Credit to Blue Angel for this method :
Rules :
You've arrived at the roulette table and you are writing down the last 10 to 12 results from the matrix, from that point forth you are going to write 25 to 27 more results in order to have the last 37 spins in your score-sheet.
Check to find the EC with the least appearances within those spins and bet it as long as remains least shown.
From now on till the end of your session you have a non stop betting plan to follow.
While you flat bet 1 unit for the second 37 spins you keep writing every EC as it hits in your score-sheet.
The time to change your bet selection is whenever there is another least shown EC, in case there is a tie between 2 EC's, bet the one which has been missing more spins since it's last appearance (older).
The betting amount doesn't change when you change EC, it only changes when after 37 successive bets your total hasn't reach a new high, in such case you raise the betting amount to 2 units for the next 37 spins.
The point is to increase gradually the amounts like Martingale progression but in 37 spins cycle scale till your bankroll reaches a new high, WHENEVER you reach a new high balance you are resetting the bet amount to 1 unit or end the session.
By resetting the bet amount it doesn't mean that you have to change
the EC you are betting, bet selection and progression are changing NOT necessarily the same time.
Example: (using only red instead of following rules above which are more flexible)
BETTING ALWAYS ON RED / AMERICAN 00 WHEEL
1. 26 -1 -1
2. 17 -1 -2
3. 27 +1 -1
4. 9 +1 0
5. 33 -1 -1
6. 35 -1 -2
7. 19 +1 -1
8. 5 -1 -2
9. 4 -1 -3
10. 8 -1 -4
11. 8 -1 -5
12. 24 -1 -6
13. 22 -1 -7
14. 11 -1 -8
15. 2 -1 -9
16. 17 -1 -10
17. 26 -1 -11
18. 1 +1 -10
19. 22 -1 -11
20. 7 +1 -10
21. 28 -1 -11
22. 24 -1 -12
23. 13 -1 -13
24. 18 +1 -12
25. 36 +1 -11
26. 20 -1 -12
27. 15 -1 -13
28. 13 -1 -14
29. 13 -1 -15
30. 15 -1 -16
31. 15 -1 -17
32. 12 +1 -16
33. 13 -1 -17
34. 11 -1 -18
35. 24 -1 -19
36. 00 -1 -20
37. 00 -1 -21 GO UP TO 2 UNITS
38. 28 -2 -23
39. 4 -2 -25
40. 19 +2 -23
41. 26 -2 -25
42. 9 +2 -23
43. 24 -2 -25
44. 34 +2 -23
45. 14 +2 -21
46. 9 +2 -19
47. 8 -2 -21
48. 24 -2 -23
49. 23 +2 -21
50. 27 +2 -19
51. 25 +2 -17
52. 24 -2 -19
53. 13 -2 -21
54. 29 -2 -23
55. 18 +2 -21
56. 4 -2 -23
57. 1 +2 -21
58. 12 +2 -19
59. 00 -2 -21
60. 10 -2 -23
61. 8 -2 -25
62. 20 -2 -27
63. 18 +2 -25
64. 18 +2 -23
65. 18 +2 -21
66. 7 +2 -19
67. 33 -2 -21
68. 31 -2 -23
69. 21 +2 -21
70. 28 -2 -23
71. 23 +2 -21
72. 22 -2 -23
73. 21 +2 -21
74. 31 -2 -23 GO UP TO 4
75. 35 -4 -27
76. 9 +4 -23
77. 31 -4 -27
78. 25 +4 -23
79. 32 +4 -19
80. 35 -4 -23
81. 27 +4 -19
82. 29 -4 -23
83. 31 -4 -27
84. 23 +4 -23
85. 6 -4 -27
86. 20 -4 -31
87. 1 +4 -27
88. 13 -4 -31
89. 7 +4 -27
90. 27 +4 -23
91. 26 -4 -27
92. 34 +4 -23
93. 29 -4 -27
94. 33 -4 -31
95. 00 -4 -35
96. 17 -4 -39
97. 34 +4 -35
98. 28 -4 -39
99. 1 +4 -35
100. 6 -4 -39
101. 22 -4 -43
102. 3 +4 -39
103. 35 -4 -43
104. 4 -4 -47
105. 2 -4 -51
106. 34 +4 -47
107. 5 +4 -43
108. 36 +4 -39
109. 33 -4 -43
110. 10 -4 -47
111. 3 +4 -43 GO UP TO 8
112. 15 -8 -51
113. 24 -8 -59
114. 27 +8 -51
115. 36 +8 -43
116. 16 +8 -35
117. 23 +8 -27
118. 9 +8 -19
119. 2 -8 -27
120. 22 -8 -35
121. 21 +8 -27
122. 11 -8 -35
123. 33 -8 -43
124. 00 -8 -51
125. 19 +8 -43
126. 12 +8 -35
127. 16 +8 -27
128. 14 +8 -19
129. 31 -8 -27
130. 8 -8 -35
131. 1 +8 -27
132. 19 +8 -19
133. 11 -8 -27
134. 8 -8 -35
135. 20 -8 -43
136. 15 -8 -51
137. 19 +8 -43
138. 25 +8 -35
139. 28 -8 -43
140. 31 -8 -51
141. 32 +8 -43
142. 11 -8 -51
143. 4 -8 -59
144. 21 +8 -51
145. 6 -8 -59
146. 28 -8 -67
147. 8 -8 -75
148. 00 -8 -83 GO UP TO 16 UNITS
149. 33 -16 -99
150. 35 -16 -115
151. 20 -16 -131
152. 5 +16 -115
153. 34 +16 -99
154. 4 -16 -115
155. 21 +16 -99
156. 8 -16 -115
157. 3 +16 -99
158. 20 -16 -115
159. 0 -16 -131
160. 00 -16 -147
161. 10 -16 -163
162. 10 -16 -179
163. 22 -16 -195
164. 0 -16 -211
165. 16 +16 -195
166. 9 +16 -179
167. 0 -16 -195
168. 11 -16 -211
169. 35 -16 -227
170. 9 +16 -211
171. 00 -16 -227
172. 26 -16 -243
173. 29 -16 -259
174. 33 -16 -275
175. 0 -16 -291
176. 11 -16 -307
177. 29 -16 -323
178. 32 +16 -307
179. 24 -16 -323
180. 16 +16 -307
181. 30 +16 -291
182. 24 -16 -307
183. 20 -16 -323
184. 20 -16 -339
185. 30 +16 -323 GO UP TO 32
186. 14 +32 -291
187. 33 -32 -323
188. 30 +32 -291
189. 19 +32 -259
190. 9 +32 -227
191. 15 -32 -259
192. 4 -32 -291
193. 1 +32 -259
194. 10 -32 -291
195. 33 -32 -323
196. 14 +32 -291
197. 26 -32 -323
198. 20 -32 -355
199. 31 -32 -387
200. 7 +32 -355
201. 23 +32 -323
202. 22 -32 -355
203. 7 +32 -323
204. 28 -32 -355
205. 9 +32 -323
206. 00 -32 -355
207. 14 +32 -323
208. 22 -32 -355
209. 24 -32 -387
210. 3 +32 -355
211. 26 -32 -387
212. 31 -32 -419
213. 14 +32 -387
214. 22 -32 -419
215. 29 -32 -451
216. 25 +32 -419
217. 9 +32 -387
218. 12 +32 -355
219. 35 -32 -387
220. 31 -32 -419
221. 18 +32 -387
222. 30 +32 -355 GO UP TO 64
223. 7 +64 -291
224. 16 +64 -227
225. 9 +64 -163
226. 7 +64 -99
227. 4 -64 -163
228. 1 +64 -99
229. 26 -64 -163
230. 24 -64 -227
231. 32 +64 -163
232. 1 +64 -99
233. 18 +64 -35
234. 9 +64 +29 RESTART AT 1 UNIT
Summary}
234 outcomes / +29 units total / highest balance +29 units/
lowest balance -451 units / highest bet 64 units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the first cycle of 38 spins the SD is 3.16
For the first 2 cycles (76 spins) the SD is 3
For the first 3 cycles (114 spins) the SD is 3.32
For the first 4 cycles (152 spins) the SD is 3.60
For the first 5 cycles (190 spins) the SD is 4.12
For the first 6 cycles (228 spins) the SD is 4
The net profit of 29 units is being achieved on the 234th spin and at that time the SD was 3.74
The maximum drawdown was on 215th spin with -451 units and 4.56 SD
Blue Angel claims that this has been battle-tested over millions of spins without a loss.
After searching through the posts about this on 2 other forums, no-one has been able to tank it.
Enjoy!!! :thumbsup:
Really no one? With that progression?
Where the rx guys .... :smile:
a marty
if down after 37 spins 2 units
if down after the next 37 up to 4 units
etc?
Quote from: denzie on Feb 23, 09:20 PM 2016
Really no one? With that progression?
Where the rx guys .... :smile:
My thoughts exactly!!!
It's interesting.......Reyth over @ roulette30 claims that it tanks with 1000unit bankroll, but succeeds with 3000 units, but when asked to show the sequence where it fails, he refuses.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Feb 23, 09:25 PM 2016
a marty
if down after 37 spins 2 units
if down after the next 37 up to 4 units
etc?
......a bit more complicated when you add in the tracking of all 3 EC, but yes, a Marty.
Please feel free to show a sequence that kills it!!! :thumbsup:
Now let's say for a minute that it's the hg. In a B&M or live online we won't make much money as it needs many spins.
So only rng would make this wurth our time.
Quote from: denzie on Feb 23, 09:29 PM 2016
Now let's say for a minute that it's the hg. In a B&M or live online we won't make much money as it needs many spins.
So only rng would make this wurth our time.
Well, let's use the above as an example :
Table Limit :
5000Units won :
29Highest bet : 64, but let's say
128 as the method states
So your 1 unit base could be as high as 39 x 29units won = $1131 for 5hrs work or $226/hr.
$226/hr x 40hrs per week =
$9048/wk or $470,496 per year :thumbsup:
this is not playable at a real table
pit boss would cut you off really fast id think
would have to be airball?
just assuming
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Feb 23, 09:36 PM 2016
this is not playable at a real table
pit boss would cut you off really fast id think
would have to be airball?
just assuming
For a Marty..........they would comp you a room and dinner!!! :thumbsup:
Rofl...the staff probably bet when this guy gonna lose :D
Geez, I remember my Marty days. At least 13 years ago.....thought I would have a new sports car within three months of playing. :-\
Ken
i have been using this on 00 wheel using splits where each cycle is 19 spins always betting on a rolling basis the least 9 splits that have hit........and rg is right very playable on airball......just make sure your splits are even by that i mean all 19 splits should be made up of one red and black # so it is balanced except of course 0/00...............have fun
Quote from: keepontryin on Feb 23, 10:19 PM 2016
i have been using this on 00 wheel using splits where each cycle is 19 spins always betting on a rolling basis the least 9 splits that have hit........and rg is right very playable on airball......just make sure your splits are even by that i mean all 19 splits should be made up of one red and black # so it is balanced except of course 0/00...............have fun
:thumbsup:lets assume airball is 100% fair no foul play.....its awesome because no pitboss or anything.....do your own thing no bother from anyone
and i do include 0/00 in my play......
It's no better than most other systems. The progression gets heavy and risky at the end. It will either tank or get lucky. It's just martingale.
I don't believe it would beat 1m spins, unless it had unrealistic table limits.
The system doesn't even consider where the ball falls. Following cold numbers is no better than following hot numbers unless there is a bias.
THANKS FOR THE INSPERATION.......tell me what works best for you ?
thanks for the inspiration.......maybe being the moderator you can guide me to the right direction....ill be waiting
Its not a matter of what works for "me". It's what works for anyone. Truth is not opinion. See link:://:.roulettephysics.com/how-to-win-at-roulette/ which explains in plain language how roulette can and cannot be beaten, and why. Also the page link:://:.roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy/ has more detail.
I agree Steve but I dont get involved anymore.
Ken
Quote from: MrJ on Feb 25, 08:46 PM 2016
I agree Steve but I dont get involved anymore.
Ken
If that were only true...........funny how you keep popping up. :ooh:
Maybe sharing some of your knowledge.................instead of reminding everyone that you're not sharing knowledge . :sad2:
.................but you are a Mod, so I guess that's accepted here. Wait!.......Didn't you say that you asked Steve to remove you as a Moderator.............now I'm completely confused.
So you are a Mod, but have requested not to be, and your posting on a forum to let members know that you're no longer involved. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
@thelaw >> Please stop attacking me. Thank you and have a blessed day.
Ken
Quote from: MrJ on Feb 25, 09:52 PM 2016
@thelaw >> Please stop attacking me. Thank you and have a blessed day.
Ken
@MrJ>>I'm an Atheist..........but Thank you Ken......all the best! :thumbsup:
thanks steve for directing me to that interesting link......that being said ....what are you doing here ?
