Quote from: TwisterUK on January 22, 2013, 10:18:46 PM

That was the night it kicked off over at the other Forum and I posted a link to here and lots of new members joined us

As Max says, here is to the next 200 !!

I would do another ad but
1. I don't remember my login over there as have not been there in ages, only come here now
2. I think SH rigged it so you can't write this URL on his site anymore, I think that's what I read.

Okay thanks Twister.

Quote from: esoito on January 22, 2013, 06:55:26 AM
Slow but steady...

Here's to the next 200. 

Coming along nicely. One stat that baffles me Esoito. On November 29th. How come 76 people logged on. When there were far less members. And since then weve never been over 50 again?

Quote from: Bayes on January 22, 2013, 06:59:47 PM
Ok John, would you like me to carry on and put CODE 4 horizontal through the 1M spin file?

Yes please Bayes. Its not my method, but I really like it. And it would be interesting to see how long it holds up. It needs about 60 wins to match a progression, which is a big improvement on 7 ON 1.
Im now 325/0 in my play with the method, so lets see. Many thanks in advance. 

Quote from: PLIP50 on January 22, 2013, 04:50:49 PM
A lot more than 4, most prob won't admit it.

I have thought that a few times. Just remember PB is about using all three elements I believe in to be successful in this game. BET SELECTION, MONEY MANAGEMENT & H.A.R. If you understand how all three make this method work. You will do more than alright.

Keep it going.

Quote from: PLIP50 on January 22, 2013, 04:25:13 PM
My apologies if I am wrong, but I have tried quite a few systems, and the brief explanation does ring true. Keep up the good work J/L.      I do OK with p/b.

What you mean there are now 4 people playing PB? Lol!!

Quote from: PLIP50 on January 22, 2013, 04:06:52 PM
Its J/L's  Pattern breaker HHH,LLL,HLH,LHL,HHL,LLH,HLL,LHH   Wait for 7 of the 8 combinations to show then bet against the last one remaining. With a small Marty 1,2,4

I don't think so PLIP50, Sam knows where the PB thread is.

Quote from: Bayes on January 22, 2013, 10:07:16 AM
John, to be honest, I find this a bit depressing. If I go to the trouble of writing a simulation and the response is "it means nothing", which is what you're basically saying, then why should I (or anyone else) be motivated to make the effort?

H.A.R. can easily be simulated (I've done it before, as has Gizmo), but I get the feeling you would dismiss that as invalid, too.

You have been testing 7-on-1 using THE VERY SAME file which I used for the sim, but suggest that only LIVE results matter, in which case, why bother to test at all?

Bayes your efforts are totally appreciated. I even offered to  pay you for them. But what do I do? All my methods fail in the grinder.

But they are succeeding  as I play them. I don't mean to suggest your efforts are.not valued. They are more curiousity on my part. I don't expect them to work. But if for example I've never seen a single loss for 7 on 1, played H.A.R

It makes me wonder. So what your tests do for me personally is reinforce my belief in H.A.R. So we have a situation where all the experts say there's absolutely no difference.

No advantage. My challenge which will go for as long as im allowed. Will show that I win longterm. And most importantly, win with methods that can't win played continuously.

Its then up to the observer, to make up their own mind. Is how I play an advantage. Or am I just lucky. For those who say I am just lucky.

I say how long can you be lucky for? I've been winning for 9 years, that's a  long time to put it all on luck. If I reach my goals over the next two years. Can anyone truly say JL lucked his way from 200 units to 1 million. At 1--3% growth on BR  per session

Quote from: Superman on January 20, 2013, 04:26:27 PM

delusions, a strong word for real wheel players, they're delusional

As the quote is aimed at real wheel players, I tend to agree, real wheels have no limits whatsoever, I will only ever play RNG, built by humans, has no real option of not doing the same thing/s more than once as it has been programmed to do 'something' I've watched, like many of us have, the RNG marquee for the last 4 or 5 years and now play 'with' it, those following, I still have not lost a session.
 
