*PATTERN BREAKER*

[Gizmotron]

I power tested Pattern Breaker. There is no way to make it work other than analyzing the conditions and placing bets that look safe to bet. For example you might be needing to bet against an HHH losing. So you would place a LLL bet during a L streak.

100 thousand sessions, 63 spins per session, American Wheel - 0/00

Results:
Wins = 84,515
Losses = 15,485
Double Losses = 2,319
Triple Losses = 342

[Amazin]

I think you're supposed to test it on European roulette wheel. Anyways, i just do see how tracking old spins will have impact on new spins.

[Gizmotron]

Amazin, If I change (37) for the (38) that is now there, then I'll get those results that you suggest. Give me ten minutes.

[Gizmotron]

100 thousand sessions, 63 spins per session, European Wheel - 0

Results:
Wins = 85,639
Losses = 14,361
Double Losses = 2,048
Triple Losses = 306

[Tamino]

then jow come people lose their shirts in a casino? Something does not jive here. B.S.


I only see key board winners  in ALL the forums.

No wonder the   originator of this topic has been banned.Now he  he is  finding suckers at another forum.



Nathan Detroit

[Turner]

then jow come people lose their shirts in a casino? Something does not jive here. B.S.


I only see key board winners  in ALL the forums.

No wonder the   originator of this topic has been banned.Now he  he is  finding suckers at another forum.



Nathan Detroit

Self confessed, I'm no expert on this style of play....the mantra of JLs posts allways had the same rhetoric. The audience attention is achieved, and he plays them.

1. Random numbers are in some way a river of numbers which in some way you can tame...like we do with a dam in a river
My view: there is no flow with random numbers (note I didn't call it random like it is a noun). Its 1 individual event followed by a completly unrelated event, preceeded by a completly unrelated event.

2. We have to feel pain during a system...slow, labourious, dedication...for a painfully small reward.

3. Complete and utter belief in his system to the point of lying to be esoteric. Esoteric is the key to John. Keeping the final piece of the jigsaw to himself to keep the power. Telling you enough but not everything. The enough he isnt telling us doesn't exit....that's the hard bit to get

4. finally, and rather sad and embarrasing is all the PR he pumps out about how he will conquer the "casino" per se.

Confident, arrogant or stu.pid?. he's a complex personality.

Turner

[Gizmotron]

Turner, One of the absolutely most important things to know about beating randomness is that you must understand item number one of your most recent post above. You can't begin to attack randomness if you are delusional regarding magical thinking. You can't put your head in a bag and then tell others that you see clearly.

[Turner]

Turner, One of the absolutely most important things to know about beating randomness is that you must understand item number one of your most recent post above. You can't begin to attack randomness if you are delusional regarding magical thinking. You can't put your head in a bag and then tell others that you see clearly.

Gizmo....Are you agreeing with me or not agreeing?  are you saying random numbers arnt isolated events?.....it a lovely subject. A definate indication of how humans need patterns. Even when they arnt there

[TwoCatSam]

then jow come people lose their shirts in a casino? Something does not jive here. B.S.


I only see key board winners  in ALL the forums.

No wonder the   originator of this topic has been banned.Now he  he is  finding suckers at another forum.



Nathan Detroit

I don't think the man has found any suckers until he relieves them of their money.  We are all smart enough to know this is gambling.  While his claims are bold and sometimes outlandish, he has not asked for money from anyone that I know of.

Sam

[Gizmotron]

Gizmo....Are you agreeing with me or not agreeing?  are you saying random numbers arnt isolated events?.....it a lovely subject. A definate indication of how humans need patterns. Even when they arnt there

I'm agreeing with you completely. With item number one that is. However, I'm saying that patterns exist anyway, by no cause or action. They exist because players can imagine seeing them. The existence of a trend or pattern is only a phantom of imagination. Now please tell us all why you can't use them for bet selection? What happens when a past spin chart shows 12 reds in a row? Did it happen or not?

[Tamino]

********* While his claims are bold and sometimes outlandish, he has not asked for money from anyone that I know of.***** excerpt of quote by TowCatSam

I agree he has never asked for any money . But what about the pilot  with his claim of having won  Euro 71, 000  and some posters  supporting the pilot . An entire group has  disappeared .

Is this a well organized game plan that the money angle is done  behind the scenes? ( PM or e-mai).

just a thought.



Nathan Detroit

[Still]

Still

It seems to me that you only want to explore roulette theoretically here. Then you don't need to be a gambler.

I have no more interest in exploring theory than i do in losing less.  The intent is to play, if and when a system shows, for whatever reason, understood or not, that it can beat the wheel flat betting. I am not confident about any system that cannot at least break even flat, but am still open to that (a progression that overcomes negative expectancy) if testing produces a graph that suggests the system is robust, and NOT a gamble to play long term. 

Of course, if you never intend to play, you can neither be a gambler, nor a professional gambler (a non-gambler).  Again, its not my intent to not play.   

If you really want to play for real you need to realize that taking gambling out of roulette and beating it constantly its just a fairytale. And it takes an open mind to believe in fairy tales.

Regards

With statements like this, you are putting yourself in the 'lose less' school of thought, and somehow believe that you, the gambler, can judge those of us who won't put a penny on the table unless there is a long term promise of coming out ahead based on robust testing. 

