be your final result.

So then, what about applying a betting progression to your coin flip game? Say your buddy agreed to letting you "bump up" your bet after every winning flip with a $1-$3-$5 progression to take advantage of your streaks. But after each loss, you'll always bet just $1. Would you have the best of him then? The answer is, absolutely not and the reason can be confusing.

For any three coin flips, there are eight ways they can come out -– no more, no less. You can go:

W-W-W W-W-L W-L-W L-W-W W-L-L L-W-L L-L-W L-L-L

Furthermore, every sequence will eventually come up as often as any other. It's easy to see that going W-W-W with your progression wins $9. Yet, going L-L-L loses only $3. That may look enticing and I won't bore you with the rest of the math, but after you go through all the sequences, you'll have $12 won and $12 lost. See for yourself. This progression, and any other for that matter, will cancel itself out perfectly, whether it's over the course of three averaged bets or 3000. You can't get away from it.

If we are talking about pure gambling, in the sense  that you mindlessly bet and hope for the best. What you have written holds true.

If however, you have identified a VIRTUAL LIMIT or VIRTUAL MINUMUM on random. it's a completely different ball game. For example, suppose I said to you that for every 8 bets I place. I will nearly always win at least 4 of them.

Now you have a framework of expectancy to work with. And using smart MM. You are certain to profit longterm.

Quote from: Robeenhuut on January 03, 2013, 06:54:29 AM
Sam

You would have lost 2nd game played using 2L trigger and 10 step progression. John goes 150/0 and you go 1/1. Atlantis plays 80+ games where 4 times you would go to the last step of 10 step progression after 2L trigger. John never sees more than 9L. 

Matt you have mis-understood the triggers again. I have been taken to the 11th loss twice in 160 games.

A DOUBLE TRIGGER IS FOUR LOSSES

LL
LL= DOUBLE TRIGGER.
LL
LL
LL
X-----I have been this far twice. playing H.A.R on a live wheel only. Now what we are proposing is a TRIPPLE TRIGGER an 10 step progression. So random would have to show me this if it wants my 106 Units.

LL
LL
LL--TRIPPLE TRIGGER
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL--16 consecutive losses.

That may well be another VIRTUAL H.A.R LIMIT. Keep this in mind. what's got me so excited about this is the recovery is only 53--65 wins. But as sure as night follows day. The strikerate is going to be alot bigger.

VIRTUAL LIMITS are the CLOSEST THING to a certainty you will ever see in this game. TRIGGERS don't WORK? Alot of people are in for the shock of shocks this year.

Quote from: SamNL on January 02, 2013, 02:13:31 PM
Very interesting JL and Atlantis.
I really like the look of this one.

Yes Sam, it's a special one. What started as AMKs CODE 4. Has now been fashioned into an awesome single dozen method by Atlantis. The potential of this method is incredible.

Im testing/playing it for real in my personal everyday play. If its half as good as I suspect. I will bring it into my JLCHALLENGE at some point. I want my challenge to stand up with PB, 7 ON 1 and FIVE.

Once I've proven those methods longterm world beaters. I will bring in CODE 4 HORIZONTAL. And CODE V5. Which is a perfected CODE 20. To put the icing on the cake. And move towards life changing money for Superman and me.

Quote from: atlantis on January 02, 2013, 11:23:33 AM
Hi JL

Nice results. I have had time to play a further 85 games without defeat over last few days using continuous actuals (not hit and run) using 5L trigger....

I also agree with JL that a triple LL trigger + a ten-step prog and played H-A-R then surely seems very powerful indeed!
My suggested 10-step is a more cautious 1-1-1-2-3-5-7-11-16-25 = 72u risk.

Regards,
Atlantis.

Yes Atlantis, I believe itll prove a Virtual H.A.R LIMIT in the longterm. Its superior to my 7 ON 1 because the risk is less than half 106 Vs 242. And the return is greater 53---65 to cover a loss. Vs 242 to cover a loss.

Which one will prove more invincible longterm in relation to the aforementioned, I can't say yet. But they are both going to be longterm winners.