They are independent on a real wheel, the ball has no memory niether does the wheel and the human cannot spin/release the ball at the same time/speed or in direct line of the last number outs slot, each results is independent.

From JL
You keep using that term in your specific methods JL, I have wondered for a while now HOW you can call a suicidal marty progression on TWO dozens with 243 units a stake, smart MM

A single loss would set you back so many games or HAR sessions, it could be a month before you get back to where you were, you've reported losses on your other methods, what do you do AFTER a loss, I won't believe if you say you just take it on the chin and keep the same unit size, how much do you risk and for how long AFTER a loss.

Superman it depends on the method. PATTERN BREAKER has a base risk of just 7 units. JUST 7 UNITS. For something that can win 40 or more times in a row.

I should have to say no more, and ill tell you something else. You will never put a method in front of me that does any better for such a small base risk.

Now I know PB seldom loses twice in a row. So when it loses. I treble stakes on the very next game. that's 3 sevenths of the loss recovered right there. Now I drop down and continue.

With other methods I would do the same. But for more games. When 7 ON 1 eventually shows me a loss. I will do the same for 20 games then drop back down.

I may even do away with the 5th step of the prog. And simply wait for that treble trigger. A high percentage of my games go to the second step of the prog
but not much further.

You must always keep in mind I can well afford the risks I take. I have at least a 100 times whatever I risk or I don't risk it. A powerful bankroll allows you to experiment more.

If I was a newbie with only say 500 units. Of course I wouldn't be risking 242 on a single game. Lets make that clear. I don't really like risking more than a 100 units on a game maximum most of the time.

But if I see great potential, Im willing to. You will never see me experience 2000 or more unit drawdowns, like some gamblers are prepared to face. To me that's complete madness. But it goes unchecked by many progression critics. Simply because its not a cut and dried risk.

But a potential risk loss that can be suffered during long drawn out sessions. You see-what many fail to take onboard, is it isn't how much you have at risk. But what you expect to win.

The guy flat betting, may have no idea WHEN he will win. He just does it thinking all the laws of probability will be kind to him enough to end up in front at some point.

He may think if he level bets for say 50 spins. Then takes it up to a higher level at level bets he isn't using a progression. He is, its just a staggered one.

there's alot of people who are quick to jump on any method that employs a martingale, who can't see this.

And many hold themselves back from ever leaving the starting blocks on the track to success. Because theyve bought into this notion that progressions are a bad thing all of the time.

Quote from: albalaha on January 20, 2013, 02:40:45 PM
Maximum gamblers are moving around the fallacy and Hit and Run is also a kind of fallacy. A belief that by entering at random times, they are safer.
                If we see the stricter definition of fallacy, gambling is all about having fallacies of one kind or another.

Al you can only believe in what is working. I played like nearly everyone else for 11 years and lost.

For the last 9 years I've played short bursts and won. And everyone says there's no difference. If there's no difference I should still be losing.

Of course just about everyone thinks im lying about this. that's why Im doing the ongoing challenge. One thing I believe is H.A.R can't work for all methods.

Its more effective the bigger the odds of the method at hand. With more mortal methods. It needs a partner called money management.

Knowing when to raise and lower stakes. Makes the world of difference. The bet selection has to be decent. But learning the power of money management is just as important if not more so.

And when I talk of moneymagement, im not talking about flat betting or martingales. Im talking about learning the common win loss streaks of your method.

And learning when to best respond to them, that's the human factor.

People talk of MECHANICAL SYSTEMS. The criteria for bet selections might be mechanical. But your money management shouldnt be rigid and mechanical. This is crucial on merhods with small odds.

The casual observers of this game want betting miracles handed to them on a plate.

Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 19, 2013, 06:50:47 PM
Yes, Ralph, but all your methods work.  If I found a method that works, I'd stick with it.

Just my opinion.

John seems to run these things out like he had an assembly line!

Sam

You are right and wrong at the same time Sam, PATTERN BREAKER is 4.5 years old. And ill be playing it till I draw my last breath.

