Quote from: Gizmotron on December 04, 2012, 05:46:24 PM
?

I lost! I thought like everyone else, played like everyone else and lost like everyone else. Or I should say NEARLY everyone else. WHY DID THIS CHANGE?

Quote from: Robeenhuut on December 04, 2012, 07:58:28 AM
I disputed your 70 wins on 4th step with FIVE but now you changed your stats so there is no more issue with that.

Matt you made an error of judgement that's all. You didn't fully understand (as most didn't) how the bet trigger in FIVE works. So I can understand why you came gunning for me. 70 holds on the 4th step would indeed be a miracle. If they had been genuine 4 steps. Now you realize over 1 third were in reality FIVE STEPS. So we go on. I dare not tell you the stats for 8 ON 1. They are RIDICULOUS. but true.

Quote from: Gizmotron on December 04, 2012, 05:39:42 PM
There's always that ten ton gorilla in the room. You, or should I say pseudo you, always wins. Your claim is that for the past eight years you are always a winner. I wonder what happened to you that you have such a need for being approved? You are like the energizer bunny.  You keep going and going.

I can't wait for your next grand achievements.

Gizmotron, I have been playing roulette for 19 years. I have been winning MOST OF THE TIME for 8. Why don't you ask me what happened in the first 11 years?

Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 04, 2012, 04:12:42 PM
I want to add up something here. I feel that JL may be correct, as well. Let superman, speramus group, twisteruk and many others who are using it come up with their outcomes.  PB is basically, "random vs random" and martingale clubbed. One may get more wins than losses for sure, if he enters random sessions. There are many guys who play martingale of 5 steps after getting 5-6  virtual losses on an EC and they do not lose ever. Unless a particular pattern (that has not come up yet)emerges in that very moment, he can't lose 7 units.
             It is pertinent to mention here that a player playing PB may escape losing moments that comes up in data tests of a big data, while playing for real. Theoratically and mathematically no method can win but there are guys who are winning regularly from casino games for decades. I don't think that all who are winning with it or claiming to win with it are lying.

Good points Kingsroulette, if I wasn't winning with PB nobody wouldve ever heard of it.

And its because the majority who are mostly already jaded and indifferent to the chances of beating this game. Instantly go with the results of a simulated test, that I decided it was time to put myself on the line and show it can be done.

When a method doesn't work for me I will be the first person to say so. TRILOGY, VERTICAL 8 and THE MATRIX SLIDE all failed. I put my hands up. PATTERN BREAKER has been a success, and so has FIVE. 8 ON 1 is looking ridiculous. Like it doesn't know what losing is played H.A.R

I might report a loss in 2015. This is how I am. If it is really working I sing it from the rooftops. I am a positive thinker. I don't dwell on the negative. The reason I don't care too much for math, is I PERSONALY find it hinders creativity.

If we don't question anything, take the written word as the law of the land. We will sell ourselves short in my opinion. And end up just flowing with the masses. And their pessimistic view. Like Victor said we might die trying to find the HOLY ONE. But isn't it fun trying?

And some good methods will be forged along the way. There is no grail, but there are ways of getting the upper hand against this game. That's what I push.

Quote from: Bayes on December 04, 2012, 09:16:26 AM
I think Gizmo makes a good point. I too, have done simulations which came out negative (or at least, they contradict the claims made), only to be told that a computer cannot "do" hit & run, so the simulations are deemed invalid. 

I'd like to know just WHY, if the HAR strategy is coded to the letter, it's rejected. JL goes on about patience and discipline (the importance of the "human element"), but a computer program does EXACTLY what the programmer tells it to do; it has no human weaknesses, so why are simulations dismissed by some people?

I agree though that ideally, all tests should be backed up with verifiable data and a report showing all bets made, but that's too much work for most people, especially non-programmers (the majority of the forum).

Bayes I take your points in, but if I agreed with the outcome of your tests or anyone elses. When what I attain tells another story.


Where do we stand? That is the exact reason I agreed to go on trial. To show I get results that are more positive than negative.

I've been acused of being everyone and the kitchen sink by Steve. Now im Pilot. Called a liar and fake. My goal is to prove im non of these things. Passionate and extremely enthusiastic about what I do yes.

July 2013 is the date I believe we turn a corner.

Quote from: malcop on December 04, 2012, 01:22:37 PM
I keep forgetting how lucky we are here in the UK, multiple sites to play on-line, and gambling profits if you are lucky enough to be a winner non taxable!

Yes the Uk is brilliant for that. Feel sorry for the Americans, it seems they can do everything but that.

Quote from: Chauncy47 on December 04, 2012, 01:07:33 PM
At least you get to enjoy the "option" of playing online    Perhaps someday here in the USA

Yes Chauncy47 that's why you have my full respect. You have to travel to a casino to face a double zero wheel and you are still winning. 

Quote from: subby on December 04, 2012, 10:32:47 AM
Are they not a pain in the behind for payouts? Long winded and hard to process?

Agreed slow alround.