Quote from: soggett on January 02, 2013, 12:28:29 PM
nice results 
so the most you have seen is 12 L in a row?
that's not bad
then like JL said, 6 L's and a 10 step progression - cha ching 

Hi Soggett, I play to garner 2 units on most of the steps. Only step 2 returns 1 UNIT.

Yes playing H.A.R it would take a long time to run into 16 consecutive losses. Certainly alot more than 60/1 on average. I have already secured 155 wins inside a 12 loss plan. I believe 16 is a VIRTUAL H.A.R LIMIT. Basically  running random ragged. Until it has two switch to the other side.

RANDOM HAS VIRTUAL LIMITS. Find them and the game is yours. More people will take me seriously come July. Theyll witness what those virtual limits can achieve.

The whole MYTH on roulettes invincibility is conceived of the notion that mathematically it is impossible to overcome the house edge in the longrun.

Now where was this belief pulled from?. FLAT BETTING. So why do countless minds bang their heads against the wall of the obvious?. As if to try and be that extra bit smarter than the rest of us.

And say "Hey look over here im real smart, I can beat the game of negative expectancy without ever increasing my stakes in the longrun".

Too much time is wasted living in this dream world. While at the same time seeking to sneer at and ridicule anyone who dare say the game can be taken using a progression. Or a system of staking that breaks away from the FLAT.

Flat betting can beat this game if executed in a multi-level fashion. Other than that it takes at least a mild progression at some point to negate the things that keep the myth alive.

Anyone who says they can flat bet their way to longterm success, simply because their bet selection is superior to the rest of us. Has to PROVE IT. And put their money next to that claim. And so far no one has had the inclination or nerve to do so.

I claim this game can be taken longterm Using a progression, And that will be proven. So anyone who claims they can do it flat has to PROVE IT. 

Happy new year to ALL. I have a feeling 2013 will be a great year for this forum. And the people who play the game of roulette. 

Quote from: Timo on December 23, 2012, 10:47:22 PM
If it doesn't work in "short term" then it won't work in  "long term", simply as that. But just my opinion.


Regards Timo


ps.Merry Christmas   

Timo this gem works. H.A.R its another special one. Something that's going to beat this game longterm.

RESULTS UPDATE FOR CODE 4 *HORIZONTAL*

TOTAL GAMES PLAYED 150

TOTAL GAMES WON 150

TOTAL GAMES LOST ZERO

STRIKERATE 150/0

DOUBLE LOSSES ZERO

LONGEST WINNING STREAK (CURRENT) 150

Using an 8 step progression after a double trigger of 1,1,2,3,5,7,11,16=46 UNITS RISK. And playing H.A.R This method still hasnt lost. 104 of the 150 wins were inside the first 4 steps of the progression. Which still hasnt been challenged.
After 150 games the longest its taken to hit a winner is step 7 twice. Now considering as little as 23 wins can match a progression. This has to be one of the strongest methods in relation to risk I've ever seen. No big drawdowns and hoping it recovers somewhere along the line.

Just track until you have that double trigger and begin. Atlantis's stroke of genius has also led to me making a method I was working on last year CODE 20 into something alot stronger and more readable than it was. When I've tested it well.
It will be introduced to the forum sometime next year. As Atlantis said the MORE PATIENCE you have the stronger this great single dozen method becomes.

If you can wait for a 5 loss

LL
LL
L---BET

Or TRIPPLE TRIGGER

LL
LL
LL
---BET

XL
LL
LL
L---BET

You have random on the ropes. I keep talking of VIRTUAL LIMITS. I know they exist. And they are a certain way to tame and beat random. I have one in 7 ON 1. And depending on the PATIENCE OF THE PLAYER. Atlantis has presented a method that offers us the opportunity to have another.

And I have to praise him highly here. Because my VIRTUAL LIMIT. Has 242 UNITS on the line. And requires 242 wins to match that progression.

His has less than half that amount on the line. And requires as little as 53 wins to cover the risk. If you were to play CODE 4 *HORIZONTAL* With a TRIPPLE TRIGGER. And a 10 step progression 1,1,2,3,5,7,11,16,24,36=106 UNITS RISK. You have something VERY POWERFUL. Very powerful indeed.