7 on 1 is new. And although Bayes tests are discouraging. Remember they are sims and not H.A.R. Im still doing very well with it.

I've always used at least two methods. Atlantis CODE 4 H. Is too good to be ignored. It really is. So im using it. CODE V5 is the one yet to break on here. If it holds up it will.

It will put in an appearance. FIVES on the backburner. As 7 On 1 took presedence over it. I even have methods for the streets that I use from time to time.

Variety is the spice of life. So long as they're winning. They are there for use.

Yep Atlantis, you got it. Yeah im proofing CODE V5 at the moment. Its got to win the first 500 games to make it on here. Im 245/0 at present.

Quote from: Bayes on January 19, 2013, 02:22:08 PM
Ok, I've found the CODE 4 HORIZONTAL thread. Have the rules been tweaked or are they still the same as in Atlantis' first post?

This is where we have now arrived at Bayes.

3C2A---LL
3C1B---LL
2A1C---LL----TRIGGER
1C1A---W---BET 1 STEP 1

We are betting against random showing us 16 of these losses in a row. Progression

1,1,2,3,5,7,11,16,24,36= 10 steps 106 units

Quote from: Bayes on January 19, 2013, 01:47:45 PM
John, the distribution of wins and losses of 7-on-1 follow the same pattern as just betting randomly with a 5 step progression. The conclusion is that there's no need for waiting and tracking, just bet ANY 2 dozens at any time to get approximately the same results. I know that's probably not what you want to hear... 

Well no, but at present im getting what I want from it. At the end of the day profits what I want.

I never put all my eggs in one basket. PB could get me to where im going through sheer MM. Im still looking for that playable semi grail just as everyone else is.

Next in the grinder has got to be CODE 4 HORIZONTAL. Given the risk it holds alot more potential than 7 ON 1. CODE V5 looks like it will be the double dozen workhorse.

Superb turnover similar to CODE 4. But stronger.

Quote from: Bayes on January 19, 2013, 12:31:55 PM
The breakdowns start from the trigger (step 2), so a win on step 3 means the first bet you make.

Okay Bayes thanks. It seems like 11 is the wall for this method. Ralph could boterize this. And win all day. Without any huge drawdowns.

Quote from: Bayes on January 19, 2013, 12:07:08 PM
Ok, I was having problems uploading the unzipped file here so you can download it from this link (click where it says "click here to start download from sendspace").

Note that this file is for the actuals with the ZERO REMOVED, I'll add the with-zero file shortly. The file only shows wins (marked +1) and losses (marked L) together with the step at which the win or loss occurred. An asterisk marks the trigger (= 2). The busts are NOT shown but there are some stats at the end of the file which give a breakdown of how many wins/losses occurred at each step. The maximum losing run was 11:

Total wins = 7160

Wins on step  3 =  4731
Wins on step  4 =  1611
Wins on step  5 =   545
Wins on step  6 =   173
Wins on step  7 =    56
Wins on step  8 =    32
Wins on step  9 =     8
Wins on step 10 =     2
Wins on step 11 =     1
Wins on step 12 =     1

Losses on step  3 =  2429
Losses on step  4 =   818
Losses on step  5 =   273
Losses on step  6 =   100
Losses on step  7 =    44 ****
Losses on step  8 =    12
Losses on step  9 =     4
Losses on step 10 =     2
Losses on step 11 =     1

You can work out how different length progressions would have fared. The default system progression is 5 steps, corresponding to the "losses on step 7 = 44".

So from this, we can calculate that the profit is:

Profit = total wins − Number of progression busts × loss per progression bust

= 7160 − 44 × 242 = −3,488 units

I haven't worked out the profit for other progressions. There might be one which gives a profit.

This means that there must have been a bug in the previous simulation I did with the RNG spins. Sorry about that. 
But I'm confident that the code here is ok - check a few random bets to make sure the bet selection is correct.

Okay thanks Bayes, one thing to clarify. When you say step three in these breakdowns. Is that with or without the two step trigger?