And Matt R/H I See you, why so shy now to respomd to your FIVE DATA thread.??

Quote from: Gizmotron on December 04, 2012, 06:58:07 AM
and this -" I make claims YES. But now I'm backing them up.

The question is, will you be man enough to admit you didn't know it all, when it becomes clear to you and other detractors that this method is a long-term winner?"

A person does not need to know everything to past you. You have nothing but a three step Martingale with a magic trick for knowing when to use it. Now anyone can see that that along contradicts your own pontifications regarding randomness. So now you are going to teach randomness.  If I wanted or needed a red herring I'd just introduce you. I suppose that a great rift between a real craft and just so much baloney is now going to degrade this forum into another endless and pointless waste of time. Just try it.

Giz my money is where my thoughts are, the only thing you need to do is check in on Subbys Speramus quest and my BV challenge once in a while.

And it will become clear that PATTERN BREAKER works as the months roll by. I don't need to argue with any of you. No one can argue with success.

Quote from: Gizmotron on December 04, 2012, 06:29:46 AM
Nice going Spike. That was a great catch.

Giz don't be concerned about the past, be concerned about what you and Spike and all the othet detractors are going to see over the next 6--12 months.

Quote from: spike on December 04, 2012, 12:54:15 AM
OK, I'm all ears. How and where does it fall
short. Where is it wrong and why. You surely
must know or you wouldn't make such a statement.

Superman says you're Fender1000 from the old
VLS forum. You had a system called The ZONE
that you made exactly the same claims about
2 years ago and it failed miserably. How is this
new thing any different.

I was Fender1000, and the Zone was a good method that I started off with 8 years ago.

But PATTERN BREAKER is on another level. It flows with random it doesn't fight it. RANDOM CHOOSES YOUR BET SELECTION FOR YOU. It doesn't get better than that.

You like others think math can measure and tame random. WRONG. When you apply math to roulette, you do so against the fixed man-made odds of the layout.

RANDOM knows nothing of odds. It does as  it pleases as you well know. The two most successful methods I've worked with. PATTERN BREAKER and FIVE.

Wait on random for their BET SELECTION. And they are both winners.

Now you keep waffling on, oh if someone would just throw money at this method. You will see you were right and its doomed to fail.

Subby is doing just that. I'm doing it. By summer next year no one of reasonable mind, will consider this method a loser. I assure you of that.

I make claims YES. But now I'm backing them up.

The question is, will you be man enough to admit you didn't know it all, when it becomes clear to you and other detractors that this method is a long-term winner?

That's all I want to know.

Quote from: spike on December 03, 2012, 11:18:14 PM
I find discussions like this very interesting. Because
until somebody takes real money to a real casino
and starts really playing one of these systems on
a regular basis, that's all it will be, just a discussion.

The math never ever EVER lies. It can't lie, it won't
lie, it never lies. When you build an airplane or a ship
or a skyscraper, you can ingore the math and do it
'your' way. It'll look realy nice when you're done, probably.
Just don't expect it to fly, sail, or not fall down.

What makes anybody think gambling systems are any
different.

What do you think Subby is doing at Paddypower? Amazing how you avoid that. Like I just told Steve on the other forum BANKROLLS don't grow by themselves.

6 months from now you will be forced to admit like Steve YOU didn't KNOW IT ALL. Math has its place in the world. But when it comes to roulette NO, it falls short.

Number 4 on that list is the prime reason as far as I am concerned. Add to that what Sam said about bankroll.

One of the biggest mistakes I've seen is someone who comes to a casino with 100 units expecting to double it or more. And failing to quit with a profit playing too long is another absolute reason the casinos arent worrying.

Too much is made of the Martingale Used lightly it's a gem. Not the suicidal version where you try to outlive say a dozen reds showing.

Applied to a strong method like PB in a H.A.R fashion it will deliver. Played all day long it won't. Its THE APPLICATION of a money management strategy or style of play that's important.

And the inherant greed in most people is NUMERO UNO as to why most things fail. Roulette is beatable. But only if the RIGHT KIND OF MIND stands before it. Without that forget it.

RESULTS UPDATE FOR PATTERN BREAKER ON BV FOR 03/12/2012 AT NEW HIGH LEVEL...

TOTAL GAMES PLAYED 50

TOTAL GAMES WON 45

TOTAL GAMES LOST 5

STRIKERATE 9/1

DOUBLE LOSSES ZERO

LONGEST WINNING STREAK 18--HIGH LOW.

With the general feeling about BV and its fairness when raising stakes over the 1 EURO BASE barrier. I have set about grinding out a 50 EURO profit in December. I have gone back to my roots with PATTERN BREAKER. And am only playing HIGH LOW. For 5---10 games a session.

When I first began playing PATTERN BREAKER 4 years ago. I only used to play it on HIGH LOW for a maximum of 5 games a day. The results attained doing this in the first 18 months were astonishing.

Including twice breaking the 100 barrier for winning streaks. I have put together a winning streak of 18 games already on BV. I will stay in this mode of play for the rest of the year. Then in January really step it up.