Hello,
I tested this system betting on red colour with original rules, though the martingale cycle was 36, because I tried it for no zero spins and it didn't work the bets went to sky. So I played a bit with it, the "best" way of play I found is kind of hit and run. So to stop playing once you are 1 in plus or once stoploss is reached while the stoploss is set to -1 000. The progression is changed so that there is still cycle of 36, but there is not martingale, but the bet is increased by 1/3 and rounded up. If the progression is bigger than is needed to get to +1 the progression is reduced so that if win you are in +1. I tested this for 920 000 games. The result bankroll is 93 360, the number of spins played is 16 173 148, so on average you need 173 spins to make 1 unit. I think drawdowns can get very deep.
I have tested this over 2 billions spins. You would need a huge bankroll to play this - almost 20.000 units and also table limmits over 5000 on EC to survive the biggest drawdowns... Not playable anywhere as far as I know of...
Hi MrG, I got question , could you introduce exactly as you play this progression.
What stakes exactly You use.
I would be very grateful
I certainly appreciate blue angels posts
Well thought out and even if it isnt good he shares which is good
I give him kudos
That being said, this system is not playable at all
Quote from: vladir on Feb 26, 12:50 PM 2016
Not playable anywhere as far as I know of...
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Feb 26, 01:29 PM 2016
That being said, this system is not playable at all
I agree. I'm not here to mock the method but this one isn't playable because of the amount of spins the tests has been to be in profit.
I know, that shouldn't come from me, since I've posted long ass test myself before, but I regret them all.
Now, my tests are based on this: time. For how many spins per day can I play this game? 30. And maybe 2-4 times per month I can go as far as to 60, but never more than that.
Why so few spins? Simple, it's because I have a fiance and a daughter. The tests I do nowadays must be within those spins, or my test is not fair because I have a family. If my test doesent show profit in the first 30 spins I've lost.
In this method, if I were to be 3u + in less than 30 spins, I would be alot happier than with 30u + in 333 spins. And since you need to track 36 spins before you place a bet, I can't test it.
I've got nothing against BA and haven't seen proof that this method has tanked in 1000 000 spins, but I don't need it. simply because this method is not realistic to play in roulette.
Quote from: ozon on Feb 26, 01:23 PM 2016
Hi MrG, I got question , could you introduce exactly as you play this progression.
What stakes exactly You use.
I would be very grateful
As I wrote it is hit and run style, it is played in games. Every game is independent from other games, so for every game the starting bankroll is 0. Game ends either when you are 1 unit in plus or when you reach the stoploss -1 000. The progression cycle is shortened to 36. So if none of the abovementioned conditions is met and 36 bets were placed the bet amount is increased by 1/3 and rounded up. I always start with bet 1 unit. For example if you are at bet 10 and 36 bets were placed than you increase bet by 1/3, what is 10/3 = 3,3333 rounded up is 4. So you increase bet size by 4, now the bet is 14. If other 36 bets were placed you add 1/3 to 14 and this is new bet size and so on.
And I forgot to mention that once bet is higher than is needed in order to get to +1 the bet is decreased to such value.
Thanks for the answer, when I read your post carefully I understood exactly the same.
My only disclaimer is that 10,000 units enough to make this strategy work, or drowdawns are much larger.
I know stoplose session is 1,000 units
Quote from: ozon on Feb 26, 04:59 PM 2016
Thanks for the answer, when I read your post carefully I understood exactly the same.
My only disclaimer is that 10,000 units enough to make this strategy work, or drowdawns are much larger.
I know stoplose session is 1,000 units
Regarding drawdowns I don't know. The biggest drawdown I have seen is -1 128, but that is just for one game. If it cummulates, it can be much bigger, I'm afraid that even more than 10 000.
Everyone posting testing results:
Make sure to read the method carefully.
Some testers are just picking a color and pushing forward with the Martingale. This is not the method.
The bet selection changes with each and every cycle of 37 spins.
Choosing only 1 color was used in the example based on a "worst case scenario" w/l registry. :thumbsup:
My improvements from another forum this
This is only a concept, when we have a such and strong progressions as Blue Angel, we can make improvements, let's assume That we play RNG in begin to look forward to sessions waiting for imbalance of 10 hits in first 20 spins (let's say 14 -4 or 15-5 in the EC bets) then start betting on the side with low hits. We play only Those sessions.
Then we are already at the start plus 10 positions in the first 37 spins, Which are the first stage of the Blue Angel progression. The next improvement is used safebreaks, dry as virtual wine after 4 losers. The session ends when you first get out on the plus side. We enable the new sessions, and begin to look for a new trigger.
Quote from: thelaw on Feb 23, 09:35 PM 2016
Well, let's use the above as an example :
Table Limit : 5000
Units won : 29
Highest bet : 64, but let's say 128 as the method states
So your 1 unit base could be as high as 39 x 29units won = $1131 for 5hrs work or $226/hr.
$226/hr x 40hrs per week = $9048/wk or $470,496 per year :thumbsup:
Can you explain this pls ?
Btw ... what are the average table limits in the states ?
Nvm just got it. Well looks like your table limits are bit better then my local casino. :thumbsup:
Quote from: denzie on Feb 29, 02:07 PM 2016
Nvm just got it. Well looks like your table limits are bit better then my local casino. :thumbsup:
I was going off average vegas tables..........$5000 limit is not that unusual.
The real question would be one of heat, but with a Marty............they would love for you to play as long as you like. :thumbsup:
I would probably choose 1 table per day, and try to hit each casino once per month (or less if possible). Again..........a grinder....
Blue_Angel claims it's been tested on millions simulated spins and the whole wiesbaden archive?
Now that's a claim you don't hear every day. Anyone can tank it ?
Quote from: denzie on Feb 29, 06:59 PM 2016
Blue_Angel claims it's been tested on millions simulated spins and the whole wiesbaden archive?
Now that's a claim you don't hear every day. Anyone can tank it ?
Just in case anyone brings it up..........Reyth claimed that he had to go to 3000 units to survive over 10,000 spins, but refused to show the sequence where it ran out of control.
BA challenged him, but Reyth claims that he lost the data...... :sad2:
The RX-CREW should easily clear this one up. .... Anyone?
Hello all,
I also tried a very similar system to this one with the following small differences.
Instead of waiting 37 spins to get the least hit EC, I start betting after the 1st spin. Blue Angel I believe only bet one EC at a time even if there was a tie. I bet all EC that are tied so after the first spin I would be betting on 5 EC that have not hit. Eventually you will only have 1 EC to bet on but this gives us more action to start rather than wait for 37 spins before betting.
As soon as a new EC becomes the least hit, I start betting. No waiting until the 37 spin cycle completes.
Those are the only changes I can think of.
The graph of the results for 1,000,000 spins attached.
Cheers
Nick
Wow...look at that.
Go get your 100k from Steve 8)
How did you apply the progression?
Of course a run downhill on that graph means a looooong time to get back up in reality. But still :thumbsup:
Quote from: Nickmsi on Feb 29, 08:42 PM 2016
Hello all,
I also tried a very similar system to this one with the following small differences.
Instead of waiting 37 spins to get the least hit EC, I start betting after the 1st spin. Blue Angel I believe only bet one EC at a time even if there was a tie. I bet all EC that are tied so after the first spin I would be betting on 5 EC that have not hit. Eventually you will only have 1 EC to bet on but this gives us more action to start rather than wait for 37 spins before betting.
As soon as a new EC becomes the least hit, I start betting. No waiting until the 37 spin cycle completes.
Those are the only changes I can think of.
The graph of the results for 1,000,000 spins attached.
Cheers
Nick
maybe im not understanding something properly, but any hit equals 3 ECs?
Quote from: Nickmsi on Feb 29, 08:42 PM 2016
Hello all,
I also tried a very similar system to this one with the following small differences.
Instead of waiting 37 spins to get the least hit EC, I start betting after the 1st spin. Blue Angel I believe only bet one EC at a time even if there was a tie. I bet all EC that are tied so after the first spin I would be betting on 5 EC that have not hit. Eventually you will only have 1 EC to bet on but this gives us more action to start rather than wait for 37 spins before betting.
As soon as a new EC becomes the least hit, I start betting. No waiting until the 37 spin cycle completes.
Those are the only changes I can think of.
The graph of the results for 1,000,000 spins attached.
Cheers
Nick
So roughly
+1 unit every 55 spins vs
+1 unit for every 10 spins with BA's FHG..............either way it's still a winner!!! :thumbsup:
Quote from: thelaw on Feb 29, 09:22 PM 2016
So roughly +1 unit every 35 spins vs +1 unit for every 10 spins with BA's FHG..............either way it's still a winner!!! :thumbsup:
FHG?
Quote from: denzie on Feb 29, 09:26 PM 2016
FHG?
Fallacious Holy Grail (named by Blue Angel)
@nick... started from 1unit Base bet ?
If the system is legitimately beating 1M rng spins, and you can repeat that with other spins that are proper random, then yes I'll pay for that.
My understanding is:
* The system is betting on cold numbers
* The martingale is applied over 37 spin cycles.
This wont work because:
1. Any sequence of cold numbers wont change the odds of other numbers spinning next. Need proof? See the free software at link:://:.roulettephysics.com/roulette-pattern-detector/ and test millions of spins, or even billions. Betting on cold or hot numbers, especially with rng, doesnt at all change the odds of winning. And if you havent changed the odds, and the payouts are the same, then your bet selection method changed nothing.
2. Martingale is martingale, whether it's after 1 loss or 37 losses.
If it has won over 1m spins, maybe the spins arent properly random. Or maybe it was extremely lucky over 1M spins, but further testing wont have the same results. Or maybe it was tested with some parameter that wasnt set correctly, like the house edge.
Can anyone post the roulette xtreme file? I can test this for myself. If it really works, I would pay the $100k anyway. Even though the system is free. But consider the points above, and if you understand them, you'll understand the system is no different to any other martingale system.
Couple of clarifications :
1) System is based on cold ec, so, yes, based on cold numbers.......but not just a few, the ec that's the most behind for each 37 spin cycle
2) The 1 million spin test on this thread is a similar system, but not the exact system as outlined by Blue Angel (on first page). It was provided as a reference.
3) Someone else mentioned the $100K reward, not Blue Angel. As it is his system, respectfully, it would be up to him to make that claim if he chooses
4) As far as I know, BA has not posted his 1 million spins, but has the challenge out to anyone to find a sequence that kills the method. He also stated that the method beat all of the Weisbaden Spielbank results. This data has not been presented on any forum as far as I know. BA has run the method on each and every challenge set provided publicly on several forums.
5) As for a "lucky" million spins, let's be precise. How many spins proves that a system actually works long term? Keep in mind, the 1 million spin test on this thread had an average +1 unit for each 55 spins and a dd over 5000 units.........not sure I would call that lucky, but maybe..
All of the above is to the best of my knowledge, so probably best to get precise details from BA himself!!! :thumbsup:
QuoteHow many spins proves that a system actually works long term?
There is no set number. Simply the more spins you test, the higher the probability that the system is a genuine winner. Even with bias analysis, 10,000 spins doesnt guarantee a bias is real. It is just a statistically relevant sample, and calculated risk. But for the purposes of testing a system like this, 1M spins would be adequate, but then i would test it again over a completely different 1m spins with proper rng algorithm.
If no zero roulette is used, then there is no house edge and beating 1M spins would be more plausible.
Quote from: thelaw on Mar 01, 06:05 PM 2016
All of the above is to the best of my knowledge, so probably best to get precise details from BA himself!!! :thumbsup:
Let's bring him over here :)
And as his manager I'll take 20% . Just kiddiiiiing. :P
Seriously though. ...would be interesting to let him join the thread.
i think its pretty cut and dry
the man won a 1,000,000 spin test
however i do not see it as playable
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Mar 01, 06:12 PM 2016
i think its pretty cut and dry
the man won a 1,000,000 spin test
however i do not see it as playable
Why not? On fast rng spins it's very playable
Quote from: denzie on Mar 01, 06:13 PM 2016
Why not? On fast rng spins it's very playable
i guess so.....hey if it works....and u got the balls and the bankroll
At the moment we know nothing about the parameters used in the test, or the spins. I see free energy devices all the time with fantastic claims from the inventor. And when it comes to other people replicating experiments and validating claims, everything falls flat. It doesnt mean free energy doesnt exist because it clearly does (solar for example), but my point is often improper testing is done.
RG any system can be is scalable. It is more the working principles of a system that interest me, not the system itself. ie the mechanism and logic behind the bet selection. Because then if it worked, it can be applied to many areas.
Quote from: Steve on Mar 01, 06:16 PM 2016
At the moment we know nothing about the parameters used in the test, or the spins. I see free energy devices all the time with fantastic claims from the inventor. And when it comes to other people replicating experiments and validating claims, everything falls flat. It doesnt mean free energy doesnt exist because it clearly does (solar for example), but my point is often improper testing is done.
Well will see if Blue_Angel or Nickmsi wanna join the challenge. .... would be interesting right ?
Quote from: Steve on Mar 01, 06:10 PM 2016
There is no set number. Simply the more spins you test, the higher the probability that the system is a genuine winner. Even with bias analysis, 10,000 spins doesnt guarantee a bias is real. It is just a statistically relevant sample, and calculated risk. But for the purposes of testing a system like this, 1M spins would be adequate, but then i would test it again over a completely different 1m spins with proper rng algorithm.
If no zero roulette is used, then there is no house edge and beating 1M spins would be more plausible.
At some point we have to call it.
