Here we go again........trolls aren't even bothering to write new material any more.

Just playing the oldies..........think the last time I saw this one was right before PA was banned from Roulette.cc

Quote from: Blue_Angel on February 27, 2016, 08:36:52 PM
Mike

Because Kavouras pay him/her.
Also must be of Mexican origin.

Just a report:

User ''betjack'' busted on 679th spin when his maximum bet was 64 units and lost 629 units total.

After 765 spins I'm on a new high of 76 units, the max bet never exceed  the 16 units, while the max drawdown was 106 units so far.

I'll report here from time to time.

So the difference here is that you are using a adaptable bet-selection, and betjack was using just 1 ec?

Quote from: Mike on February 27, 2016, 05:49:28 PM
I'm always right. 

It's unusual though, to be sure.

@ TheLaw,

Yes, very few roulette forum members are female, but Reyth (I'm certain), is one of the few.

Seems like a bit of a sweeping statement for half the world's population, and doesn't bringing up kids involve a lot of repetitive work?

See female lead guitar players........very few actually exist, and none of them are at the level of any guitarist of note.


Possibly, but I doubt it. There are head shots in most of the vids on Reyth's youtube site -- why go to so much trouble and for what reason?

Then there's this:

[attachimg=1]

And Reyth just isn't aggressive in the way that most guys would be when having to put up with the constant sniping and criticism myself and Real dish out, LOL. For me, it all points to him/her being a member of the fairer sex. I think it's kinda refreshing, and I like her (even though she's dead wrong about roulette).

Just keep one thing in mind..........Reyth is a very slippery character who shows all of the classic signs of attention seeking behavior.

But yes..........he/she is very entertaining!!!

Quote from: Blue_Angel on February 27, 2016, 03:38:03 PM
Mike,
seems this time you are right, never thought a woman as moderator of roulette forum!:-D

Couple of issues with this:

1) Very few roulette forum members are female

2) Women don't tend to be interested in repetitive activities........and if you look at Reyth's posts, there's a ton of repetitive work involved

3) Reyth is notorious for using graphics of all kinds......specifically pics and gifs in his posts, so this might just be smoke and mirrors

Having said that...............maybe he is a she???

Although, Reyth doesn't strike me as the type of person who would want his/her identity known.....

Quote from: Mike on February 27, 2016, 02:00:24 PM
BA,

How do you know Reyth provided false information? If you're so certain the system can't fail, why do you want it coded?

BTW, I'm pretty sure that Reyth is a she, not a he. Not that it really matters or means anything.

Technically, Reyth refused to offer the exact sequence that necessitated a higher Bankroll; I asked about this, and that's when Kav came to his aid.

I think he was also just playing 1 color if memory serves me correctly.

Keep in mind that Reyth was a prolific poster apparently working and posting 24/7. There was a time when Reyth was responsible for most of the threads on Roulette30, so Kav probably just saw this as a way to boost visibility and reduce his workload by making Reyth a Mod along with preferential treatment; hence Kav jumping in to save Reyth if anyone should question his lack of evidence for a method.

I also caught Reyth cutting/pasting literally dozens of methods from other forums without credit. Most of of which had long been debunked on the same threads he took them from.

Quote from: Blue_Angel on February 27, 2016, 01:22:14 PM
The law, thanks for supporting me without even requesting it from you, I really appreciate it!
I'm talking about the forum roulette30 and my topic "Fallacious Holy Grail", I've read your comments...
Indeed Kavouras was trying to cover Reyth but he shouldn't because Reyth provided false information, however, I think Kavouras is good person, not like Reyth.

At least if Reyth was saying that he reached 128 units instead of 512 it would be more believable!
He never post that session, not even said the name of the online casino!

In the end tried to flatter you by saying "I still remember what you've learned me that if a system is going to lose it will be within the first 10,000 spins".
But by saying this is contradicting himself because the example of the worst sequence ever, which FHG wins, was 1 out of literally millions of results!

Transparency is always the best policy on these forums. The faster a method tanks publicly, the faster we can move on to the next one.

Reyth has a deep history with Kav, which started when he made Reyth a moderator. At that time, Reyth was testing the Kavouras bet 24/7 trying to get it to work. I noticed that Reyth had abruptly stopped posting his profit/loss statements on his main Kav thread, and called him out on it. Reyth then claimed that he was simply running an experiment, instead of a test, so profit didn't matter. I predicted openly that it would fail as he was clearly withholding information. One day after Reyth stopped posting on that thread (after literally months of posting daily), Kav offered his Kavouras Bet System for sale; the same day he made Reyth a moderator.

Keep up the good work!!!

Seeing this same issue on other forums about this method.

Everyone wants to take the easy way out, and just test a color.

Adjusting bet selection takes much more time to test, but gives you precise results!!!

These "challenges" are really a mute point unless they are actual wheel spins.

If not, then anyone can just create a fake sequence to beat any system.

Real spins only................unless you using a verified RNG (recorded from a online casino-which is still different than a real wheel, but interesting none-the-less)!!!

Quote from: XXVV on February 25, 2016, 05:21:05 AM
You cannot be serious.

A 10,000 unit bank. 

I once had a Mentor who used progressions. He sometimes  played with over 10,000 units at $5 or the higher equivalent in GBP at the Ritz in London, and with $10 units- $100 units  in LV.

