More PB testing

[amk]

Hybrid DC4, what a name.... Thanks warrior!

What's the word on PHASE 3??  (  sorry GLC   )

[Johnlegend]

PHASE 3 is very good in hit and run you dont sit there and wait to lose. But its 45 units a game. Im looking for the closest thing to a holy grail for less than 100 units. I will simply wait for bayes now. Sam needs proving wrong as do quite a few. They say you cant teach an old dog new tricks but you never know.

[TwoCatSam]

No, I'm not MM.  I made a mistake.........

John, you might want to trace your heritage.  I would not be surprised to find you can trace your linage to the Gonnados.  They were gonna do this and gonna do that, but they really only talked.

And talked.......

Sorry MM.  I hijacked your thread!! 

Played way too much baccarat today.

Lord, did I say the "B" word?

Sam

[Johnlegend]

Sam in a week or so the talking stops and the showing starts. And as for you backing out of your little venture with AMK. Now you know the reason I insisted on showing people first before passing it on. STAYING POWER, serious conviction to get it done is seriously lacking on this forum aside from a handful of members, Thatts why I have to illustrate what it takes to beat this game in the long haul, Few can stay with a method for any great length of time,

[TwoCatSam]

John

So you think what?  I backed out because I was afraid of winning?  If I backed out--and I'm not sure I did--it was because I will not sit for hundreds of spins waiting for an opportunity to bet. 

You speak of people not getting it.  You are the one who doesn't get it.  I would far rather prove your system a winner--as I would any system--and use it to make money rather than prove it a loser.  But you cannot overcome math and logic.

When I have waited for--God only knows how long--for the h/l column to produce a virtual loser, give me one logical reason why betting on the o/e column has any greater chance to win in three bets than it would if I had played it from moment I sat down.  There is no reason.

What you are doing is creating systems that take so long to play, no one can say for sure if they win or lose.  Even you said the Bayes test could take a year.

I will not accept amk's money, but I am seriously considering having a bot created to play your PATTERN BREAKER at Dublin.  I am just debating whether or not I want to spend 100 Euro to shut you up.

Already I can hear you blaming the bot and how it's not playing right.

Still, I am considering it......

TCS

[Johnlegend]

Sam I overcame them long ago, Your problem is a common one, YOU DWELL ON WHAT YOU THINK IS WRITTEN LAW with this game, In other words a mathematician tells you something and you say well that's the whole story then, ain't no point in going any further, How do I know those who say a game of negative expectancy  can't be overcome are wrong? I know because I proved it to myself, I took no one elses word for it, that's what too many people are guilty of, Sheep mentality exists in all endeavours in life, that's why over the next year I'm going to show how Einstein and his stable didn't know what they were talking about when it comes to this game, Maths alone simply can't anwser the question,

[Johnlegend]

John

So you think what?  I backed out because I was afraid of winning?  If I backed out--and I'm not sure I did--it was because I will not sit for hundreds of spins waiting for an opportunity to bet. 

You speak of people not getting it.  You are the one who doesn't get it.  I would far rather prove your system a winner--as I would any system--and use it to make money rather than prove it a loser.  But you cannot overcome math and logic.

When I have waited for--God only knows how long--for the h/l column to produce a virtual loser, give me one logical reason why betting on the o/e column has any greater chance to win in three bets than it would if I had played it from moment I sat down.  There is no reason.

What you are doing is creating systems that take so long to play, no one can say for sure if they win or lose.  Even you said the Bayes test could take a year.

I will not accept amk's money, but I am seriously considering having a bot created to play your PATTERN BREAKER at Dublin.  I am just debating whether or not I want to spend 100 Euro to shut you up.

Already I can hear you blaming the bot and how it's not playing right.

Still, I am considering it......

TCS

Forget PATTERN BREAKER. Its good and has served me well. If you really want to put some time and effort into shutting me up. Wait for PATTERN 7. How good is it? Its VERY GOOD. Thats why ive got to show you first. There cant be any excuses from you then. No Sam doesnt get this because it doesnt fit into the brainwashing you had about math and logic years ago. The results will shout for themselves. Then the smart wont need pushing. Theyll jump onboard.

Its even survived 30 games on a real money RNG so far. Early days. But  considering no other method ive played on a real money RNG could make 10 wins. Theres something going on here. A live wheel hasnt even challenged the progression. We wait for Bayes then minds start changing.

[flukey luke]

We wait for Bayes

Let's just hope he does not run into any unruly goats up there on them hills!!

[attachimg=1]

[Johnlegend]

Let's just hope he does not run into any unruly goats up there on them hills!!