If not, 1 million is labeled possibly "lucky", so then 2 million..........then maybe there's an issue with that.......the line keeps moving.
I would say 1 Million spins is enough proof to actually play the system live or rng, unless there is a flaw in the testing. :thumbsup:
Hopefully Nickmsi can provide more testing info. I don't think that BA is interested in joining this forum, or he'd be here already.
So far who has actually tested the system over 1M spins? Is it just BA himself? If thats the case, then why would be publish a fantastic chart and not let anyone test it?
Isnt it a bit suspicious, like saying "Here's my system and I'll make millions. But you cant have it. You cant even have the spins I tested with" Its the kind of thing CEH did.
Anyway refer back to my points that indicate it is just a martingale. Nobody should take my word for it. Just test the free software I provided and see for yourself his approach wont work.
I dont know the guy but if I'm right about the above, then shouldnt it all be obvious?
Again about rhe progression, look at it: 1,2,4,8,16,32,64
Thats out of control. One of two things can happen: you get really lucky with the larger bets, or blow your bankroll. So which is going to happen? Well are the cold numbers going to come back in waves? NO..... Roulette doesnt work like that. Its easy to prove, See the free software. The same principles have been tested countless times.
Steve,
In the tool you provided how is it possible to test for R/B sequences? Do you just type in X amount of numbers that are either red or black?
Quote from: Steve on Mar 01, 06:36 PM 2016
So far who has actually tested the system over 1M spins? Is it just BA himself? If thats the case, then why would be publish a fantastic chart and not let anyone test it?
Isnt it a bit suspicious, like saying "Here's my system and I'll make millions. But you cant have it. You cant even have the spins I tested with" Its the kind of thing CEH did.
Anyway refer back to my points that indicate it is just a martingale. Nobody should take my word for it. Just test the free software I provided and see for yourself his approach wont work.
I dont know the guy but if I'm right about the above, then shouldnt it all be obvious?
Close......but a few clarifications:
-He put the method out for free in response to from another member of a "horror sequence", so he's not trolling by waving his system in front of everyone without details. It's all there in black and white.
-I agree about not showing the spins as proof, but that's up to him. I only criticize members who are withholding about the details of their system, not long-term testing. The exception being if they are selling their method.......then we need to see everything. :thumbsup:
Download the file (right click and save): :.roulettephysics.com/files/1and2.txt
1 is red, 2 is black.
Then search for any sequence you want. There are over 4,00,000 spins in the file.
Law, if he is giving it all away for free, good on him. But in any case he should expect people to test, and to not get offended by results. By the look of it he is getting offended. Anyway I'd love to be proven wrong but I dont see the system has any merit at all. I'm sure proper and independent testing will show this.
Quote from: Steve on Mar 01, 06:58 PM 2016
Download the file (right click and save): :.roulettephysics.com/files/1and2.txt
1 is red, 2 is black.
Then search for any sequence you want. There are over 4,00,000 spins in the file.
Do you have any with actual numbers?
The method requires actual numbers as it changes for each and every cold ec over each 37 spins cycle.
Thanks!!!:thumbsup:
Quote from: Steve on Mar 01, 07:01 PM 2016
Law, if he is giving it all away for free, good on him. But in any case he should expect people to test, and to not get offended by results. By the look of it he is getting offended. Anyway I'd love to be proven wrong but I dont see the system has any merit at all. I'm sure proper and independent testing will show this.
Where is he getting offended? :question:
On the note of system sales, sellers are subject to even more scrutiny. And they should be, because most systems are scams. Thats why I do things like give computers for free testing, open free trials, public demos etc. I understand skepticism but really roulette physics aint that complicated. You cant beat all wheels, but you can beat more than enough with considerable edge.
Quote from: Steve on Mar 01, 06:58 PM 2016
Download the file (right click and save): :.roulettephysics.com/files/1and2.txt
1 is red, 2 is black.
Then search for any sequence you want. There are over 4,00,000 spins in the file.
hola ,por cada 1800 numeros que ustedes gasten , no tendran menos de 25 aciertos ni mas de 75,
chance=18
docena=12
seisena=6
cuadro=4
calle=3
semipleno=2
pleno =1
saludos
Law, from what I saw he is having a go at Reyth calling him a liar with big bold letters etc. He looks pretty angry when it looks like Reyth is saying what he found
hello for every 1,800 numbers you spend, shall be not less than 25 nor more than 75 successes
by chance = 18
Dozen = 12
seisena = 6
box = 4
Calle 3 =
semipleno = 2
full = 1 Greetings
Quote from: Steve on Mar 01, 07:09 PM 2016
Law, from what I saw he is having a go at Reyth calling him a liar with big bold letters etc. He looks pretty angry when it looks like Reyth is saying what he found
Yes.....but not without reason...........I followed that whole interaction.
So Reyth claims that he ran 1,000,000 spins and that the method needed a 3000 unit bankroll as opposed to a 600 unit bankroll to survive. Not that it failed, but just needed a larger bankroll.
So BA asks him to provide the sequence where it fails. Not the whole million, but just the few hundred where it went sideways.
Reyth then goes silent.................then refuses to present the sequence............then BA called him out in bold letters.
I jumped in to ask about this and Kav immediately came to Reyth's rescue, saying that he didn't need to provide proof to anyone.
If you know their history, it makes sense that Kav would defend Reyth. :thumbsup:
None of that matters. What matters is that it beat 1mil spins. The fights or talk about it can't be etc....we not need this at this point.
we need prove.
So can it be done again?
Who can help ?
Why would Kav defend Reyth? I read that Reyth tested Kav's system and found it failed. And once this was published, Kav quickly made Reyth a mod to keep him happy. Whether or not its true, I dont know.
I can engineer a system to win against 1m spins. But try it on another set. But anyway if you have a strong progression like the martingale, you can either go broke in spectacular fashion or get lucky. I have no doubt that proper testing will show the system loses. But I would love to eat my words really.
Quote from: Steve on Mar 01, 07:27 PM 2016
Why would Kav defend Reyth? I read that Reyth tested Kav's system and found it failed. And once this was published, Kav quickly made Reyth a mod to keep him happy. Whether or not its true, I dont know.
I can engineer a system to win against 1m spins. But try it on another set. But anyway if you have a strong progression like the martingale, you can either go broke in spectacular fashion or get lucky. I have no doubt that proper testing will show the system loses. But I would love to eat my words really.
Reyth was an obsessive poster, and Kav saw this as a huge asset. Reyth was testing a system, which failed, and then Kav started selling his method soon after (literally one day after Reyth stopped posting on the thread after posting multiple times daily, Kav's system went on sale, and Reyth was made a mod).
There was even a time when Reyth was cutting and pasting failed methods from other forums (including some of yours), just to keep the forum active. This is what kav likes about Reyth.......he keeps the forum humming!!! :thumbsup:
Quote from: denzie on Mar 01, 07:25 PM 2016
None of that matters. What matters is that it beat 1mil spins. The fights or talk about it can't be etc....we not need this at this point.
we need prove.
So can it be done again?
Who can help ?
Agreed. I put out a call to BA on Betselection, so we'll see what happens. :question:
Quote from: Steve on Mar 01, 06:58 PM 2016
Download the file (right click and save): :.roulettephysics.com/files/1and2.txt
1 is red, 2 is black.
Then search for any sequence you want. There are over 4,00,000 spins in the file.
Thank you
Why dont we just test the working principle for bet selection. And ask the question: does the method of backing sleepers change the odds that the sleepers will somehow come back and become hot numbers?
NOOOOO. And thats my point.
So if the odds of winning havent changed, what's left? A martingale.
It's worse than reinventing a broken wheel. You just need to see it for what it is.
RX testing will show the same thing. I'd love for someone to code this in RX and publish the file.
Quote from: Steve on Mar 01, 07:58 PM 2016I'd love for someone to code this in RX and publish the file.
We all would like to see that :love:
Quote from: Steve on Mar 01, 07:58 PM 2016
Why dont we just test the working principle for bet selection. And ask the question: does the method of backing sleepers change the odds that the sleepers will somehow come back and become hot numbers?
NOOOOO. And thats my point.
So if the odds of winning havent changed, what's left? A martingale.
It's worse than reinventing a broken wheel. You just need to see it for what it is.
RX testing will show the same thing. I'd love for someone to code this in RX and publish the file.
See? Doesn't it just kill ya to say nothing? (lol)
Ken
Yes Ken. It goes in circles. But I recognize I probably wouldnt have "gotten it" either. But now that I do understand it, I dont know what I was thinking. I'm sure I've said that too, many times before.
all that matters is this guy beat 1 million spins
we need to know can it be repeated? is it playable? and how long to secure enough profit to end for the day?
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Mar 01, 08:25 PM 2016
all that matters is this guy beat 1 million spins
we need to know can it be repeated? is it playable? and how long to secure enough profit to end for the day?
Ok, I'm notorious for not reading every post, indulge me. How do we/you know he beat 1 million spins?
Ken
Quote from: MrJ on Mar 01, 08:30 PM 2016
Ok, I'm notorious for not reading every post, indulge me. How do we/you know he beat 1 million spins?
Ken
Please dont tell me, he TOLD YOU SO?
Ken
RouletteGhost is no longer here to butt heads. RouletteGhost is here for one reason and one reason only. to test. to test. to see what works. and win.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Mar 01, 08:52 PM 2016
RouletteGhost is no longer here to butt heads. RouletteGhost is here for one reason and one reason only. to test. to test. to see what works. and win.
I respect that 100% !! Can I say one last thing? (maybe second last thing)
Make sure your testing matches up perfectly with ACTUAL play, thats all I want to say, deuces.
Ken
Quote from: MrJ on Mar 01, 08:57 PM 2016
I respect that 100% !! Can I say one last thing? (maybe second last thing)
Make sure your testing matched up perfectly with ACTUAL play, thats all I want to say, deuces.
Ken
i agree. thats why grassroots is my personal HG
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
Thomas A. Edison (or Ken?)
Update......The Plot Thickens!!!
"I saw lots of hue and cry over the progression suggested by Blue Angel which I like to call "Delayed Martingale". i have created a tracker for the same for everyone to see. Anybody is free to post/attach the tracker to all relevant forums as I do not write in other forums. It tanks so badly that eventually, it will need infinite chips and unlimited table limits like regular martingale. I have attached a regular session and an RNG page where anybody can see infinite 10k spins sessions with this way.
I do not have any enmity with either Blue Angel or Nickmsi as both have been my friends and they have every right to suggest methods as I or anybody do. I just want to show all that just delaying the martingale by playing in spans of 37 spins, doesn't make a winner by itself."
I could not attach excel directly here so uploaded it on file upload site: link:://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=00136778777113954514
link:://:.GF/threads/anybody-think-such-bad-streak-can-be-won.4269/
-Albalaha
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And then.......
"Updated report from 10000 spins from random.org
After 1567 spins the total is +158 units
Bet never exceed 16 units
Max drawdown 161 units
I will upload this excel file when I'm done with it."
-Blue Angel
I think that this was in response to a challenge from another poster, so he's catching up from a few days ago. The original poster claimed that the method failed with these same numbers, and BA has been updating this every couple of days.