On several occasions he lost the lot, and it caused a complete loss of confidence after the third experience.

My dear friend turned his back terminally on Roulette, as despite a brilliant mind, vast assets earned through a brilliant career in sales and much hard work, his bets had no winning edge - no reason to win that could be explained.

I notice BA you post a lot on this Forum now after much on Roulette30 which has no effective moderation and trolls/ dinosaurs like Real/ Xander still lurk and roam awaiting yet another opportunity to expose their closed and bigoted views usually suggesting AP solves all problems in casino play. However there are also some very intelligent and experienced readers therein and several of your theories were shown to be flawed and void. You have ignored some expert advice given to you on that Forum and you regurgitate the same ideas here. Why?

Do you seriously expect some gullible novice to access this huge amount of money to try your theory or take your word? An experienced player would run a marathon to escape your terms and risk exposure.

I will give an extreme example that shows what can be done when the bet played has a reason for existence , and the player understands and applies it, and is smart and has put in the thousands of hours needed to succeed.  The edge that the winning bet  provides is measured and known within a small variance range, and the bet characteristics are known in terms of risk exposure, behaviour in extremely adverse conditions, and the worst draw downs experienced with the ability to recover known and proven by empirical rigorous testing over 30 sessions at least.

There are winning bets that can be researched - the files are in this Forum's records and those of other Forums detailed within the past 10 years. No final detail will ever be published but a few writers, including myself have tried to share experience and  provide genuine pathways - not false trails.

In my opinion a winning bet needs to be able to be flat staked and can exist and be grown, played from a seed original bank of 100 units if it is valid within the type of limited variance I have seen demonstrated, and which is needed in order to be practical. It can win most sessions, but from the worst it can escape with limited damage, on a sensible but conservative stop loss. This is because the uptrend is demonstrated over 90%  of live play sufficient to take relatively easy profit if the goals are modest and practical and readily achievable. I am talking about  +10 units approx on a 100 RB.  The only change from session to session will be the increase of unit value as profit permits.

I have had some personal dealings with BA and note he demanded I describe my private bet to him because he insisted. He also accused me of 'stealing' some other individual's method, yet claiming ownership. As this was offensive and untrue and I told him as much, I am amazed he is writing here portraying himself as some sort of experienced and wise player. My post is intended as a 'caveat emptor'.

You will have to search a lot deeper to find bets that really have a consistent edge in order to win in roulette, and you will have to explain why those bets work. When you can do that you may write a lot less, or at least focus on a worthy line of thought, rather than re-hash all the old flawed ideas.

Oh and by the way wrt your slander of the MIT BJ professionals - perhaps you might like to contact Semyon Dukach in Boston, or Ben Mezrich. Mr Dukach is available on LinkedIn and is a hugely successful Angel Investor in US startups in technology. I have his email address if you would like to contact him directly. He will put you straight.

If this post is deleted I will post comment in my own Blog section.

At least Blue has the guts to actually post his entire method, instead of claiming to have a "Unicorn System" as you do.

Glad to see that some members stick to reality instead of this fantasy world where you can just claim to have a method, refuse to share it, and then actually criticize others who share their ideas openly.

Even if the method is bunk.............he's still one step ahead of you.............it's called transparency.

Quote from: Blue_Angel on February 25, 2016, 12:29:48 AM
No, I've not because I believe selection is half of everything, it's very important so I will never dismiss it.

If you are talking about S. Hourmouzis, almost everybody who has been involved in roulette forums knows who he really is...and unfortunately has Greek origin like me, but I believe this fact alone says nothing about the rest of the Greeks.

It's strange........I've never really seen him actively try to suppress anyone's method, and he doesn't actively try to sell his stuff (excluding adverts on the forum).

But I do find it odd that a man who claims to have a winning method (as he does) also sells cheating devices for Roulette.

Hey Blue,

Have you tested this method without the bet selection to see if a higher bankroll would still beat it using the basic system?

Also, I presented this on Roulette.cc (with credit given), and they didn't even consider it for a minute due to the Marty-ness of it.

Steve (owner) even weighed in, and claimed that it would fail with no real explanation.

This seems odd, and makes me wonder about some people's motives.

Thanks!

Quote from: Blue_Angel on February 23, 2016, 08:23:29 PM
It has been tested not only by me but from several users as far as I know, out of multi-million of outcomes, we've never encounter worse sessions than the examples posted in this topic.

If you or anyone else has found worse, post it here in order to analyze it.

Thanks!

Quote from: Blue_Angel on February 23, 2016, 06:56:45 PM
As I've described before, you always keep on betting on the least appeared EC.

You should consider it as buying a stock as cheap as possible and selling it in the first opportunity for profit, the entry and exit points in such neverending cycle are crucial.

It's a constant work in progress, you keep your record up to date, thus you adjust to the ever changing fluctuations/deviations.

Hey Blue,

How many spins have you tested this method with?

Thanks!

Tested this over the weekend with lackluster results. Came out ahead, but I'm concerned about a possible dd.

This would need testing over at least 25,000 spins min, and unfortunately, I don't have the time right now.

I now have a new understanding of what it means to actually test a system properly, and I completely see how many members think they have a winning system over 100s of hours of play.....................but then the hammer falls!!!

You play 40hrs per week for 3 months winning each and every day...........then it tanks....

Thanks to all who continue to test, and best of luck!!!