[attachimg=1]

Lol funny. Or worse a grizzly with his name on its menu lol. Love this.

[Robeenhuut]

Sam I overcame them long ago, Your problem is a common one, YOU DWELL ON WHAT YOU THINK IS WRITTEN LAW with this game, In other words a mathematician tells you something and you say well that's the whole story then, ain't no point in going any further, How do I know those who say a game of negative expectancy  can't be overcome are wrong? I know because I proved it to myself, I took no one elses word for it, that's what too many people are guilty of, Sheep mentality exists in all endeavours in life, that's why over the next year I'm going to show how Einstein and his stable didn't know what they were talking about when it comes to this game, Maths alone simply can't anwser the question,

Yeah John. D same tiring mantra as always from u. U should realize once n 4 good that people questioning yr methods r not d ones that think that roulette is unbeatable. On d contrary but not with YOUR STUFF.  Have u ever posted a method that was not successful at least in yr mind?
Phase 3, Street 7? U mention them once in a while.  Hello....  anybody still plays them except u?  Chauncey 47 maybe?  Once in a week maybe in last 2 or 3 months.    We did not get any single long term data from other members of d forum confirming yr numbers.  Bettor posted 100/1 strike rate 4 Code 4 played hit n run - far cry from yours 300/1.  And u had 600/0 at some point.  But i guess he was barely making profit in 900 games that he played so it was ok.
Bayes approach is a waste of time. It would take few members just few minutes with pen a paper given its not of course hit n run method to test yr method. We did it with Reversed Code 4 whatever...  Just average results. D same would happen with Code 20, Pattern 7 and others new gems.  Pattern breaker was already tested by MM and... Any comment on this?  Especially with strike rate after first loss with 7/1 method..  200/1?  And new Pattern 7 3000+/0?
This will raise few eyebrows even 4 newbies.  Please John dont comment on this. Numbers r just numbers n virtues of mind,patience and being open minded do not apply. And leave Albert Einstein out of this He was just joking.  Anyway i would not dismiss his opinion that easily 

[flukey luke]

 


[attachimg=1]

[atlantis]

LOL! 
Actually, I'm really looking forward to PATTERN 7 and DOUBLE STRIKE systems from JLegend.
BTW, John... How's the new MATRIX code idea coming along?
A.

[amk]

Hello Robenhuut,

Sorry to bring up Einstein but his name does seem to be connected to roulette. If we listen to Einsteins conclusion then it does not make any sense to play or research roulette and by that logic the nature of the universe. I for one believe that Einsteins theory will not be upheld anymore within the next few years or even months. Is it not strange that only a few great minds are promoted by the system? We have never seen Nikola Tesla being promoted by the system except as a name for a car, which is really a slap in our faces. Nikola Tesla is not promoted because the world will change for the better. It is best to keep us at Einstein level so to keep us in place.

Is the universe random, I don't think so due to the phi ratio. Is roulette random? Can we discover something new about roulette and its randomness that has been overlooked by even a great mind such as Einstein?

[TwoCatSam]

John

Don't recall I've ever said that roulette can't be beaten.  Like Rob, I question your methods.

If I told you all I had to do to win was walk the dogs exactly a mile, drink one bottle of water and bet red as soon as I could log on--would you think red had a better chance of winning.  That is how dislocated you ideas are from each other.

I'm certainly waiting with eager anticipation for PATTERN7, but I'll not try to bribe you for an early peek.

Sam

[Robeenhuut]

Hello Robenhuut,

Sorry to bring up Einstein but his name does seem to be connected to roulette. If we listen to Einsteins conclusion then it does not make any sense to play or research roulette and by that logic the nature of the universe. I for one believe that Einsteins theory will not be upheld anymore within the next few years or even months. Is it not strange that only a few great minds are promoted by the system? We have never seen Nikola Tesla being promoted by the system except as a name for a car, which is really a slap in our faces. Nikola Tesla is not promoted because the world will change for the better. It is best to keep us at Einstein level so to keep us in place.

Is the universe random, I don't think so due to the phi ratio. Is roulette random? Can we discover something new about roulette and its randomness that has been overlooked by even a great mind such as Einstein?

Hola Amk

If i remember correctly Jl brought him up first as an example that even great minds can be sometimes wrong n of course there is this AE's famous line about  stealing chips as an only way 2 beat roulette which should not be taken seriously.  Anyway i don't think I'm much out of line criticizing Jl methods. I do it whenever i please n when i think that I'm right. But it happens John is d one who posts most so he should get used 2 it because of d volume of his output here 

Regards