BETTING ALWAYS ON RED / FRENCH ROULETTE WITH "LE PARTAGE" RULE
S=Spin R=Result T=Total
S R T
1 -1 -1
2 -1 -2
3 W +1 -1
4 -1 -2
5 W +1 -1
6 -1 -2
7 W +1 -1
8 -1 -2
9 -1 -3
10 W +1 -2
11 -1 -3
12 W +1 -2
13 -1 -3
14/ZERO -0.5 -3.5
15 -1 -4.5
16 W +1 -3.5
17 -1 -4.5
18 -1 -5.5
19 -1 -6.5
20 -1 -7.5
21 W +1 -6.5
22 -1 -7.5
23 W +1 -6.5
24 -1 -7.5
25 -1 -8.5
26 -1 -9.5
27 -1 -10.5
28 -1 -11.5
29 W +1 -10.5
30 -1 -11.5
31 W +1 -10.5
32 W +1 -9.5
33 -1 -10.5
34 -1 -11.5
35 W +1 -10.5
36 W +1 -9.5
37 W +1 -8.5
38 W +2 -6.5 BET RAISES TO 2 UNITS
39 -2 -8.5
40 -2 -10.5
41 -2 -12.5
42 W +2 -10.5
43 -2 -12.5
44 -2 -14.5
45 W +2 -12.5
46 W +2 -10.5
47 -2 -12.5
48 -2 -14.5
49 -2 -16.5
50 -2 -18.5
51 -2 -20.5
52 W +2 -18.5
53 -2 -20.5
54 -2 -22.5
55 W +2 -20.5
56 -2 -22.5
57 -2 -24.5
58 W +2 -22.5
59 -2 -24.5
60 -2 -26.5
61 -2 -28.5
62 W +2 -26.5
63 -2 -28.5
64 -2 -30.5
65 W +2 -28.5
66 -2 -30.5
67 -2 -32.5
68 W +2 -30.5
69 W +2 -28.5
70 -2 -30.5
71 W +2 -28.5
72 -2 -30.5
73 -2 -32.5
74 -2 -34.5
75 W +4 -30.5 BET RAISES TO 4 UNITS
76 -4 -34.5
77 W +4 -30.5
78 -4 -34.5
79 -4 -38.5
80 W +4 -34.5
81 -4 -38.5
82 -4 -42.5
83 -4 -46.5
84 -4 -50.5
85 -4 -52.5
86 -4 -56.5
87 -4 -60.5
88 -4 -64.5
89 -4 -68.5
90 W +4 -64.5
91 -4 -68.5
92 W +4 -64.5
93 -4 -68.5
94 -4 -72.5
95 W +4 -68.5
96 -4 -72.5
97 W +4 -68.5
98 -4 -72.5
99 -4 -76.5
100 -4 -80.5
101 W +4 -76.5
102 W +4 -72.5
103 -4 -76.5
104 W +4 -72.5
105/ZERO -2 -74.5
106 -4 -78.5
107 -4 -82.5
108 -4 -86.5
109 -4 -90.5
110 -4 -94.5
111 -4 -98.5
112 -8 -106.5 BET RAISES TO 8 UNITS
113 -8 -114.5
114 W +8 -106.5
115 -8 -114.5
116 -8 -122.5
117 W +8 -114.5
118 -8 -122.5
119 W +8 -114.5
120 -8 -122.5
121 -8 -130.5
122 W +8 -122.5
123 -8 -130.5
124 -8 -138.5
125 -8 -146.5
126 -8 -154.5
127 -8 -162.5
128 W +8 -154.5
129 W +8 -146.5
130 W +8 -138.5
131 W +8 -130.5
132 -8 -138.5
133 -8 -146.5
134 W +8 -138.5
135 -8 -146.5
136 -8 -154.5
137 -8 -162.5
138 W +8 -154.5
139 -8 -162.5
140 W +8 -154.5
141 -8 -162.5
142 -8 -170.5
143 W +8 -162.5
144 -8 -170.5
145 W +8 -162.5
146 W +8 -154.5
147 W +8 -146.5
148 -8 -154.5
149 W +16 -138.5 BET RAISES TO 16 UNITS
150 W +16 -122.5
151 -16 -138.5
152 -16 -154.5
153/ZERO -8 -162.5
154 W +16 -146.5
155 W +16 -130.5
156 -16 -146.5
157 -16 -162.5
158 W +16 -146.5
159 -16 -162.5
160 -16 -178.5
161 -16 -194.5
162 -16 -210.5
163 W +16 -194.5
164 W +16 -178.5
165 -16 -194.5
166 -16 -210.5
167 -16 -226.5
168 W +16 -210.5
169 -16 -226.5
170 -16 -242.5
171 W +16 -226.5
172 W +16 -210.5
173 -16 -226.5
174 W +16 -210.5
175 W +16 -194.5
176 -16 -210.5
177 -16 -226.5
178 -16 -242.5
179 -16 -258.5
180 W +16 -242.5
181 -16 -258.5
182 -16 -274.5
183 -16 -290.5
184 W +16 -274.5
185 -16 -290.5
186/ZERO -16 -306.5 BET RAISES TO 32 UNITS
187 W +32 -274.5
188 -32 -306.5
189 -32 -338.5
190/ZERO -16 -354.5
191 -32 -386.5
192 W +32 -354.5
193 W +32 -322.5
194 -32 -354.5
195 -32 -386.5
196 W +32 -354.5
197 -32 -386.5
198 -32 -418.5
199/ZERO -16 -434.5
200 -32 -466.5
201 10 -32 -498.5
202 6 -32 -530.5
203 14 +32 -498.5
204 21 +32 -466.5
205 30 +32 -434.5
206 11 -32 -466.5
207 12 +32 -434.5
208 10 -32 -466.5
209 22 -32 -498.5
210 34 +32 -466.5
211 10 -32 -498.5
212 16 +32 -466.5
213 0 -16 -482.5
214 14 +32 -450.5
215 8 -32 -482.5
216 34 +32 -450.5
217 18 +32 -418.5
218 19 +32 -386.5
219 25 +32 -354.5
220 35 -32 -386.5
221 34 +32 -354.5
222 29 -32 -386.5
223 16 +64 -322.5 BET RAISES TO 64 UNITS
224 21 +64 -258.5
225 12 +64 -194.5
226 30 +64 -130.5
227 9 +64 -66.5
228 34 +64 -2.5
229 32 +64 +61.5 BET RESETS TO 1 UNIT
For the first cycle of 37 spins the SD is 2.23
For the first 2 cycles (74 spins) the SD is 3.32
For the first 3 cycles (111 spins) the SD is 4.36
For the first 4 cycles (148 spins) the SD is 4.69
For the first 5 cycles (185 spins) the SD is 5.10
For the first 6 cycles (222 spins) the SD is 5.29
The net profit of 61.5 is being achieved on the 229th spin and at that time the SD was 4.94
The maximum drawdown was on 202nd spin with -530.5 and 5.50 SD
87 wins 37.99% / 142 losses 62.01% at 229th spin which made the breakthrough.
An open challenge for everyone to find a worse sequence than this one!
The rules of my method
You've arrived at the roulette table and you are writing down the last 10 to 12 results from the matrix, from that point forth you are going to write 25 to 27 more results in order to have the last 37 spins in your scoresheet.
Check to find the EC with the least appearances within those spins and bet it as long as remains least shown.
From now on till the end of your session you have a non stop betting plan to follow.
While you flat bet 1 unit for the second 37 spins you keep writing every EC as it hits in your scoresheet.
The time to change your bet selection is whenever there is another least shown EC, in case there is a tie between 2 EC's, bet the one which has been missing more spins since it's last appearance (older).
The betting amount doesn't change when you change EC, it only changes when after 37 successive bets your total hasn't reach a new high, in such case you double the betting amount for the next 37 spins.
The point is to increase gradually the amounts like Martingale progression but in 37 spins cycle scale till your bankroll reaches a new high, WHENEVER you reach a new high balance you are resetting the bet amount to 1 unit or end the session.
By resetting the bet amount it doesn't mean that you have to change the EC you are betting, bet selection and progression are changing NOT necessarily the same time.
I hope everything was clear but if you have questions I'll be at your disposal.
Quote from: Steve on Mar 01, 07:58 PM 2016
Why dont we just test the working principle for bet selection. And ask the question: does the method of backing sleepers change the odds that the sleepers will somehow come back and become hot numbers?
NOOOOO. And thats my point.
So if the odds of winning havent changed, what's left? A martingale.
It's worse than reinventing a broken wheel. You just need to see it for what it is.
RX testing will show the same thing. I'd love for someone to code this in RX and publish the file.
First, a cold EC doesn't include only cold numbers.
Second, I'm speaking with hard facts, evidence, not assumptions.
Third, I've requested twice from Les Howell of RX to code it but didn't got any reply so far.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Mar 02, 02:45 PM 2016
First, a cold EC doesn't include only cold numbers.
Second, I'm speaking with hard facts, evidence, not assumptions.
Third, I've requested twice from Les Howell of RX to code it but didn't got any reply so far.
Hey BA,
Welcome to the forum!
If you get a chance to read through the entire thread, it will save a bunch of confusion.
I've tried to clarify your method when it was misrepresented, but feel free to add any pertinent info.
Looking forward to seeing more testing of this method!!! :thumbsup:
Quote from: Steve on Mar 01, 07:27 PM 2016
Why would Kav defend Reyth? I read that Reyth tested Kav's system and found it failed. And once this was published, Kav quickly made Reyth a mod to keep him happy. Whether or not its true, I dont know.
I can engineer a system to win against 1m spins. But try it on another set. But anyway if you have a strong progression like the martingale, you can either go broke in spectacular fashion or get lucky. I have no doubt that proper testing will show the system loses. But I would love to eat my words really.
You got it wrong, I've never seen Reyth admitting that Kav bet fails, quite the opposite...
Reyth became moderator and
after start testing or should I say promoting Kav bet.
Simply making Reyth moderator was part of their deal, also Kavouras enticed him by promising Reyth a slice from each sale.
You cannot say lucky when we are talking about millions of results, it's absurd.
Quote from: thelaw on Mar 02, 02:51 PM 2016
Hey BA,
Welcome to the forum!
If you get a chance to read through the entire thread, it will save a bunch of confusion.
I've tried to clarify your method when it was misrepresented, but feel free to add any pertinent info.
Looking forward to seeing more testing of this method!!! :thumbsup:
Thanks, I'm already feeling welcomed.
Sometimes I'm explaining something in plain English and after a few posts I surprisingly see that some keep on confusing what I've already explained.
If some cannot or don't want to understand that's their problem, not mine.
So in order to avoid unnecessary repeticion we should pay attention when someone like me, without being obliged, gets in the trouble to share and explain a method without requesting anything in return.
Quote from: Steve on Mar 01, 05:11 PM 2016
If the system is legitimately beating 1M rng spins, and you can repeat that with other spins that are proper random, then yes I'll pay for that.
My understanding is:
* The system is betting on cold numbers
* The martingale is applied over 37 spin cycles.
This wont work because:
1. Any sequence of cold numbers wont change the odds of other numbers spinning next. Need proof? See the free software at link:://:.roulettephysics.com/roulette-pattern-detector/ and test millions of spins, or even billions. Betting on cold or hot numbers, especially with rng, doesnt at all change the odds of winning. And if you havent changed the odds, and the payouts are the same, then your bet selection method changed nothing.
2. Martingale is martingale, whether it's after 1 loss or 37 losses.
If it has won over 1m spins, maybe the spins arent properly random. Or maybe it was extremely lucky over 1M spins, but further testing wont have the same results. Or maybe it was tested with some parameter that wasnt set correctly, like the house edge.
Can anyone post the roulette xtreme file? I can test this for myself. If it really works, I would pay the $100k anyway. Even though the system is free. But consider the points above, and if you understand them, you'll understand the system is no different to any other martingale system.
So if you really believe so you don't have to afraid of losing hundred k by testing it for 1 more million spins, right??
This is all that I've ever asked..........just transparency for any method.
In terms of results..........well.......now that 1 Million spins is not enough proof............i guess the only thing left is money. :sad2:
So if someone can turn $600 into $60,000, then that should get some attention..............or would it? :question:
Quote from: Steve on Mar 01, 06:36 PM 2016
So far who has actually tested the system over 1M spins? Is it just BA himself? If thats the case, then why would be publish a fantastic chart and not let anyone test it?
Isnt it a bit suspicious, like saying "Here's my system and I'll make millions. But you cant have it. You cant even have the spins I tested with" Its the kind of thing CEH did.
Anyway refer back to my points that indicate it is just a martingale. Nobody should take my word for it. Just test the free software I provided and see for yourself his approach wont work.
I dont know the guy but if I'm right about the above, then shouldnt it all be obvious?
Let me clarify what I said, many users have tried to find a worse sequence than the one of the example I've posted on this topic but they didn't find anything worse among LITERALLY millions of results.
So instead of making vague assumptions like: ''I don't think so...'' better to speak in terms of results and I'm talking about millions of simulated results, including also the WHOLE archive of Wiesbaden casino.
All these people just confirmed that there was not worst 200 spins sequence, they were not trying my method.
Therefore it was like an open challenge for anyone who can come out alive after such session from hell.
What I did was to try several ways and first I've concluded to another one which needed roughly 1000 units and the max bet was about 350 units.
I was not completely satisfied with my findings, mostly because of the huge max bet (350 units), then it hit me suddenly to use a very old and well known progression in a different way, in different scale actually!:-)
That's how the whole concept came into existence and Fallacious Holy Grail was born.
The Martingale is a poor system.
You can only win puny amounts of money with it if you're lucky, yet you have to risk your entire bankroll.
I can't see why you feel that your delayed version of it works any better than the regular version.
Quote from: keepontryin on Feb 23, 10:19 PM 2016
i have been using this on 00 wheel using splits where each cycle is 19 spins always betting on a rolling basis the least 9 splits that have hit........and rg is right very playable on airball......just make sure your splits are even by that i mean all 19 splits should be made up of one red and black # so it is balanced except of course 0/00...............have fun
Yes, you may use 3 lines or 6 streets or 9 splits or 18 numbers instead of 1 EC, but you have to track down the coldest and in case of splits were a number can be splitted in more than one way it's getting complicated, unless you have a software.
Besides if you would use 3 lines, you would need threefold the equivalent bankroll required for 1 EC, if you would use 6 streets you would need sixfold the equivalent bankroll required for 1 EC, if you would use 9 splits you would need ninefold the equivalent bankroll required for 1 EC, if you would use 18 numbers you would need eighteenfold the equivalent bankroll required for 1 EC, just the facts.
Quote from: The General on Mar 02, 03:42 PM 2016
The Martingale is a poor system.
You can only win puny amounts of money with it if you're lucky, yet you have to risk your entire bankroll.
I can't see why you feel that your delayed version of it works any better than the regular version.
I've done 2 sessions on fast rng spins...+75
Not saying this is it but hey....isn't everyone happy to see this win millions of spins ? I sure am :thumbsup:
@ Blue_Angel. ... pls keep your cool mate. They gonna come at ya....no doubt.
Ignore haters and let the ones who are interested follow this and test.
Thx for the input... :thumbsup:
Quote from: The General on Mar 02, 03:42 PM 2016
The Martingale is a poor system.
