Merry Xmas from my daughters everyone

QuoteI think that u had a challenge of some kind regarding PB

That's correct, basically I gave JL the use of my account so I can see and verify his efforts, we had to close the BetVoyager challenge for account purposes and moved the funds over to PaddyPower where he is now performing the challenge, once a month I will login and check the progress.

Quote(howsoever chosen) can suffer variance

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

QuoteYou could argue that the more times you do this could save you money in the long run

Yes you could argue that point but, think of (JL + HAR) together they could be a good match for however long, if you considor his betting angle, wait until a lot has happened and bet the next thing that hasn't yet happened won't happen AT THIS POINT IN TIME considering it's a long winded method, random may not be ready to show this string at this point in time, that's all it is a hope that THAT last string of EC at exactly the same you decide to play it, you could even play it as soon as you arrive at the table, no history just place your bet, odds are the same.

The point I am making is he could go on forever hitting the odd loss along the way but not enough to take it all back, it's not the fact of HIT n RUN as nobody knows when the best time to play is, it's pure luck that he has timed it right a high percentage of the time, so maybe he is lucky to miss the bad bits, so far, but it can't only work for one person or a minority, it should be doable by others to some degree.

I've never had any issues at BV placing lots of chips with my bots, but then again I use standalone exe's and leave the game window as they provide it, not trying to capture it as you guys do, I honestly don't see why you won't just play with the game in its window as provided.

And before you ask, yes mine work on ANY platform with any version of windows, I just send the user a setup tool to get coordinates from their specific computer/laptop, they email me the results of the setup and off we go, KISS is the best in my opinion.

QuoteThe realization that I am no liar

Nobody here is calling you a liar, you should stop saying that.

QuoteAnd I will continue to play and win until I am shut down

You say you have been playing this way for years (I think the last time I read that you said 4 years, not sure), but you also keep saying you stand the chance of getting shutdown within the next 6 months, why is that?

As hit and run remains a topic of discussion it would be good if everybody could vote so we can all see what percentage of members are actually doing it AND if it is working for them.

Personally I don't believe in it as it boils down to luck.

QuoteI guess im supposed to respond to this with my usual defiance

It's your choice to respond, nobody has to respond to anything.

You've seen a few members lately posting losing runs for PB, Trebor was one of them, he also played your style, HAR, it failed for him, how do you sum that up? was he player B in Bayes example? I think what is trying to be highlighted here is the fact that HAR is not something that works for everyone, and if it does not work for the majority then it can't really be classified as a method of play, you must be keeping some sort of mental note of how many people are actually winning with HAR style play as opposed to those that it has failed for, the ones who have posted they are winning following HAR are just a drop in the ocean and strangley they are new or newer members, which as you know always looks iffy to say the least.

Wether you are winning or not is not the contention here, the fact is, it's timing which equates to luck, you've been lucky that you played at the times you played.

As with everything in roulette, what works for ONE person may not work for the majority, maybe the difinition of HAR is wrong, is hitting your session target really HAR?

Good analogies Bayes, let's put the last bit into context, had player B got his 2 or 3 wins in a row, player A (had he stayed at the table just to watch) would have had an extra 2 or 3 virtual wins, maybe that would have told him HAR was flawed. It all boils down to luck.

Having a goal to reach is different in my opinion, let's say each session you want to reach 10 units, playing with 1£$Euro chips could it be classed as hit n run? maybe, I know JL says he makes a target 2 or 3 times a day, why call it hit n run? because he knows that eventually there will come a loss, so it isn't really hit n run its playing dodge, eventually you get caught.

My target is 10 chips per session twice a day, not playing dodge, but because I get bored playing manually which can lead to higher risks/mistakes, I have done a few long sessions with no big issues/risks but find it too stressful in the concentration department, even with the tracker running so I decide to just have a target to reack and close. As I play similar to you, Bayes, we both know the run from hell type loss a method/system has will not appear, are we playing HAR or GR (Goal Reaching)

@ wannawin, the problem is, my version of hit n run may be different than Bayes version of programmed hit n run, different variables/measurments/time scales.

The only version we know (or are told) that works is JLs' version, a few have tried to do the same manually but failed.

QuoteWhen on your computer you have a hit for you to make a pause

QuoteThe program can make pauses to miss any number of sets without playing. It simulates not being present in the casino as the game continues. If it is a bot it can surely be made to stop for a few hours betting dummy bets

The bold words are grey words as they have no values assigned to them, do you see my/our point that its difficult to program, it can be done you are right but the time scales will not match JLs' style

I think the only way to test is by doing it yourself, I understand the group thing but, if we look at methods such as PB, out of the whole forum, only 3 or 4 have reported, dare I say, good? results, which in many opinions isn't that good, the percentages are slowely coming to the norm that is expected, some members have even reported bad enough losses/hit rates that they have now discarded the method completely. Which is more and more pointing to luck for the chosen few.

Everyone was active on that thread at one point, that was a group thing, wasn't it?

There's so many methods in a month there wouldn't be enough months to test them all!!

Those of us who have been around for a long time know the instant we read a 'new' methods description wether or not it has testing value, as you know, if I see something that 'looks' like it 'may' work in my opinion, I code it and post results, suggest tweaks, try them and repost in a matter of days only, a month would be a total waste of time for all those involved.

BIG problem is, there's no mechanical long term method withoug heavy use of progressions, and we know were they get us, deep in it.

The only way I've found is going with the flow and that can only be done on the fly by reacting to what's happening, which as Gizmo says it can't be simply put, you either see it or you don't.

QuoteHow do you bet for it NOT to win or come in/place?

By placing a LAY bet @ betfair

QuoteWhat is your third?

Couldn't resist, kak praat is his third language LOL (talking sh1t)

QuoteI have a tracker/clicker which can put down bets at lightning speed

You should maybe put a timer before it IF you can't tell it how quick/slow to click in it's function

mouseclick(wherex, wherey, how many times, how fast?)

QuoteBots can make long waits for you. Bots can eradicate the human errors factor

Up to now that's about all the use a bot has, as there is no consistent winning bet creating bots for the sake of it is futile, no dissrespect to the likes of members Ralph and Ophis who produce bots for the masses, why? I don't see the point in spending time producing something that 'will' empty the bank for you.

I've been doing bots for years, I now mainly just test systems/methods by feeding files of numbers to it as opposed to letting it chug away on a game window, you can run 10000 spins in a mtter of seconds, 10000 spins against a game window would take hours.

Many users/members here and on other foums seem to think a bot is the dogs bo||ocks, personally I think they are just reluctant to manually test or learn to code, they think the bot will magically turn a losing method into a winning method, at this point in time, it won't.