"Play for real"?  What does that mean to you?  Play to lose less?  Then you MUST be a gambler.

"For real",  to me, means taking the gambling out of betting before ever starting. "Constantly" is your term with your own meaning.  No one is dumb enough to think he can win every bet. That would be a fairy tale indeed.  All that is needed is a flat bet of 50.1% chance to win long term, all the better if this can be shown to be achievable in most short sessions over hundreds of thousands of bets.   That, to me, is NOT a gamble to deal with. 

So it must be you, the gambler, who is interested in the theory of losing less.  I don't know how much you have lost total so far, but if it's a significant amount, i can understand why you would want to jump all over people who say you can actually win, implying you have chosen to lose.  Since i don't have an emotional investment like that (because i'm not a gambler) I am able to remain open minded till test results come in.   I am confident in my ability to judge a winning system, given certain kinds of data.  I remain here because i have seen some promising data, and only need to find my own time to double-check the promising system(s) with my own tests.


Regards

[Robeenhuut]

I have no more interest in exploring theory than i do in losing less.  The intent is to play, if and when a system shows, for whatever reason, understood or not, that it can beat the wheel flat betting. I am not confident about any system that cannot at least break even flat, but am still open to that (a progression that overcomes negative expectancy) if testing produces a graph that suggests the system is robust, and NOT a gamble to play long term. 

Of course, if you never intend to play, you can neither be a gambler, nor a professional gambler (a non-gambler).  Again, its not my intent to not play.   

With statements like this, you are putting yourself in the 'lose less' school of thought, and somehow believe that you, the gambler, can judge those of us who won't put a penny on the table unless there is a long term promise of coming out ahead based on robust testing. 

"Play for real"?  What does that mean to you?  Play to lose less?  Then you MUST be a gambler.

"For real",  to me, means taking the gambling out of betting before ever starting. "Constantly" is your term with your own meaning.  No one is dumb enough to think he can win every bet. That would be a fairy tale indeed.  All that is needed is a flat bet of 50.1% chance to win long term, all the better if this can be shown to be achievable in most short sessions over hundreds of thousands of bets.   That, to me, is NOT a gamble to deal with. 

So it must be you, the gambler, who is interested in the theory of losing less.  I don't know how much you have lost total so far, but if it's a significant amount, i can understand why you would want to jump all over people who say you can actually win, implying you have chosen to lose.  Since i don't have an emotional investment like that (because i'm not a gambler) I am able to remain open minded till test results come in.  I am confident in my ability to judge a winning system, given certain kinds of data.  I remain here because i have seen some promising data, and only need to find my own time to double-check the promising system(s) with my own tests.


Regards

Still

I just wonder what you consider some promising data and systems here. So far i got only tidbits from you. I know from your charting JL results in his challenge that you like charts that produce a steady upward climb. And this month i lost 239 Euros but in October i had a very good result. It just changes.  Happy testing.

Regards

[Still]

Still

I just wonder what you consider some promising data and systems here. So far i got only tidbits from you. I know from your charting JL results in his challenge that you like charts that produce a steady upward climb. And this month i lost 239 Euros but in October i had a very good result. It just changes.  Happy testing.

Regards

Well Speed has shown some promising data but doesn't think it's playable because of too large % drawdowns.  I disagree it can't be improved.  He won't let me help.  But all it takes is one person to show that it's possible to win long term flat to show that there MAY be more than one way to do it.  I have reason to believe that at least one person has provided sufficient data to show the wheel can be beat flat. 

In the Bayes challenge, JL showed an ability to win flat, showing a trend on the chart that suggests it was not random.  He has since dropped the ball because he has apparently deviated from sticking with a winning formula.  It's hard to say because he has not provided analysis as to why FIVE was not working as well as on the BAYES software, notwithstanding the need to move the wheel. 

ego has shown some promising data. 

And you cant ignore what Flat_Ino is doing, if its true this is a way of life and a stream of income for him.   

Sorry if i'm leaving anyone out who deserves to be considered here to win, not lose less. 

The point is there is sufficient data to have an open mind, and pending my own tests to double-check their work, i intend to play to win...or not at all. 

I have been distracted lately, so am not where i want to be with test results.  But all i really need to see is a chart with a lot of data points to tell what is a winner, and what is a gamble...given no flaws in the test process. 

I don't have time to program every method suggestion that comes out, because my testing platform is not set up for efficiency yet.  So i have to sit back, and wait see till threads peter out before i can really determine, usually by general enthusiasm, what would be worth programming.

More power to those who can be long term winners without generating a ton of data through programming.  I don't have that kind of power or patience.  So i won't proceed till i've generated a lot of data myself, through programming, so as to avoid the much harder work of hand-calculating and/or tracking real-time bets.

 

 

[Still]

Still

I just wonder what you consider some promising data and systems here.

Regards

I just noticed Gizmotron's data on a variation of PATTERNBREAKER in post #1245, a few posts back.  that's what i call robust data, given no flaws in the testing.  Now all i have to do is figure out what exactly he did, and run my own tests to verify.  Assuming it checks out, I would not consider a bet on that data to be a gamble, provided the bet size was rightly proportional to BR.

I think your approach of needing to understand why something wins (or loses less) before you test (or play) something is flawed and nonproductive. Data is KING.