You can only win puny amounts of money with it if you're lucky, yet you have to risk your entire bankroll.
I can't see why you feel that your delayed version of it works any better than the regular version.
I see you've just registered here in order to post your useless comments.
Something stinks here and this is not me...!
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Mar 02, 02:34 PM 2016
The rules of my method
You've arrived at the roulette table and you are writing down the last 10 to 12 results from the matrix, from that point forth you are going to write 25 to 27 more results in order to have the last 37 spins in your scoresheet.
Check to find the EC with the least appearances within those spins and bet it as long as remains least shown.
From now on till the end of your session you have a non stop betting plan to follow.
While you flat bet 1 unit for the second 37 spins you keep writing every EC as it hits in your scoresheet.
The time to change your bet selection is whenever there is another least shown EC, in case there is a tie between 2 EC's, bet the one which has been missing more spins since it's last appearance (older).
The betting amount doesn't change when you change EC, it only changes when after 37 successive bets your total hasn't reach a new high, in such case you double the betting amount for the next 37 spins.
The point is to increase gradually the amounts like Martingale progression but in 37 spins cycle scale till your bankroll reaches a new high, WHENEVER you reach a new high balance you are resetting the bet amount to 1 unit or end the session.
By resetting the bet amount it doesn't mean that you have to change the EC you are betting, bet selection and progression are changing NOT necessarily the same time.
I hope everything was clear but if you have questions I'll be at your disposal.
Hi,
I think I could code this, but not in RX, but in VBA.
What I want to ask is, do we always bet just one EC?
You mentioned the EC that is least shown should be bet. How can I find out which EC is least shown? I mean is it needed to track EC from the very first spin and in all the spins from the first one to current spin check which EC is least shown, or only 37 last spins shall be checked?
Regarding the tie. Did I get it right that in such a case if the last 4 spins are for example RBBB to bet R?
Thank you for replying.
Quote from: MrG on Mar 02, 04:41 PM 2016
Hi,
I think I could code this, but not in RX, but in VBA.
What I want to ask is, do we always bet just one EC?
You mentioned the EC that is least shown should be bet. How can I find out which EC is least shown? I mean is it needed to track EC from the very first spin and in all the spins from the first one to current spin check which EC is least shown, or only 37 last spins shall be checked?
Regarding the tie. Did I get it right that in such a case if the last 4 spins are for example RBBB to bet R?
Thank you for replying.
Each session has its unique record, this means that from the beginning of every session till its end you keep on writing the total appearances for each and every EC, not only per 37 cycle but
for the whole duration of every session.
Since you want to test for a large number of outcomes you should maintain a continuous count of all 6 EC's on your record which should be updated after each spin/decision.
The proper way to see it is as a constant work in progress which the selection adjusts according to the ever changing results.
There are some cases where you have a tie between 2 EC's and also both of them have appeared on the last spin/result, in this case bet the opposite EC from the one which have more hits and its last appearance was more recent.
Which kav bet are we talking about
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Mar 02, 05:06 PM 2016
Each session has its unique record, this means that from the beginning of every session till its end you keep on writing the total appearances for each and every EC, not only per 37 cycle but for the whole duration of every session.
Since you want to test for a large number of outcomes you should maintain a continuous count of all 6 EC's on your record which should be updated after each spin/decision.
The proper way to see it is as a constant work in progress which the selection adjusts according to the ever changing results.
There are some cases where you have a tie between 2 EC's and also both of them have appeared on the last spin/result, in this case bet the opposite EC from the one which have more hits and its last appearance was more recent.
Get your "ignore face" on cause you are going to have to do a lot of that soon
What is a session? When does it ends? You talk about sessions but not when it ends.
If i do 1 mil. Spins is that one session?
Check the attachment to get the complete picture of my method in action.
A martingale method. Nothing special SOS.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Mar 02, 05:13 PM 2016
Which kav bet are we talking about
Nevermind, just forget that I mentioned it, we should not derail this topic by injecting irrelevant and insignificant information.
Let's focus all together to the job at hand and try to improve it if possible for our mutual interest!
Let's be team players for a change instead of trolling around!
We had enough of negativity so far, we need no more of it!
What I'm showing you is completely transparent, no strings attached, no hidden catch because I'm not expecting you to buy!
If all these quite obvious facts are still insufficient for you, then nothing could ever convince you and you would be on your own!
Blueangel, firstly welcome to the forum. Its good if you are openly sharing your system, but I notice in your signature you are also selling systems. Is it the same system you're giving away, or something else?
When you share any system, it is going to be scrutinized.
The operating principle of your bet selection is to follow cold ECs. But that doesnt at all increase the accuracy of predictions. So the odds of red or black have the same chance of spinning, whether they are currently hot or cold. And the idea of covering multiple ECs wont work either, because all you'd be doing is making a group of independent bets.
What your system does is uses a milder progression with a small profit target being anything greater than the starting bankroll. So it will probably last longer than most systems, but the end result would still be the same.
QuoteReyth became moderator and after start testing or should I say promoting Kav bet. Simply making Reyth moderator was part of their deal, also Kavouras enticed him by promising Reyth a slice from each sale.
Thanks for clearing that up. Its hard to know what to believe in any case. There's so much inaccurate information about everything on the internet. But Im sure by now Reyth would know the Kav bet doesnt work. But thats another story for another thread.
QuoteYou cannot say lucky when we are talking about millions of results, it's absurd.
Systems can be built around set spins. Have you tested it over a separate group of 1M spins? And I assumed you had the system coded in RX already, otherwise how was it tested? Or wasnt it you that did the testing? I mean you have tested it in RX with profit over 1M spins, so who has the RX file? If it was coded in RX, maybe incorrect parameters were used, like testing with no zero roulette.
QuoteSo if you really believe so you don't have to afraid of losing hundred k by testing it for 1 more million spins, right??
I wouldnt be losing $100k. Id be gaining a killer system that would be broadly applied. To clear any confusion, the challenge states first test the 2M spins from roulettetraining.com. Lock the system in a file so it cant be changed. Then I'll supply a further set of 2M spins for you to test again. And if there is a profit over the spins, then we proceed to the next steps. The terms have been as such for about a year as shown on archive sites.
But 1M spins IS generally enough to test a system, unless the spins are not proper random, or the system is reverse engineered around spins. The exception is say you had a progression like:
1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128 (martingale), then your average bet size for spins 1 to 900,000 were 10 units, and your average bet size for spins 900,001 - 1,000,000 were 50 units. Now say you had normal expected losses in the first 900,000 spins, and lost a lot. But then in the final 100k spins, you had good luck and with the larger bets. Then what you have in the end is:
a. Normal luck when betting low
b. Very good luck when betting high
The result is you profit, but not from a good system. It was from luck.
Also some players have attempted the challenge with a system they say wins over millions of spins. But the system's trigger may allow betting on about 1% of spins. So instead of say 100,000 spins, they bet on 1,000 spins which is still short term.
Anyway I'd still be very surprised your the system won over 1M even with luck. I've tested principles like what your system works on many times, as have many others, and it doesnt work. There is no increase in accuracy with the bet selection method, so no betting progression will help. Every spin is independent, and all the martingale does is control the rate at which you either win or lose, depending on your luck. For now we can wait for it to be coded in RX to do more testing. But again who did the testing with RX? So it is already coded by someone right?
Quote from: RayManZ on Mar 02, 05:17 PM 2016
What is a session? When does it ends? You talk about sessions but not when it ends.
If i do 1 mil. Spins is that one session?
Actually when I'm playing on BM casinos I don't know before hand how long will my session, neither how many units I'm going to gain.
All I know is that by the end of my session I will leave the casino with more money than when entered it.
There are no fixed number of spins to be played, nor fixed amount of units to be won per session.
In case someone wants to test it for 1 million spins he/she should consider the total as 1 session, but I think it doesn't reflect reality precisely.
Quote from: Steve on Mar 02, 05:33 PM 2016
Blueangel, firstly welcome to the forum. Its good if you are openly sharing your system, but I notice in your signature you are also selling systems. Is it the same system you're giving away, or something else?
When you share any system, it is going to be scrutinized.
The operating principle of your bet selection is to follow cold ECs. But that doesnt at all increase the accuracy of predictions. So the odds of red or black have the same chance of spinning, whether they are currently hot or cold. And the idea of covering multiple ECs wont work either, because all you'd be doing is making a group of independent bets.
What your system does is uses a milder progression with a small profit target being anything greater than the starting bankroll. So it will probably last longer than most systems, but the end result would still be the same.
Thanks for clearing that up. Its hard to know what to believe in any case. There's so much inaccurate information about everything on the internet. But Im sure by now Reyth would know the Kav bet doesnt work. But thats another story for another thread.
Systems can be built around set spins. Have you tested it over a separate group of 1M spins? And I assumed you had the system coded in RX already, otherwise how was it tested? Or wasnt it you that did the testing? I mean you have tested it in RX with profit over 1M spins, so who has the RX file? If it was coded in RX, maybe incorrect parameters were used, like testing with no zero roulette.
I wouldnt be losing $100k. Id be gaining a killer system that would be broadly applied. To clear any confusion, the challenge states first test the 2M spins from roulettetraining.com. Lock the system in a file so it cant be changed. Then I'll supply a further set of 2M spins for you to test again. And if there is a profit over the spins, then we proceed to the next steps. The terms have been as such for about a year as shown on archive sites.
But 1M spins IS generally enough to test a system, unless the spins are not proper random, or the system is reverse engineered around spins. The exception is say you had a progression like:
1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128 (martingale), then your average bet size for spins 1 to 900,000 were 10 units, and your average bet size for spins 900,001 - 1,000,000 were 50 units. Now say you had normal expected losses in the first 900,000 spins, and lost a lot. But then in the final 100k spins, you had good luck and with the larger bets. Then what you have in the end is:
a. Normal luck when betting low
b. Very good luck when betting high
The result is you profit, but not from a good system. It was from luck.
Also some players have attempted the challenge with a system they say wins over millions of spins. But the system's trigger may allow betting on about 1% of spins. So instead of say 100,000 spins, they bet on 1,000 spins which is still short term.
Anyway I'd still be very surprised your the system won over 1M even with luck. I've tested principles like what your system works on many times, as have many others, and it doesnt work. There is no increase in accuracy with the bet selection method, so no betting progression will help. Every spin is independent, and all the martingale does is control the rate at which you either win or lose, depending on your luck. For now we can wait for it to be coded in RX to do more testing. But again who did the testing with RX? So it is already coded by someone right?
In my signature there is a reference about my old system (2010), thus irrelevant with FHG.
Once again,
many users have tried to find a worse sequence than the one of the example I've posted on this topic but they didn't find anything worse among LITERALLY millions of results.
I'm talking about
millions of simulated results, including also the WHOLE archive of Wiesbaden casino.I know only Wiesbaden brick and mortar casino which publishes all of its results, from all of its tables each and every day!
Therefore those results are available for EVERYONE to check!
All these people just confirmed that there was
NEVER worst 200 spins sequence, they were not trying my method.Therefore it was like an open challenge for anyone who can come out alive after such session from hell and I took the opportunity NOT ONLY to gain a profit out of such nightmare,
BUT TO DO IT WITH THE LEAST POSSIBLE BANKROLL AND MAX BET!I'm applying my method everyday on online casino, I'm also playing with a friend at my local BM casino, we joined bankrolls in order to win more and split the profits.
Blue Angel,
Why do you believe that your delayed Martingale is different from the regular Martingale?
Why should the results differ at all?
Quote from: The General on Mar 02, 06:06 PM 2016
Blue Angel,
Why do you believe that your delayed Martingale is different from the regular Martingale?
Why should the results differ at all?
id say 1,000,000 spins is good enough
Quote from: Tamino on Mar 02, 05:27 PM 2016
A martingale method. Nothing special SOS.
You see the glass half empty when there is another half which is...flat bets.
From my perspective it's not Martingale, neither flat betting, it's a hybrid progression.
If we focus solely on the progression we would miss the wider picture...
QuoteYou see the glass half empty when there is another half which is...flat bets.
From my perspective it's not Martingale, neither flat betting, it's a hybrid progression.
If we focus solely on the progression we would miss the wider picture...
I don't care how much is in your glass. To date, there's never been such a thing as winning roulette system that relies on an up as you lose progression.
Quoteid say 1,000,000 spins is good enough
I doubt that it would even last 10k placed bets. Even it was positive the amount won would be paltry, indicating that it was merely luck.
Quote from: The General on Mar 02, 06:12 PM 2016
I don't care how much is in your glass. To date, there's never been such a thing as winning roulette system that relies on an up as you lose progression.
that just is not true. with proper bankroll
@thegeneral
if you call 1,000,000 spins just luck as you just did then damnit where can i find that luck
Guys in case you have not found it yet, the troll with username "general" is Calleb Jonshon.
Personally I'd not bother with such ridiculous person.
Also I'd like to politely request from Steve to restraint the said user, at least from this topic, thank you.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Mar 02, 06:16 PM 2016
@thegeneral
if you call 1,000,000 spins just luck as you just did then damnit where can i find that luck
LMFAO :twisted:
Nobody has simulated the Martingale over 1 mill spins and produced a statistically relevant result. Blue's system is no different.
