Quote from: Twisteruk on December 04, 2012, 12:01:27 PM

Very slow to play and even slower to pay !

Never had any problem with air ball and payments at SmartLive.  Yeah air ball is slower then on PP. And the minimum is still 0.1.

Quote from: JohnLegend on December 04, 2012, 05:46:54 PM
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.

John

8 on 1 is a 5 step progression so it can produce long winning runs. Five with 4 steps produced 1000+ winning run so you might go 3000/0. The same odds....

Quote from: bcboilermaker on December 04, 2012, 07:49:37 AM
Well the only system I played at William hill has got banned from live play at their casino. Lol


I liked playing because of the low stakes..
Anybody wanna suggest another with low stakes?
If I remember correctly, ladbrokes, and paddypower  do not allow Canadian players.

SmartLive Casino   http://www.smartlivegaming.com/welcome.html

0.1 on Air ball

Quote from: JohnLegend on December 04, 2012, 07:14:11 AM
And Matt R/H I See you, why so shy now to respomd to your FIVE DATA thread.??

I disputed your 70 wins on 4th step with FIVE but now you changed your stats so there is no more issue with that.

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.

Gizmo

Its just a pointless debate. If this challenge ends in a positive territory it will only prove that PB can win in a few thousand sessions. You already posted few sessions played HAR where in about 500 games there was a strike rate of 9.5 and 4.4. I think that PB is coded in Ophis tracker and some can run 5-10 games sessions using actuals. 

Quote from: Tarantino on November 30, 2012, 02:12:01 PM
Noticed Robin hood after u again JL...  ...

JL has nothing to prove to me, he has shown me an idea on how to play. And i have CHOSEN to play it, and it works for me.
You carry on JL doing what u do best, some people appretiate what u are doin mate.  ...

And for the record, i have made a profit from PB, and i am grateful !

Im after his stats if you have not noticed that. I just  see something unusual in having few runs with odds over 1M in a few thousand games with PB and FIVE. 

Quote from: Bayes on November 30, 2012, 10:46:15 AM
It does seem odd that almost every win on the 4th bet was uninterrupted by any wins on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd bets.

However, the calculations all assume, of course, that the system has no advantage, and since I never got my head around FIVE, I can't do any tests on it, not to mention that apparently it's impossible to simulate hit & run. 

But it's right to be sceptical about these stats until JL shows us that they're plausible. One thing about them is that you WOULD expect to get more wins on the first bet and proportionately fewer on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th bets. The theoretical breakdown over 1120 bets is this:

1st bet -  727
2nd bet - 255
3rd bet -  90
4th bet -  31

JL's stats are pretty out of whack compared to these, but at least they follow the same pattern in that there are increasingly fewer wins on successive bets.

Bayes

Since you are the one that has any grasp of statistics let me put it this way. We have here 1120 winning bets on double dozens and some losing ones. Forget about steps. Can you calculate the odds of having this sequence:  LLLW not consecutively 70 times in a row for double dozens bet?  So each time after you lose 3 bets you win the 4th one.
How about the odds of seeing B 70 times each time after you see RRR?  These events don't have to be consecutive. 

Quote from: Bayes on November 30, 2012, 09:49:24 AM
Actually RH, how do you know it's 70 in a row? I don't see where JL is claiming that, not in these stats anyway. Of course, 1 loss in 1,120 games looks pretty amazing, but you'd have to know where the loss came in order to know how long the winning run was.

He posted it before that he went 70/0 on a last step.  But even 74/1 does not happen. Odds of 1000+ winning run with FIVE overall are peanuts compared with what happened on a last step. Try to go 4th step in 1,3,9,27 and win 70 in a row. 

Quote from: Bayes on November 30, 2012, 09:07:12 AM
Ok, so a loss is 13/37 and a win is 24/37. LLLW = [(13/37)³ × 24/37]⁷⁰ = 1 in 3.58 × 10¹⁰⁸

RESULTS UPDATE FOR *****FIVE***** FOR  THE 14/10/2012

TOTAL GAMES PLAYED 1,120

TOTAL GAMES WON 1,119

TOTAL GAMES LOST 1

STRIKERATE 1,119/1

BALANCE 1,040 POINTS PLUS

STEP 1 WINS=442
STEP 2 WINS=412
STEP 3 WINS=191
STEP 4 WINS=74----LOSSES=1

These are the stats for 1,3,9,27 double dozen progression for FIVE.  There were 70 wins in row on a last step....
Nobody sees anything unusual? 

Quote from: Bayes on November 30, 2012, 08:27:04 AM
Hi RH,

Not sure what you mean. I never really understood how FIVE worked. So basically, is this the odds of not losing a 4 step progression on the double dozens?

Its like having no single loss in 70 tries betting on 2 dozens. It happened on 4th step of 1,3,9,27 progression in FIVE. Btw winning streak of 1000+ in FIVE carries about the same odds like 100+ in PB.  For FIVE try to go LLLW  70 times in a row 
L represents loss in each step of 1,,3,9,27 progression. And the other guy reported winning 180 in a row with PB. Few thousands
millions in 1.

Quote from: Bayes on November 29, 2012, 05:42:08 PM
Hi KR,

Maybe, but that's down to variance. On average, because you need to win once in every 8 games just to break even, it means you don't make enough in the winning runs to offset the losses. But I don't want to stress this too much because it applies to every system.