Quote from: Robeenhuut on December 30, 2012, 07:25:06 AM
John

You can test much faster by pressing F9. You played on BV and you are ok with RNG? I saw 7 gaps 3 times within 5000 spins.
It went also 50000 spins without single loss.  You never know where you will land.

Matt I believe BV is fair at the level I played. What im not sure of is the formation of patterns. I believe there's a difference there to the physics of a real wheel.

I didn't pull this concept out of thin air, its power was always there. I just didn't see it. I believe it's a virtual limit of TRUE RANDOM. A live wheel. Im putting the time in to test it continuously on 1 million live results. Something I've never done before. That's how much I believe in this. Live on dozens Matt, its so strong. I could go after a SINGLE TRIGGER. And use a 6 step progression 726 units. And never lose or lose rarely with H.A.R

What people don't get about PB is its not the ideal model to prove H.A.R as a superior strategy to CONTINUOUS PLAY. Its odds of 7/1 don't offer an obvious advantage. Although there is still one in my experience. 7 ON 1 however will end the argument for alltime.

Remember I ran into two 7s myself on Columns on BV. Live I have something very special here Matt. It demands the patience of a saint with two triggers, with one its INSTANTLY PLAYABLE.. ITS REWARD. You just all wait for this. It will never ever be forgotten in the history of this game.

Everyone wants to know how you turn a forum into an icon of success. Just wait for this.

Quote from: albalaha on December 30, 2012, 07:17:40 AM
Guys,
          I am no one to stop all these but please think of your standards too. Both of you are merely teasing each other now. Debate has been over way back.

Yes Albalaha you are right. I pledge to leave this alone now. Let the results do the talking.

So no matter how obvious it is, im being ridiculed. Or singled out. I will abstain from becoming involved. The time will arrive where I need to argue no more.

Quote from: Gizmotron on December 30, 2012, 06:41:15 AM
It was a moderator that demanded I give an "objective" explanation. So I gave it. JL flipped out. That's ok though. We can all go back to holding our breaths.

Gizmotron, all that you think believe will be turned upside down. Do you really think your tests proved ANYTHING?

I don't flip out, I give my side of the story. Then people who think they have a monopoly on correct thinking and success. Jump in and attack. But you cannot attack monetary success. That's what it will all boil down to.

Quote from: Robeenhuut on December 30, 2012, 06:13:05 AM
Is 7 on 1 betting against 7 consecutive 4 gaps after 2 triggers?  You can use tracker made by Stef and simulate HAR by pressing F9 key that generates 500 spins. It shows max number of gaps in each dozen. Would you agree John that is a valid testing of HAR?  You just get sometimes only 2 or 3 games in 500 spins.

Hello Matt, I've never waited 500 spins to get 2 or 3 games.

I am now playing 7 ON 1 on both dozens and columns. As its simply not even being challenged on dozens alone. Yes its betting against 7 consecutive 4 gaps after a double trigger. Keep in mind now Matt I only PLAY LIVE. Matt you know well I only truly trust live play. Its the format im profitting against. Therefore its the ONLY format you can truly use to make a comparison.

Anything else is the lazy mans way to try and perpetuate the myth on this games longterm invincibility. To some that myth must be upheld at all costs. That's where I come in, to show its always been a myth.

The idea was innitialy born out of the fact that over several years of results for the ZONE. I could only highlight two times 6 consecutive 4 gaps. I could find nothing greater.

I am also currently testing 7 ON 1 against 1 million real spins. One dozen at a time. For my own peace of mind. As I will know whether in a continuous play fashion it stands up or not. And this will also prove H.A.R as a superior play strategy for 7 ON 1.

I personally already consider it a virtual H,A,R grail. Its so difficult to land dead on top of a losing run. It could win for years. And when it does eventually lose it will be of no real significance. This is the best we can do in this game.

But if we CAN DO IT the game is beaten. No ifs, buts or maybes.

Quote from: albalaha on December 30, 2012, 05:55:24 AM
Now, this is going beyond a healthy debate and admin/global moderators should interfere and stop this.

Albalaha, you don't debate with Gizmotron. You agree with everything he thinks/says. Or you are a liar,fool,charleton.