Quote from: The General on Mar 02, 06:27 PM 2016
Nobody has simulated the Martingale over 1 mill spins and produced a statistically relevant result. Blue's system is no different.
martingale is martingale
it sucks
we know this
but i think he demonstrated a stretched martingale beating 1 million spins
Quotebut i think he demonstrated a stretched martingale beating 1 million spins
No he didn't.
Watching a system and then betting intermittently over 1 million spins is not the same as having placed 1 million bets. My guess is that he's only bet on a small portion of those when running his tests.
Actual placed bets are likely less than a few thousand, if even that many.
Steve is correct. Blue's system is worthless.
im not the sharpest tool in the shed
but dude you gave yourself away
you obviously joined the forum to troll him
ignore list, check
redemption: make your first thread here a contribution
Blue angel, you didn't answer my questions about the rx testing
Wrong thread.
I'm not here to troll Blue Angel aka Angelo Anttoni... a known system seller.
I merely saw someone peddling yet another Martingale system. And I'm baffled as to why people still chase such snake oil.
Turbo and Mr. J. wrote a post that basically sums it all up. link:://:.GF/threads/basics-that-no-one-wants-to-hear.3604/
This soon will become a system sellers paradise.
Quote from: Steve on Mar 02, 06:56 PM 2016
Blue angel, you didn't answer my questions about the rx testing
Yes I did, it hasn't been RX coded yet as far as I know but it has been tested.
I've requested Les Howell of RX software to coded it but I didn't get any response so far.
Quoteit hasn't been RX coded yet as far as I know but it has been tested.
I thought it had been tested over 1M spins. EXACTLY what testing has been done?
It would take someone a very long time to manually test 1M spins. If you are talking about 10,000 or so spins, even random red/black bets can sometimes profit after 10,000 spins.
Also testing for that bad streak from hell is not so easy. To find that killer bad streak manually would be very tedious. You'd realistically need some kind of algorithm or software to do that kind of testing. Maybe that's why nobody has found it yet.
And sorry but we have to remove your signature. Commercial information like that isnt allowed in signatures. I dont think yours will help you sell anything anyway, because on amazon there is 1 review, its negative, and the system seems to be free in the ebook preview anyway. Yes I'm the exception with sigantures, because I pay for the hosting and running the forum.
Quote from: Steve on Mar 02, 07:56 PM 2016
Also testing for that bad streak from hell is not so easy. To find that killer bad streak manually would be very tedious. You'd realistically need some kind of algorithm or software to do that kind of testing. Maybe that's why nobody has found it yet.
And sorry but we have to remove your signature. Commercial information like that isnt allowed in signatures. Yes I'm the exception, because I pay for the hosting and running the forum.
Once again,
many users have tried to find a worse sequence than the one of the example I've posted on this topic but they didn't find anything worse among LITERALLY millions of results.
I'm talking about
millions of simulated results, including also the WHOLE archive of Wiesbaden casino.
I know only Wiesbaden brick and mortar casino which publishes all of its results, from all of its tables each and every day!
Therefore those results are available for EVERYONE to check!
All these people just confirmed that there
was NEVER worst 200 spins sequence in roulette history, they were not trying my method.
Therefore it was like an open challenge for anyone who can come out alive after such session from hell and
I took the opportunity NOT ONLY to gain a profit out of such nightmare, BUT TO DO IT WITH THE LEAST POSSIBLE BANKROLL AND MAX BET!You might call it reverse engineered but if you think it's easy to create a method which its rules are constantly the same during the whole duration, bets every spin, wins within reasonable limits, then do it yourself, personally I'd congratulated you if you had achieved such extraordinary feat.
It's easy to reverse engineer 100 spins, but not millions!
Do what you want with my signature, I don't care.
Blue Angel, settle down I'm not having a go at you. I simply dont believe you. Often people dont believe me either, but I dont get offended. I just know they dont know better. I only get angry if they dont bother to do proper research but think they still know everything.
In this case, I know from testing I've done, and testing from others, that hot of cold numbers or ECs dont influence future outcomes. Your system assumes otherwise. And you are applying a martingale which is just different bet sizes on different spins.
And again to do statistically significant testing to find that killer sequence would be almost impossible (at least far too tedious) to do manually. So thats probably what nobody found that sequence yet.
I do understand your system, but not the sequence you are referring to. All that matters in roulette is ODDS VS PAYOUT. Unless you improve the odds, nothing will change. The payouts never change. So any sequence you have in mind negates what really works in roulette, which is increasing the accuracy of predictions (changing the odds)
see post #40
If you mean the RX testing, where is that RX file so I can test?
Quote from: The General on Mar 02, 06:31 PM 2016
No he didn't.
Watching a system and then betting intermittently over 1 million spins is not the same as having placed 1 million bets. My guess is that he's only bet on a small portion of those when running his tests.
Actual placed bets are likely less than a few thousand, if even that many.
Steve is correct. Blue's system is worthless.
....as I had said but hey, I was being negative. Negative Kenny they call me round these parts. Its not 1 million, trust me, its not folks. "Negative Kenny" has laundry to do now.
Regarding post number 40...
He didn't test it over 1 million placed bets. He simply hopped in and out of a million spins and probably only placed a few hundred...possibly a couple of thousand actual bets.
After the same number of placed bets you'll find that the failure rate is the same with or without Blue's trigger.
I've just crossed through an article: the-lies-of-roulettephysics-com
I don't like to be the bearer of polarization but it lays down some interesting points, so here it goes;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Lies of Roulettephysics.com"
Today I will tell you about the fake winning systems and the useless overpriced roulette
computers of Roulette Physics.com
Buyer beware!
Think about it If you had a successful method of making millions on the roulette table using
some super-duper roulette computer...
Would you waste your time all day on the web writing BS about others?
If you had a working roulette computer would you have being sued and convicted for fraud by your buyers?
If you had a way to win at roulette would you spend all day managing over 20 sites and 5 different forums?
And try really hard yet unsuccessfully on each and every one of them to sell your overpriced junk you call with fancy names Like "hybrid roulette system" or "JAA System''?
"The Roulette Systems & Strategies That Are Winning Fortunes and How To Get Them Free"
Well meet Steven Hourmouzis.
Someone who apparently believes that a fool is born every second and is constantly and tirelessly looking for buyers among them.
He condemns each and every roulette system known to man yet he has the nerve to advertise:
"The Roulette Systems & Strategies That Are Winning Fortunes and How To Get Them Free".
If you believe this you would believe anything!
He knows that not everyone will part with his hard earned money to buy a useless roulette
computer so he tries to lure buyers by promising "winning systems'' and if you ask him if the systems he presents in his site really work he would tell you:
"well if you really need a winning system you need to buy my $1.500 or $2.500 or $50.000 roulette computer".
Yes believe it or not he has ''successful roulette computers" in all price ranges.
He even has a $50.000 roulette computer, after all you never know for how much money you can take someone for a ride and there will always be players with more money than sense.
Now let's recap;
He advertises that he is giving free winning roulette systems
Then he sells something for $1500, then something else for $2500 and his best computer for $50.000.
Does this makes sense to you?
Why sell something for thousands of dollars if you give a winning system for free?
I don't know how more plainly to put it that:
If something sounds too good to be true it probably is.
I really don't know how many people have fallen for this BS and have parted with their hard
earned money, there is still hope though.
You see Steven Hourmouzis have been successfully sued in 2013 and the ''happy buyer" of his computer eventually got his money back, but it was a long battle.
Steven Hourmouzis is not new to the web.
As I already said he owns (has bought) a myriad of roulette sites and forums where he tries to promote his new site: roulettephysics.com.
Although he has all these already established sites in 2015 he created this new site.
The reason? To hide.
You see people weren't trusting him and were hearing nightmare stories about him and his products.
So he decided to start a fresh, with a new site, with his name nowhere to be found on the site.
Hidden behind ''companies" like Natural Laboratories pty Ltd.
Skype names like "rouletteanalysis" and other legit sounding tricks to hide and prey for new "happy customers".
Why am I telling you this? Why do I care?
First we write this in order to inform any potential buyers that roulettephysics.com is not what it seems to be.
The guy behind that site has a dark history.
The old timers know all about him, but the newbies don't, they can be fooled.
Secondly he has the nerve to attack us.
You see, we are one of the few independent informative sites about roulette he hasn't bought.
He can not stand this, oh and he hates our system, the Kavouras bet.
He is so over the edge he tried to bash a system he does not know (just from reading the first part of our system: our bet selection)
He tries to diminish our systems using silly arguments like "no system wins" while at the same time he advertises "Roulette Systems & Strategies That Are Winning Fortunes".
Well he probably means that they will win a fortune for him by deceiving potential buyers.
J.Kavouras
Oh wow. Where did this all come from? It looks like a dummy spit to me.
Ok let me make this simple for you:
1. The rubbish about me being sued is explained at link:://:.genuinewinnerroulettesystem.com/vince-brandt/
Read it. Its all there. All that basically happened is a new player didnt understand basic download instructions, and started abusing me. He didnt even have the system. So i said to him to speak civilly to me or just get a mediator. And thats all he did. He hired a mediator. Big lawsuit my arse. I agreed to give him a refund in front of the mediator, which he had to behave in front of.
2. The information at roulette30 is recited rubbish from Mark Howe. Do your own research about him.
3. Kav started having a vendetta against me because:
a. I removed his spam links from this forum. Spam is not allowed.
b. I tried to politely explained why the system he was selling, the Kavouras bet, didnt work.
And then he cracked it at me calling me arrogant, and that my opinion was just my opinion. I tried to politely explain that mathematical fact was not an opinion.
So, now he's an idiot with a vendetta. And so are you blue angel. And what did I do to you? Well you see I just told you politely why your system wont work either. You are no better than Kav.
I didnt attack Kav. I didnt attack you either. I just explained some simple facts.
QuoteSo, now he's an idiot with a vendetta. And so are you blue angel. And what did I do to you? Well you see I just told you politely why your system wont work either. You are no better than Kav.
I just informed you about the article, I didn't write it, so why are you calling me idiot?
I've not offended you, so why are you doing this?
And why me and Kavouras are the same person regarding your perspective??
Quote from: Steve on Mar 02, 10:09 PM 2016
Oh wow. Where did this all come from? It looks like a dummy spit to me.
Ok let me make this simple for you:
1. The rubbish about me being sued is explained at link:://:.genuinewinnerroulettesystem.com/vince-brandt/
Read it. Its all there. All that basically happened is a new player didnt understand basic download instructions, and started abusing me. He didnt even have the system. So i said to him to speak civilly to me or just get a mediator. And thats all he did. He hired a mediator. Big lawsuit my arse. I agreed to give him a refund in front of the mediator, which he had to behave in front of.
2. The information at roulette30 is recited rubbish from Mark Howe. Do your own research about him.
3. Kav started having a vendetta against me because:
a. I removed his spam links from this forum. Spam is not allowed.
b. I tried to politely explained why the system he was selling, the Kavouras bet, didnt work.
And then he cracked it at me calling me arrogant, and that my opinion was just my opinion. I tried to politely explain that mathematical fact was not an opinion.
So, now he's an idiot with a vendetta. And so are you blue angel. And what did I do to you? Well you see I just told you politely why your system wont work either. You are no better than Kav.
I didnt attack Kav. I didnt attack you either. I just explained some simple facts.
Well, Steve..........I greatly appreciate you keeping all of these posts up in the spirit of complete transparency.
I would love to see this come to a profitable conclusion for everyone where we can get to the bottom of BA's method.
If not, then we will have accomplished nothing................
hopefully someone can code this!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
A good post from Mr. J...
-------------------
'll try and explain, its the best I can do. LONG TERM players here (you know who you are) have put in the time (and money) over the YEARS to know what does NOT work. Does that mean we (the veterans) all agree with each other? Of course not but I would guess, its pretty close. I can even use Snowman as an example. Are him and I buds? Nope but we do share a few common view points, we BOTH know what does not work.
Myself > Betting only a couple numbers, no progression, no damn triggers.
Steve > Does his own thing with roulette computers & roulette physics.
Snowman > No methods, AP only.
Are any of us three similar? Nope but the thing we have in COMMON, we know what will NOT work.
Most (not all) of the members here are AT LEAST 6-8 years BEHIND. How do I know this? Because maybe 7-10 years ago, these were the same methods I got excited about...all ended...with a bust but COOL stories to tell your friends!!
I would estimate around 95% of the methods here are....junk....sorry, dont kill me.
"but Ken, what about the other 5%"?
As I stated in the title, its all about KNOWING WHAT DOES *NOT* WORK!!! You have all heard of reverse engineering I assume? Take bits and pieces of MANY methods that show some promise and tweak the hell out of them until you fall asleep on top of your key board. Do this for *YEARS*, not months please.
No progressions (up or down a unit with a loss or win is different), no TRIGGERS, no "wait until", no betting MANY numbers etc. Take this advice or not, I really dont care, I lose nothing and I sleep like a baby because of it. I feel blessed that my TRIAL days are behind me, unlike most here. Back in the day at VIP and the old GG (before it got nuts) most current members would never survive there, you would be lost.
