***TRILOGY***

[Johnlegend]

That was so fu*in funny....LMAO

At the moment its hilarious Turnerfeck. But watch this space. We wait for Bayes. Then the serious stuff begins.

[Bayes]

What a hoot! 

John, the only foolproof way I can think of to prove that the RNG is legit is to use the system of randomness control like BV uses. Do you understand how it works? Just wondered, 'cos you said you're not a technical guy.
It's not hard to understand, but I get the feeling some people don't, and in fact you've dismissed it yourself in the past.

The last thing I want IF you lose is to be accused of rigging the RNG.

[Johnlegend]

What a hoot! 

John, the only foolproof way I can think of to prove that the RNG is legit is to use the system of randomness control like BV uses. Do you understand how it works? Just wondered, 'cos you said you're not a technical guy.
It's not hard to understand, but I get the feeling some people don't, and in fact you've dismissed it yourself in the past.

The last thing I want IF you lose is to be accused of rigging the RNG.

Bayes just get it done asap. Im pretty certain you are a fair guy. As youve said yourself, you really want to see if true random can be beaten. You will see it without a shadow of a doubt. I would prefer the zero stays in there though. I really dont want any excuses from anyone. After I do this test. Then show Sam I am for real Im done with this forum. So you can all bust out the champagne. But at the same time you will know I never lied about what I said.

[Turner]

At the moment its hilarious Turnerfeck. But watch this space. We wait for Bayes. Then the serious stuff begins.

Sorry John....I wasnt having a go at you....i just thought Sams comedy was good comedy.

Seriously....i enjoy reading your posts. You seem to be very confident in your abilities which is good.

My stance on the world is that I "think" I know I am right. Self medication doesnt work....fact.

You have to listen listen listen. Thats how you got to where you are. You invented nothing. You just listened.

In my view....you seem to have stopped listening. I personally think thats a mistake.

Allways listen to someone elses view before you take your egos view as fact.

Just my view John...take it or leave it

[Bayes]

Actually, I've just realised that even using a hash function won't be foolproof. The randomness control only guarantees that the spins are generated before you place the bet, so although it's guaranteed that I can't generate a spin after you've placed bets,  if I know you're using a particular system (say PATTERN BREAKER), then I *could* just generate the spins accordingly. I won't be doing that, but (perish the thought) if you DO lose, and accuse me of rigging the RNG, it'll just be your word against mine.

It's going to take me a while because I'm learning a new programming language from scratch. Not just for this software, I was going to do it anyway, although I need the extra features to make the program work the way I want it to.

What will happen is that when you've played a session, the program will send me the results by email, then it will save a copy of them for you (so you can check against your own record). That should rule out any disputes which might arise.

It should be good to go by the end of June at the latest.

hopefully... 

[Bayes]

I would prefer the zero stays in there though.

That can be arranged. 

Full zero or la partage?

[speed]

This program is a great idea, I think that soon there will be no more self-proclaimed winners, at least not on this forum ..

[Johnlegend]

Actually, I've just realised that even using a hash function won't be foolproof. The randomness control only guarantees that the spins are generated before you place the bet, so although it's guaranteed that I can't generate a spin after you've placed bets,  if I know you're using a particular system (say PATTERN BREAKER), then I *could* just generate the spins accordingly. I won't be doing that, but (perish the thought) if you DO lose, and accuse me of rigging the RNG, it'll just be your word against mine.

It's going to take me a while because I'm learning a new programming language from scratch. Not just for this software, I was going to do it anyway, although I need the extra features to make the program work the way I want it to.

What will happen is that when you've played a session, the program will send me the results by email, then it will save a copy of them for you (so you can check against your own record). That should rule out any disputes which might arise.

It should be good to go by the end of June at the latest.

hopefully... 

Bayes I'm impressed you can even do this at all. You have great skills in that area. Like I keep saying there is a certain flow of patterns I expect for say PATTERN BREAKER. Random just naturally does them. If all of a sudden I'm gettiing the total reverse. Then somethings not right.

The same with my new kid on the block DOUBLE MATCH. Its so readable that I should never lose more than 100/1. I haven't lost at all yet in testing/playing over 340 games. So if I went on a real money RNG all of a sudden it would be losing like theres no tomorrow. On a live wheel it will win like theres no tomorrow. This is how I smell foul play on certain RNGS. And its because they are predatory. They know what you bet and are simply programmed to oppose you.

I once saw someone lose three times in a row on a real money RNG. Nothing special in that. Until you understand he had 35 numbers covered each time.

[Johnlegend]

This program is a great idea, I think that soon there will be no more self-proclaimed winners, at least not on this forum ..

You think wrong Speed. Very WRONG.

[Johnlegend]

That can be arranged. 

Full zero or la partage?

Just a regular full zero Bayes. I dont like being in prison. Thats randoms role.

[Johnlegend]

Sorry John....I wasn't having a go at you....i just thought Sams comedy was good comedy.

Seriously....i enjoy reading your posts. You seem to be very confident in your abilities which is good.

My stance on the world is that I "think" I know I am right. Self medication doesn't work....fact.

You have to listen listen listen. that's how you got to where you are. You invented nothing. You just listened.

In my view....you seem to have stopped listening. I personally think that's a mistake.

Allways listen to someone elses view before you take your egos view as fact.

Just my view John...take it or leave it

Good View. Im just eager to start visually rewriting the thinking on this game. I dont think anyones ready for what im about to do. How will people view Einsteins statement about roulette after im done. Very differently I think.

[GARNabby]

Good View. I'm just eager to start visually rewriting the thinking on this game. I don't think anyones ready for what I'm about to do. How will people view Einsteins statement about roulette after I'm done. Very differently I think.

Does anyone here actually know something, other than an unverified/garbled/popularist quote, about a famous physicist's life and work?  Here is a bit about Einstein, the man... link:://:.neatorama.com/2007/03/26/10-strange-facts-about-einstein/ .

Anyway, here we go yet again with the proposed "testing" of the completely-baseless stuff.  I think that Bayes needs JL, as much as versa?

Did Einstein make even such-simple grammatical errors?  Egs, the mixed metaphor of "visually rewriting the thinking"; and the bad sytax of "very differently" rather than "as something different".  Does Bayes know the difference?

Sorry, Mr. Legend, but you sound like "a Wendel".  Remember him?  Except that Wendal came with also some kooky theories.  At least he tried, lol, to "walk that sort of talk".

[Skakus]

Anyone remember this?

Hello little bread gobblers.
Well time for me to say adios,
Just let me say, I would even pi$$ on my own mother’s shoes before telling her the H-G.
So you sad sorry sacks of sh*t had no hope of getting it either through relay or whatever. ROFLMAO.
But me and a ‘few’ others had a good laugh at your expense the last week. Especially all the threads opening up on different forums about Parrondo’s Paradox.  Guys! You are too clueless to work any of it out and like SPIKE used to say: Never, and I repeat NEVER wise up a chump.
So long.

[stefjw]

Hi Guys,

I'm trying to understand this method of betting but cant get my head around it

Has anyone got the time to explain it to me in newbie terms ?

Thanks

[Robeenhuut]

I once saw someone lose three times in a row on a real money RNG. Nothing special in that. Until you understand he had 35 numbers covered each time.

Hello John

So do u think that this is not possible on a real live wheel?    Odds of that happening about more or less 1/50000 or 2 put things in perspective any EC's hitting 16 or 17 times . Please correct me Bayes f i am wrong. 
And it still amazes me that some people play this bet.

Regards