Quote from: Superman on January 26, 2013, 12:51:25 PM

Yes that true, but I won't have lost anything either.

Superman can't lose. I've promised him a minumum of 2K by July. Even if I lost everything by then which I won't.

He gets 2K.

Quote from: Drazen on January 26, 2013, 12:24:18 PM
Philosophy again, no references to fact evident things...

I am sorry I missed to understand how do you mean to prove that? And that your proof will be possible to test I suppose? Not some picture or video or someone else speaking for you?

It is interesting how in your posts you say you show respect, patience, understanding (even love to say so) to random and next second you smash it hardly in the face saying: You are not random anymore, when I did this to you, won't have the variance as you naturaly must have!

It is all about that John. You allegedly manage to avoid that variance in so great, simple and "cheeky" manner which defies all basic laws of this game. Incredible! 

And be sure that when you prove this is possible like you are saying,with the way you are saying I ll make you a statue in the center of my house. And then be sure you will get Nobel prize in mathematics for significant reducing variance in random process.

Great part of your whole philosophy is in some kind od waiting, expecting, bowing heads and breaking egos when you prove your stuff to your "opponents", but almost nothing on obeying real laws in nature that can't be avoided, with the way you are saying.

Cheers

Drazen

You know Drazen you can try TOO HARD. And that's what alot of people trying to break this game are guilty of. They figure if this game is hundreds of years old. How can it be possible for a simple method to beat it longterm.
Surely it requires some equation that looks like something Einstein scribbled on a blackboard. WELL IT doesn't.

But it requires qualities that very few human beings possess. Money management can beat this game, even if the method is average. You are betting money to win money. How you take it up and down makes the world of difference. The problem with most people involved in this game is they can't break away from all that's gone before.

Their thought process is stuck in the past. So how do we bring them to the matrix? Maybe some serious success will be the jolt necessary. We will see.

Quote from: Trebor on January 26, 2013, 12:03:47 PM
Hello again JL,


I've lost track with this.


Are your efforts still being independently verified by Superman. If not even if you realize your aims no one will believe you.


Trebor

Yes they are. And for his interest, patience in this. He receives 50% of the total pot.

Quote from: Drazen on January 26, 2013, 11:11:28 AM
I can tell what I told to Ignatus in some other forum

Well the thing is no matter what you do, no matter what pattern you create, no matter with which odds, no matter wheel or carpet based one thing will be for sure.

They will all be "exposed" to perfectly same possible deviations in random (for deviations in spheres of roulette of course), which is actualy biggest problem in roulette, not house edge as many think (you wouldn't give a thing for zeros striking if your max losing streak would be enough to overcome it with progression before touching table limits).

That is mathematical fact.

Problem with this approach as yours John is that thinking solving that variance is so simple and absurd.

Because that should be taken as biggest thing in your whole approach of hit and run, that way it works and you allegedly have such results as you claim, you are aware of that right?

So we can say that what you do is collide two randomness. Random in game and random in short entrance point of betting and you expect not to have results with all characteristics of randomness such as variance in this case. You think that way you have reduced it and avoided in quite wide arc. That is illogical and absurd, and most important it can be proven. All can be proved except your results you have.

The other problem with you and this approach is actualy in proving it (with right way as you say) it can't be proved in scientific simulations (as Bayes and few other did many times) although all conditions can be perfectly correct simulated and verified.
So your agenda here is funny. Especialy when consider so insanely steep MM you use 

Few days ago new member come here, and his first post was: "I played JL-s methods now I have to recover..."

You tried to prove your claims with Bayeses software and Superman-s account but you didn't proved anything, except many many incosistenties in your actualy play, opposite of that what you were saying you will do.

Please just don't tell me wait and you will see, all you do is buying your time here. How long through all your time on forums you are saying wait and I ll show you, you will sing another song then..  Nothing by now. You were saying about some conquering europe casinos last year, but you forgot about it.. It is more important to be here and persuading people that alchemy can be done.

Just don't tell me Chauncy or whoever plays like you is successful and understood "right way". AMK is nice and very honest guy to whom I spoke personaly few times, the one who created one method you are using, well he doesn't plays it nor having money out of roulette as you with this same genius approach. Guess why..

Cheers

Drazen

Drazen I can't speak for anyone else. I have set the date. There will be no more doubt after that. My original plan from last july was to go from 200 units to 5000 in a year. All the messing around with unsound software and rngs wasted alot of time. But I am still going to reach that target and go way beyond it.

You know the thing im always talking about PATIENCE. Well it comes out of people very quickly on these forums. You are telling me my approach can't work. Then Gizmotron is telling me the same. Then spike. Then that lovely fella who owns the other forum/s. Everyone and the kitchen sink.

All say JL is mad and telling the greatest lies of alltime. So get it all in now Drazen. When im there im there. Then the ball will be in yours and all the other detractors court. HOW WAS THIS POSSIBLE? These methods are guaranteed losers. They have no merit.

I've heard it ALL and then some Drazen. The explaining will all be on you and the rest from July. I won't say a thing. I won't gloat. I will just continue. And you will just scratch your head. And continue to say the same. Only the numbers will say something else. And that's all there will be to it.

Quote from: Gizmotron on January 26, 2013, 06:24:05 AM
You mean you won't dignify it. You are as clueless as to imply my ignorance as your own. But I'm not the one telling everyone to wait, you'll see.

Giz talk has its limits. I did enough of it. You and your accomplice do nothing but it. You may aswell get as much attacks and slander in as you can between now and July.

After July your words will be empty and pointless. The only thing that matters will be on this forum for all to see. And ongoing to even greater levels. So continue.