Ken
-----------
I took the liberty of placing the best part in bold color. In short, triggers are worthless.
-The General
Sometimes the worst accusations are resulting in the best promotion...
Now Blue Angel, I'll address the utter crap from Kavouras. You know the guy selling a system that is mathametically guaranteed to fail. See my comments in blue:
Today I will tell you about the fake winning systems and the useless overpriced roulette
computers of Roulette Physics.com
Buyer beware!
Think about it If you had a successful method of making millions on the roulette table using
some super-duper roulette computer...
Would you waste your time all day on the web writing BS about others?
What BS? Does he mean "advantage play"? And I have a life outside of work too. Besides, anyone who wants to know if my computers are what I say can:
1. Get a free trial so you can test at home for $0.00 (wow big scammer I am asking for $0.00)
2. Come and test it in person on any wheel you want, including recorded online casino spins that i've never even seen before
3. Attend a public demo, like the one at link:://:.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=PUqjvSvEnX8 - you know the one that mark howe says i paid actors to act all amazed and stuff, and that i used magnets. Yeah if you believe it.
4. Consider that I already sent my computer to a well known and respected forum member, who found I am telling the truth. Details at link:://:.genuinewinnerroulettesystem.com/
I spend a lot of time managing my profit split teams, and I openly promote it where anyone can get access to the computers for $0.00. Nothing. Zilch. Again what a big scamaroo i must be.
If you had a working roulette computer would you have being sued and convicted for fraud by your buyers?
Sued for fraud? I mean, come on, really. Like I said:
The rubbish about me being sued is explained at link:://:.genuinewinnerroulettesystem.com/vince-brandt/
Read it. Its all there. All that basically happened is a new player didnt understand basic download instructions, and started abusing me. He didnt even have the system. So i said to him to speak civilly to me or just get a mediator. And thats all he did. He hired a mediator. Big lawsuit my arse. I agreed to give him a refund in front of the mediator, which he had to behave in front of.
If you had a way to win at roulette would you spend all day managing over 20 sites and 5 different forums?
I could say the same about kav, but I'm really not interested at further explaining why his system tanks. And I spend all day here? Most of my time is spent either testing software or corresponding with players.
And try really hard yet unsuccessfully on each and every one of them to sell your overpriced junk you call with fancy names Like "hybrid roulette system" or "JAA System''?
Fancy names? They are pretty drab actually but what matters is what they do. And again anyone can see any reasonable proof they want. They could just believe the rubbish people like Kav post because he's having a dummy spit, or just find out for themselves.
"The Roulette Systems & Strategies That Are Winning Fortunes and How To Get Them Free"
Well meet Steven Hourmouzis.
Someone who apparently believes that a fool is born every second and is constantly and tirelessly looking for buyers among them.
He condemns each and every roulette system known to man yet he has the nerve to advertise:
"The Roulette Systems & Strategies That Are Winning Fortunes and How To Get Them Free".
If you believe this you would believe anything!
Huh? Has he even read my site? I list the 5 roulette systems that actually do work at :.roulettephysics.com, and most of them are free like bias analysis: link:://:.roulettephysics.com/roulette-wheel-bias/ or the free visual ballistics videos. Its all on my sitre. No lies there, just Kav's rage at being told he's not allowed to spam, and the truth about the system he's selling and why it doesnt work.
He knows that not everyone will part with his hard earned money to buy a useless roulette
computer so he tries to lure buyers by promising "winning systems'' and if you ask him if the systems he presents in his site really work he would tell you:
"well if you really need a winning system you need to buy my $1.500 or $2.500 or $50.000 roulette computer".
Yes believe it or not he has ''successful roulette computers" in all price ranges.
He even has a $50.000 roulette computer, after all you never know for how much money you can take someone for a ride and there will always be players with more money than sense.
Blah blah blah
Now let's recap;
He advertises that he is giving free winning roulette systems
Yeah and as I explained, I do.
Then he sells something for $1500, then something else for $2500 and his best computer for $50.000.
Does this makes sense to you?
Makes perfect sense. I have a lot of different technology. Some beats only a few wheels, and some beat almost every wheel. And there are a variety of benefits to each different technology. By Kav's logic, Amazon is the biggest scammer in history with lots of different products and different prices.
Why sell something for thousands of dollars if you give a winning system for free?
Why is it so hard for him to understand? Blue angel, are you Kav? I man your IP is from greece too, same as Kav.
Anyway let me explain... i give away the less effective methods for free. I either sell more effective methods, or use them in profit split arrangements with partners. Clear now?
I don't know how more plainly to put it that:
If something sounds too good to be true it probably is.
Yep and anyon can very easily find the simple truth for themselves. My claims are simple. I use physics to predict the winning number. You cant beat all wheels. Whoa major revelation? No, actually pretty darn simple. But the problem is people like Kav have no integrity and work on a personal vendetta. And I'm the liar? No he's just full of hate, and for what? Read back at what happened. I just removed spam and tried to help the man. And you reacted the same way blue angel. You lost the plot when I tried to explain why your system doesnt work.
I really don't know how many people have fallen for this BS and have parted with their hard
earned money, there is still hope though.
You see Steven Hourmouzis have been successfully sued in 2013 and the ''happy buyer" of his computer eventually got his money back, but it was a long battle.
Oh you mean Tony Duhamel? A long battle? Wow you drama queen Kav. He sent back the computer and I sent his refund. I didnt want to keep the guys money, thats the kind of big scammer I am. Later agreed to a public challenge so I can prove his claims about my computer were rubbish. And he lost the challenge. Its all at link:://:.genuinewinnerroulettesystem.com/bago-tony-duhamel/ and test results at link:://:.genuinewinnerroulettesystem.com/results-of-my-challenge-to-bago/ and to further back it up, I sent my computer for free to ronjo, a well respected forum member who did testing for himself.
Steven Hourmouzis is not new to the web.
As I already said he owns (has bought) a myriad of roulette sites and forums where he tries to promote his new site: roulettephysics.com.
Although he has all these already established sites in 2015 he created this new site.
The reason? To hide.
Yep thats why I publish my real name. To hide. Im not in hiding my friend. I am not desperate for "sales". Either people do their own research, or they dont. They either do things like test the free trial computer with $0.00 risk, or they believe little liars like Kav, or rubbish posts from people like you blue angel.
You see people weren't trusting him and were hearing nightmare stories about him and his products.
So he decided to start a fresh, with a new site, with his name nowhere to be found on the site.
Hidden behind ''companies" like Natural Laboratories pty Ltd.
Skype names like "rouletteanalysis" and other legit sounding tricks to hide and prey for new "happy customers".
Almost everyone knows me. Very few people know my partners who mostly run the sales side of things. It was announced a while back on my blog. They started as purchasers and became partners. And they know very well what would happen if they published their name too, as I have. They would get attacked from morons with vendettas. But they know the truth about eveything, and so do over 1,000 players that have used or continue to use my technology. Only a few morons, like tony duhamel, and vince brandt, have ever had anything bad to say about me. And I already addressed them. Then of course there's morons like kav who dont like their spam being deleted. I initially allowed his links because they didnt seem commercial. But then I saw him selling ads on his site and selling a system.
Why am I telling you this? Why do I care?
I said why. Immature vendetta.
First we write this in order to inform any potential buyers that roulettephysics.com is not what it seems to be.
The guy behind that site has a dark history.
Says who? Oh you mean when I accidentally published my misunderstanding about a company's press releases? link:://:.genuinewinnerroulettesystem.com/rentech/
Yeah that was a bit clumsy. Something like 20 or so years ago when I was fresh out of nappies.
The old timers know all about him, but the newbies don't, they can be fooled.
Yeah they have been around on forums long enough to see when Ronjo received my computer and tested it for free, and showed everyone how full shit of my attackers were
Secondly he has the nerve to attack us.
You see, we are one of the few independent informative sites about roulette he hasn't bought.
He can not stand this, oh and he hates our system, the Kavouras bet.
I dont give a rats backside about him or his bet. Why would I give a crap? I just explained to him why it tanks. Just like I explained why your system tanks too, and you had much the same reaction as him. Like a kid having a dummy spit. Grow up.
He is so over the edge he tried to bash a system he does not know (just from reading the first part of our system: our bet selection)
He tries to diminish our systems using silly arguments like "no system wins" while at the same time he advertises "Roulette Systems & Strategies That Are Winning Fortunes".
Well he probably means that they will win a fortune for him by deceiving potential buyers.
J.Kavouras
Look Blue Angle, kav or whoever. I am an honest person, with a load of bullshit written about him. I used to care, but these days not so much. With the ability to give away free computers for trials, and do public demos, and giving free access to things like the hybrid roulette computer, the rubbish written about me doesnt much matter. Like anyone who has bought the $80,000 hybrid, they of course know all about the rubbish written about me. There are only a few people selling roulette computers. There is nowhere I can hide even if I wanted to. But the thing is anyone willing and able to spend that kind of money does proper research by visiting me, not reading trash from morons like Kav with a vendetta.
Im not going to waste more time responding to bullshit allegations and rubbish about me. Anyone can easily find the truth for themselves, by seeing a live webcam demo, free trials or whatever. Plenty of options. So the truth is very simple to find. And if people rather believe junk posted on forums by "competitors", then they would not even be smart enough to use advantage play systems anyway.
QuoteWell, Steve..........I greatly appreciate you keeping all of these posts up in the spirit of complete transparency.
I have so much utter trash written about me, from people who themselves are liars with ulterior motives. Kav is just the latest. I wanted to address it, like I did with mark howe when he started. But the thing is with him, when i debunked one lie, he just made others. Thats why I just created :.genuinewinnerroulettesystem.com as a single place with the most important points addressed. then people can either take it or leave it. Not my problem.
Blue angel, you said:
QuoteI just informed you about the article, I didn't write it, so why are you calling me idiot?
You cant hide behind this saying "oh i didnt write it". do you think i'm stupid? You posted it, although it was completely unrelated and out of context to this thread, as your way of getting back at me. It was pathetically immature. Now I've addressed kav's bullshit, maybe we can get back to whats relevant on this thread.
I did some further research, and as others have suspected, Blue Angel appears to be Kav.
For starters they live in the same area. Its clear from checking multiple IPs. And very few people in Greece have clear English. He aslo refered to content, which at the time, was not even indexed on Kavs site. So he didnt just stumble on Kavs page like he said. He knew about it because he wrote it himself.
If you do further reading on his forum, Kav and Blue Angel dont seem to get into significant discussions. So Kav probably created the alias to make his forum seem more popular.
It also better explains why Blue Angel is so sore at me. There was already a childish vendetta to begin. You know Kav, what you are trying to do to get some kind of petty revenge is not going to do you favours. I did try to be nice to you but you act like a boy with crushed pride. So your system doesnt work. So i tried to explain why. I wasnt attacking your manhood.
Just keep something in mind. All i did was remove spam, as any forum admin would. And i tried nicely to explain why your kavouras bet fails. Now you showed the community the manipulative petty person you are. When mark howe started attacking me, all i did was tell the truth and he sunk deeper and deeper into an abyss of self destruction. In the end he accused me of ruining his life. All i did was defend myself and expose his lies about me. Thats all id ever do with you too. Fortunately the truth is on my side, and i dont need to rely on petty manipulation as you do. From me to you Kav, you know your own manipulation and motives, but dont care. And thats the person, without integrity, that you choose be. In you own mind, you think i deserve it because you think im arrogant. its not arrogance. Its that ive been working with roulette around 22 years now almost every day, and i know a martingale when i see one. And i know why it doesnt work. Its actually your arrogance that made you offended when i merely tried to help you. nobody tells kav he's wrong, is that it? Your motive actually shows in your recent page. But please, keep selling your system, Its way better than advantage play. Just ask any casino. Wow and im the one selling something that doesnt work? Delusion Kav.
Anyway, someone please let me know when this blue angel martingale is coded in rx. Then look out for Kavs next alias. No better than CEH, john legend etc.
So BA (Kav) got into a heated argument with Reyth, and then stepped in to defend him? :question:
Here is the thread............if this is true, then this is a oscar worthy performance :
***Please note that I tried to provide a link here, but Rouletteforum.cc is blocking any links from Roulette30***
Here is the link from Betselection :
link:://betselection.cc/general-discussion/anybody-think-such-bad-streak-can-be-won/msg43202/#msg43202
..........having said that, BA has 1000 posts to Reyth's 1400, which is pretty prolific.
Not sure what all this does for Kav..........he seems to have plenty of debate on Roulette30, and none of this seems to promote his site.
Here was his last post on Feb 21st :
"You might wonder why the most brilliant members of this forum have got away, let me tell you why;
Those very few but brilliant minds are transmitting in totally different frequency from the average member of this forum.
Unfortunately they got tired and bored from those pointless debates and in combination with lack of motivation is more than sufficient for someone to say goodbye once and for all.
I completely understand and don't blame them.
Instead of contributing recycled garbage on the forum like the "dinosaurs" do, members such as "Slacker", "Janus" and "mrJ" have tried to set new standards by introducing innovative ideas, but eventually have realized that you cannot force someone to be right when he wants to be wrong...
