I do not think, anybody is going to answer this positively because nobody seems to have an answer.

Where is Thomas R Grant?

Can there be a help file to simplify its usage?

And how much progress did u witness? 

Quote from: Superman on December 23, 2012, 11:06:59 AM

Not if it's variance that you are using for your decisions. You have to follow the flow.

@ RK in a previous post you mentioned me testing PB, for the record I am not testing PB

          I think that u had a challenge of some kind regarding PB. http://betselection.cc/methods%27-results/jl-bv-challenge/

This answer of yours show that you are as much empty handed as all others. Keep preaching.

Gizmo,
     With due respect, I do not doubt your knowledge and brilliance but any bet selection (howsoever chosen) can suffer variance ( at least temporarily). Can you beat that?

Gizmo,
   Please do not distract from my straight question. I am asking if your bet selection (by whatever ability or clairvoyance you chose them), gets tough variance attack, can you still win or you do rely upon same fallacy that it can't happen to me?

JL,
       my question is meant for Gizmo. He is showing exceptional brilliance. Maybe he can do that.

Gizmo,
         I think u have yet to read my Post script in red.

Gizmo,
you didn't answer my last three questions after reading P.S.

Quote from: Gizmotron on December 23, 2012, 06:25:22 AM
My method is probe & attack. I clearly wait for a continuing state of effectiveness and then probe its continuing effectiveness by attacking it. Anything else is just waiting. So it's not hit and run it's wait and attack. I wonder if there really is a difference.

I think there is no difference. Can your so called "wait and attack" face "sessions from hell"? Can they survive the blunt attack of variances? Can they gain in negative sessions? If your answer is "yes", you are the best person in the world to learn the art of gambling.

P.S.: All the negative aspects which I talked of is in the context of your betselection, irrespective of how do u chose them.

QuoteIS IT THE METHOD/S THAT FAIL OR THE PEOPLE PLAYING THEM??

Methods because they are not based upon any scientific or mathematical framework but on a blindfaith that this can't happen to me.
      No method here talks of how to handle "sessions from hell" they just believe that "sessions from haven" will come to rescue.

There is nothing like hot and cold numbers because they are not coming from refridgerator or oven. Every number has same probabilty to hit or miss in every spin. Casino is not a bakery or ice cream parlor to deliver hot and cold stuffs. Just kidding. Don't mind it but I get crazy to hear all these stuffs from forum guys.

I don't understand one thing, why two dozens posts written to bash or support PB and its writer JL? He is written a method that he claims to win in long run and all others say he will not.
             Can't we wait for Speramus and superman and other guys who are using it, give verdict after playing it? Don't trust JL claims if you can't believe them. Personally, I think PB has no mathematical advantage and agree with most of the arguments against it by gizmo, spike, bayes etc.
            If PB is bad which one is good and playable as a winner method? It is good that Bayes explained the mathematical side of HAR but bashing any method on that is childish.
                We are all sitting on the same sinking boat. Every method is hit and run and trial and error. Isn't it?