Quote from: spike on January 26, 2013, 06:17:12 AM
You don't have to wait, they're talking for you already.
Ask Bayes..

No Spike you need to pay more attention to what's going on. When I say NUMBERS. I mean the thing that wakes most people up. HARD CASH. You will be talking until the end. Like me or hate me. This year people get to know im for real.

Quote from: Carlitos on January 26, 2013, 07:32:17 AM
Hello John,




Thanks for explaining the PB system. I like it 
However i notice something about the patterns and maybe it can be of use.


There are 8 patterns, 2 with totaly the same caracters, RRR AND BBB.
Then there are 2 patterns, with RBR and BRB.


Totaly 4.


And then there are 2 patterns with RBB and BRR but they remaining 2 patterns look symetric to these ones,  RRB and BBR, so it would be,




RBB and the symetric BBR


and


BRR and RRB.




Which would mean 50% of the 8 patterns could be related if you look at it this way.




Could this mean anything or be usefull in anyway to explore?






Carlitos 

Nice observation Carlitos, the weak links in this method are the three of a kind paterns like LLL. Chauncy47 doesn't play them. And I can see his point.

More losing games are a result of ending up with one of these patterns as your bet. If randoms locked into a trend on a single even chance. And that happens to be your bet you will lose

The only way to find out is to put it to the test Carlitos. Scrutinize the behaviour and breakdown. Of just those 4 patterns. For several hundred games. And see if random is showing you a way in.

Quote from: Robeenhuut on January 26, 2013, 07:27:17 AM
So what's your current balance on PP?

The first update will be in April Matt. The second update and first milestone in July. The third update in September. And 4th update and second milestone in December.

I run this like a business. Its not about getting rich fast. Its about steady overall bankroll growrh that proves what im doing can't be down to just luck. it's a test of your patience to wait for these updates Matt.

But after the second one in July you will know I mean business. And more than a few people will begin to realize. I know what im doing. Especially the owner of anothet forum. The lies he spread about me im just biding my time.

Quote from: Gizmotron on January 26, 2013, 05:59:29 AM
How would you know? They don't say "the blind leading the blind" for nothing.

How would I know? I won't even answer that. The numbers will talk for me this year.

The wheel or the layout is not the way to beat roulette longterm for me. Keep in mind the history and beliefs about this game being impossible to beat longterm.

COME EXACTLY FROM THOSE PLACES. The average Joe turns up at the casino and bets against the wheel or layout. And the average Joe loses longterm.

The way to do it, is create your own matrix or layout. Scrutinize randoms behaviour in a different playground. Your findings can be life changing.

Quote from: Atlantis on January 25, 2013, 09:28:20 AM
This may not apply or affect some methods (eg: matrix methods) when played H.A.R.

A.

It might effect them Atlantis, but it can't stop them being successful. Random has to do certain things within a certain spin frame. The layout was designed to throw the masses into chaos. And off the scent.


Its when you put random into another playground, and scrutinize its behaviour away from the wheel and layout. You begin to see patterns. And common limitations that give you a way to beat random.

The matrix concept is one such way. Then smart thinkers like you and AMK take it to an even higher level with the alternating format.

Now random becomes as easy to read as todays newspaper. It has to do certain things in a certain spin frame. It can't get around it.

Some people already know this. The masses can't and won't ever take it in.

Theyll always be falling into Einsteins lap. And what all mathematicians say is a mathematical certainty. I.E its simply impossible to overcome the house edge in the longterm.

I haven't believed that for years. The question is, how much would someone have to win before it starts to register in the minds of more than a few people?

If casinos are so sure that no mechanical method can overcome the house edge. Why do they limit or ban people who win consistently?. You only have to think about that to realize.

They are far from sure. The arrogance of a mathematician or someone who believes math is the law when it comes to this game. Is if someone proves they can beat the house edge at will. Longterm and consistently, then hundreds of years of teachings. Arent sound.

And this is huge. Because unlike religion, we arent talkng about personal faith here. We are talking about people who believe math is absolute truth and reality.

So how do you convince someone like that there's something missing from the story? The only way it can be done, is through longterm consistent winning. In a systematic fashion. That's what I and others will do on this forum.

RESULTS UPDATE FOR CODE 4 HORIZONTAL FOR 25/01/2013


TOTAL GAMES PLAYED 350


TOTAL GAMES WON 349


TOTAL GAMES LOST 1


STRIKERATE 349/1


BALANCE=537 UNITS PLUS


LONGEST WINNING STREAK 334 GAMES


Well I've suffered my first loss. There were two zeros involved in the losing game. But for a method that needs about 60 wins to recover a progression. 349/1 is very good indeed


Of the 349 wins 327 of them have been in the first 6 steps of the progression. Only taken to the last step of the progression twice, including the losing game.


And im not discouraged by this at all. I continue on.

Quote from: Ralph on January 25, 2013, 09:05:10 AM

Something to back up the claims should be mandatory.
As this over some time so it will also show the red figures , and not only selected sessions.

That's what the challenge is all about Ralph, Matt. Started with 200 units on PP. And you will see what im able to do with that before they stop me. Superman is my verifier. And recieves 50% of everything for his part in this. April will be the first update. July the first milestone.

From there im certain ill have your attention.

Quote from: MarignyGrilleau on January 24, 2013, 11:58:47 PM

You have no idea do you?

Whatever Marigny, losing methods and strategies of play. don't succeed longterm. So you can explain to me how having no idea achieved the things I will.

Quote from: Drazen on January 24, 2013, 11:15:42 PM
John have you been thinking about changing your signature in forum? This sounds much less egoistic, and still explains lots of things about you and your play.

Best

Drazen

What is my signature?