Winning runs

Rather than posting tedious calculations, I'm just going to present the results in a table. The left-hand side shows the length of the winning run going up in steps of 5 after the first 4 and the right-hand side tells you what the chance is of seeing it. The first 4 results are given in % form and the remainder are in "1 in X" form.

Winning    Chance
  Run

   2          75%
   3          64%
   4          59%
   5          48%
  10         1 in 4.3
  15         1 in 8.9
  20         1 in 18.4
  25         1 in 38.0
  30         1 in 78.6
  35         1 in 162
  40         1 in 337
  45         1 in 697
  50         1 in 1,443
  55         1 in 2,986
  60         1 in 6,181
  65         1 in 12,794
  70         1 in 26,481
  75         1 in 54,809
  80         1 in 113,443
  85         1 in 234,803
  90         1 in 485,991
  95         1 in 1,005,895
  100       1 in 2,081,980

The Pilot had 180 winning run and John had few 100+  Bayes can you calculate the odds of winning 70 times in a row on any step of progression betting on 2 dozens?  John in his run with FIVE when he went 1000/0 (about the same odds like 100/0 for PB) won 70+ consecutive step 4 double dozen bets each time after losing 3 first steps. In my calculations its like 1M multiplied by 1M.

Quote from: Twisteruk on November 27, 2012, 07:23:46 PM
Hey everyone

Just givin a BVNZ update and Im OUT !

As soon as I increased my stakes BVNZ killed me. I didn't lose my BR but I lost a chunk of change

I've been playing my own version of PB and after checking with Bayes about odds etc I set about playing

After 80 spins or so BV dealt me a combination that has a 0.05% chance of happening or odds of 2,187/1 of happening

I have said this before, so I have only myself to blame but, for me, BV changes when you increase your stake.

It has nice things like speed and No Zero

However, now, EVERY time I increase stakes it kills me

Im not a sore loser Im just very aware it happens too often for it not to be suspect


Anyway I've taken my money from BV and am now 100% at Paddypower

Its slower and more boring but whatever happens I know it to be Pure


Like I said I have only myself to blame as I've said this before over the Years. This time Im NOT going back

11 EC's in a row have odds of 1 in 2000. On other hand a winning run of 100+ playing PB have odds of close to 1 in 1M. Its strange that after you lost to odds of 1/2000 you think that BV started cheating. Boilermaker was staking 5 euro on BV for a while and went from 170 to 550 and then had double loses. And now everybody thinks that BV cheats? 

Quote from: malcop on November 26, 2012, 02:39:08 PM
I used to play on BV a lot, after a people saying it is one of the bet RNG casinos out there, but I do not now and do not intend to any-time soon, I have tried lots of different methods/systems, playing roulette and baccarat, even when you think you are doing well, it always comes to the same point, when no matter what you seem to do your method/system keeps on losing, it is almost like you are being sucked in.


I would then go back to live play and the method/system performs a lot better, please do not get me wrong, I know you can play a method/system on live and have lots of good sessions, then followed by a lot of losing ones, but I am 100% sure it happens a lot more if I play on RNG.


Are they cheating I don't know, but answer this why is it when you are blocked on playing live dealers on sites such as William Hill, they recommend you play on their RNG platforms.


They obviously think you have no long-term chance of coming out ahead playing RNG.


I think playing any type of RNG game is no better than playing the slot machines, and can't understand why anyone would want to play RNG for serious money.


Thanks


malcop

Most people interpret it this way as a sort of confirmation bias that RNG is rigged. Lets assume that you discovered a dealer signature if there was any on a live wheel. Maybe they don't want to take any chances with you. There could be lots of reasons. So far the main culprit seems to be William Hill but there are people that never had any problems with it.
RNG is just a better business for any casino because of turnover. They should offer big bonuses for players who want only to play on RNG 

Quote from: JohnLegend on November 25, 2012, 02:45:35 PM
Okay Trebor, yes the overall breakdown is close to Live. What differs so far is how you arrive there.

On live you tend to get LONGER gaps in general between losses. In the way Subby is experiencing it on PADDY POWER.

With BV I see two or three losses in ten games then you might win 20. Live I've never lost the first game of the day twice.

In 4 years. Here I've done it in a few months. Never seen a treble loss live. Shogun caught it today on BV. Albeit betting bigger stakes.

Live RED BLACK performs less favourably that the other two. BV RED BLACK has a 47 game winning streak.

And hasnt lost the last 16 games either. Although im not playing it, only tracking. Just some differences I've noticed between the two formats. Yet the overall strikerate is the same right now. 11/1 a piece.

I don't see any relevance in  comparing winning streaks live and on BV. Shogun and Trebor apparently can not match your strike rate. Other guys apparently have better stats. How would you explain that?

Quote from: shogun on November 25, 2012, 06:41:48 AM
Hi Guys,
I thought i would give Betvoyager a try. Played my first game on the European table yesterday and won on 3 EC bets. Played a game later on the no-zero table and again won all 3 EC bets 
I thought great i have somewhere else to play. Fired up the European table this morning and had a TRIPLE LOSS. All 3 EC's lost in the same game, my first game 

I have not had a double loss live. Not sure i should play on BV again with PB.
Sooooooo annoyed with myself 

Shogun

This is roulette. Just use a common sense here. You lost on BV 3 times with PB in one session. That never happened to John or Pilot. I think that BV already discovered that it may be a winning method and started cheating. And i would stay with R/B.
Pilot played all 3 EC's and had 180 wins in a row. Good luck.