Dinosaurs walking around this forum like zombies who are trying to kill what still stands...
like energy vampires who are draining all the positivity they can get and replacing it with negativity...
like living fossils of history who constantly and recklessly are recycling their rusty and useless mentality.
There are approximately 6 dinosaurs in this forum and they have to be eliminated in order new, fresh and positive ideas take their place.
Only when the "old" will be replaced, its "new" counterpart can grow and prosper!"
............strange :ooh:
You could say......
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts
My wifes greek
So no offense here
But
A lot of the roulette forum shenanigans come from greece
So Angelo Attoni aka Blue Angel =Kav
Makes sense.
Someone also said that Reyth was likely Kav as well? Not sure about this one.
Anyone care to explain why a person would go by having multiple usernames in the same community?
Quote from: celescliff on Mar 03, 11:12 AM 2016
Anyone care to explain why a person would go by having multiple usernames in the same community?
I know of a few that have
Live in their moms basements? Bored? Psycho?
Some even pretend to be other genders on here
Helena was one. Hehehehe. Sorry to bus ya bubble guys helena was a retread and a MAN BABY
link:s://youtu.be/NrWuMwRKH2c
What the hell is going on here..........something is rotten!!! :sad2: :sad2: :sad2:
I looked at the last spreadsheet released by Albalaha, which showed the BA method as successful, but claimed it failed. After asking about this, here is the response :
answer to thelaw:..by Albalaha,
quote.
Every session can win with a martingale of any form. It is the max bet of few thousands and DDs of -12000 or even more that makes it not at all playable.
Sadly it is being preached that this method wins at last but it is not told that any big simulation may seek thousands of chips and bets of thousands too, in a spin. How many can bet 4096 units in a go or even more? The shown sample session won at last but with max bet of 2048 units and DD of -12,000 and -10,000.
====================================
this is the horror session shown in excel with bet of 2048 and drawdown of 10k and 12k.
I am also attaching a superhorror session where one will need to bet over 65000 units with BA progression with its graph. One can put this session in the tracker and see how bad marty goes in all its forms.
unquote
==============
graph...by Albalaha
----------------------------------------------------Then a response from Nickmsi :
Hello. . . .
I ran your Super Horror Session and have attached the graph results
My bet selection was Black or Red, whichever had the least hits.
Largest bet = 64 units
Max Drawdown = 437 units
Cheers
Nick
All documents attached below.....
The main reasons people have multiple usernames:
1. To back themselves up in arguments, when nobody else will
2. To discredit others
3. To say whatever they want without worrying about how they look
4. When they made themselves look like an idiot, or people dont like them, and they want a new fresh identity
In Kavs case, to promote his forum (make it seem more popular), and get other people to test his ideas instead of doing the work himself.
It seems now hes run from this forum. I wonder why.
Im sorry Kav, now you dislike me even more. Ive seen this spiral like yours happen before. Remember the email i sent you trying to make peace, but you ignored it? But let me offer it again. Im not your enemy. Not your friend either. People are allowed to explain why your system fails. And moderators can remove spam.
Remove your utter crap about me, then i dont need to explain to people your deception. if youre like mark howe, youll try and do more to harm me, but end up harming yourself more. I expect you wont heed this, but hope you will. Email me directly if you want to discuss.
Also Alabalah is right about the martingale. Thats why there are table betting limits.
The General posted:
"Regarding post number 40...
He didn't test it over 1 million placed bets. He simply hopped in and out of a million spins and probably only placed a few hundred...possibly a couple of thousand actual bets.
After the same number of placed bets you'll find that the failure rate is the same with or without Blue's trigger."
The 1,000,000 spins was 1,000,000 placed bets.
It bet every spin, the EC with the lowest hit rate was the bet selection.
The money management was the key to it's success.
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on Mar 03, 03:46 PM 2016
The General posted:
"Regarding post number 40...
He didn't test it over 1 million placed bets. He simply hopped in and out of a million spins and probably only placed a few hundred...possibly a couple of thousand actual bets.
After the same number of placed bets you'll find that the failure rate is the same with or without Blue's trigger."
The 1,000,000 spins was 1,000,000 placed bets.
It bet every spin, the EC with the lowest hit rate was the bet selection.
The money management was the key to it's success.
Cheers
Nick
Ok so it worked. 1 million bets and you won
The man who registered to troll assumed you went in and out and didnt bet everytime
Nick. This is all the proof i need. Money management and progression does work
Quote from: celescliff on Mar 03, 11:12 AM 2016
Anyone care to explain why a person would go by having multiple usernames in the same community?
My take....well I have always been Turner...in every forum
I think if you like yourself, and you are proud of what you have done, or have learned, you want to be seen as yourself.
You form a personality which isnt dissimilar to who you are in the real world.
Its hard creating a personality in 1 dimension
No eyebrows to lift, no cheeks to blush and no tell tell body language.
Text it 1D. Its hard communicating in 1D.
I feel that I am me in here, and try to cope with a 1D language..
But some dont correlate this text world as real.
They go and say things that they wouldnt dream of saying in the real world
The lame can walk. The shy can be bold. The ugly can be beautiful
They grow balls. Balls they dont really have....and they dont know what to do with them.
They get in a mess and create other names to support themselves or try and start again when it becomes untenable
It doesnt matter....its not the real world. But the same personality defect soon shows because they arnt getting the same kudos (perceived by them) that the well known name got.
Its quite sad really
You will find me pretty much as I am in the real world.
And the name changers? Probably a lot more subdued than you would expect
Without increasing accuracy of predictions, no money management can work. It's literally impossible because all you're doing is making independent bets all with the same odds.
Probably no zero roulette was used. Why is the rx file not being provided if the system is free anyway?
Quote from: Steve on Mar 03, 04:19 PM 2016
Without increasing accuracy of predictions, no money management can work. It's literally impossible because all you're doing is making independent bets all with the same odds.
Probably no zero roulette was used. Why is the rx file not being provided of the system is free anyway?
By playing the ECs and playing cold ones, and playing martingale, you are playing the game for what it was designed for. Casino profit
Playing the game like this introduces a -2.7%, or -5.4% expectation.
You can big it up as much as you want, but this is the true story.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Mar 03, 03:54 PM 2016
Ok so it worked. 1 million bets and you won
The man who registered to troll assumed you went in and out and didnt bet everytime
Nick. This is all the proof i need. Money management and progression does work
What proof?
Ken
Why is the rx file not being provided if the system is free anyway? Nick, why not provide it? You have should have nothing to lose.
Nickmsi has been kind enough to test for people in the past
Myself included
He has no reason to lie nor will i call him a liar.
I believe him
Hi Steve,
You are correct in that this system was tested on a NZ layout.
I have not tested it thoroughly on SZ. The green monster generally kills EC bets.
I posted my system which is very similar to Blue Angel's. The purpose was to show others that this may be a progression that they may want to look into further.
My system is not for sale, nor will I release the RX script to anyone. I never said it was free, that was Blue Angel.
Again, my point was to show others, that in my opinion, money management and I just don't mean progressions, is the most important aspect of any system.
I am not claiming that my system is a Holy Grail for I know too well, that random has a way of beating you when you least expect it. But I do know that any system that passes a 1,000,000 spins in profit and betting every spin, is a system worth exploring.
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on Mar 03, 06:13 PM 2016
Hi Steve,
You are correct in that this system was tested on a NZ layout.
I have not tested it thoroughly on SZ. The green monster generally kills EC bets.
I posted my system which is very similar to Blue Angel's. The purpose was to show others that this may be a progression that they may want to look into further.
My system is not for sale, nor will I release the RX script to anyone. I never said it was free, that was Blue Angel.
Again, my point was to show others, that in my opinion, money management and I just don't mean progressions, is the most important aspect of any system.
I am not claiming that my system is a Holy Grail for I know too well, that random has a way of beating you when you least expect it. But I do know that any system that passes a 1,000,000 spins in profit and betting every spin, is a system worth exploring.
Cheers
Nick
Hey Nickmsi,
Would it be possible to code Blue Angel's method for 1 million spins as a test, or something comparable to that?
That would definietly move this debate forward.
Either way, I greatly appreciate you presenting your material. Thanks! :thumbsup:
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Mar 03, 06:11 PM 2016
Nickmsi has been kind enough to test for people in the past
Myself included
He has no reason to lie nor will i call him a liar.
I believe him
Nobody is using the word "liar".
Ken
QuoteI have not tested it thoroughly on SZ. The green monster generally kills EC bets.
Ok thanks. Its not the green monster that kills, its unfair payout (house edge).
In this case, then its not a realistic test. If you test with no zero, there is no house edge. The effect is then martingale is more likely to succeed with progression, but it doesnt mean you'd end up with a profit. With no zero, what would happen in the long term is the bankroll would steadily increase until the inevitable losing streak with high progression put you back to square one. So achieving a profit with 1m spins is more plausible, but is not viable in real casinos.
So if you flat bet with no progression, the ups and downs wouldnt be so dramatic.
And if you use a martingale, the ups and downs are more dramatic. On a bankroll trend chart, a martingale shows the drawdowns and recovery. But as Alabalah pointed out, the thing that kills martingale is the inevitable large losses that take all your profits away, plus extra.
Kavs method here (blue angel) is no better than any other martingale, except that its drawdowns are not as dramatic, because the progression only aims to achieve positive profit for each session.
After looking at Kav's systems on amazon, Im assuming his real name may be Angelo Attoni and he's been around selling systems for a while. Or maybe its another fake name.
I am willing to code this for free for you all to test:
Here is how I have understood the system:
Play as many spins as you have to and once in profit the betting units drop to 1.
Process:
Progression is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, ......... Only goes up every 37 spins.
1) Track first 37 numbers and bet the lowest even chance that has hit. Example Red 20 and Black 15 and 2 Zeros bet on BLACK
2) After betting starts example: spin 38 to 74th spin Black is 20 and Red is 15 and 2 zeros bet on Red after spin 74.
Keep process going and bet on a lower even chance every 37 spins.
If the above is correct, I have a few questions:
If I am at spin 50 and was betting BLACK and I have a positive balance, do I carry on betting with BLACK for the rest of the cycle or do I re-track?
Quote from: Azim on Mar 03, 08:25 PM 2016
I am willing to code this for free for you all to test:
Here is how I have understood the system:
Play as many spins as you have to and once in profit the betting units drop to 1.
Process:
Progression is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, ......... Only goes up every 37 spins.
1) Track first 37 numbers and bet the lowest even chance that has hit. Example Red 20 and Black 15 and 2 Zeros bet on BLACK
2) After betting starts example: spin 38 to 74th spin Black is 20 and Red is 15 and 2 zeros bet on Red after spin 74.
Keep process going and bet on a lower even chance every 37 spins.
If the above is correct, I have a few questions:
If I am at spin 50 and was betting BLACK and I have a positive balance, do I carry on betting with BLACK for the rest of the cycle or do I re-track?
Hi Azim, thanks for your kind offer, really appreciated.
After waiting for the first 37 spins only on the beginning of each session, then you don't wait,you just bet every spin till the end of the session.
A session ends when the player is satisfied with the profit, there no standard spins to play or units to win.
You must set the counter for ALL 6 EC's to non stop recording from the beginning of each session till the end.
Every time there is another least shown EC you change to that one regardless of how many units the bet is, selection and progression are 2 different things!
Every time there are 2 or 3 EC's with the same hits, select the one which is missing for more spins (older), if after applying the second criteria there is tie between 2 or 3 EC's, then choose the one which its opposite EC has appeared most recently.
Whenever the balance reaches a new high you are resetting the betting amount to 1 unit regardless of which EC you are betting at that time.
So the answer to your question is yes, you carry on with your selection as long it remains least appeared.
You track without betting ONLY the first 37 spins of each session.
I'll be on your disposal if you need further clarification.
Angelo
i think after +1 restart
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Mar 02, 05:19 PM 2016
Check the attachment to get the complete picture of my method in action.
I answered my own question from the above post.
However, Can BLUE_ANGEL answer this:
Why does your betting start after 39 spins and not 37 spins in the file you have provided with the above quote?
Why does profit increase at row 171 when '00' has hit the count jumps from 3 to 5 instead of going down 3 to 1?
Steve,
Has Blue Angel been banned from posting on this forum? He is claiming that his account has been restricted here.....
Thanks! :) :thumbsup:
From BA on Betselection :
"Hey guys, can anyone copy the following and post it to the Steve's forum because he restricted my account.
Anyone??
''Hi Azim, thanks for your kind offer, really appreciated.
After waiting for the first 37 spins only on the beginning of each session, then you don't wait,you just bet every spin till the end of the session.
A session ends when the player is satisfied with the profit, there no standard spins to play or units to win.
You must set the counter for ALL 6 EC's to non stop recording from the beginning of each session till the end.
Every time there is another least shown EC you change to that one regardless of how many units the bet is, selection and progression are 2 different things!
Every time there are 2 or 3 EC's with the same hits, select the one which is missing for more spins (older), if after applying the second criteria there is tie between 2 or 3 EC's, then choose the one which its opposite EC has appeared most recently.
Whenever the balance reaches a new high you are resetting the betting amount to 1 unit regardless of which EC you are betting at that time.
So the answer to your question is yes, you carry on with your selection as long it remains least appeared.
You track without betting ONLY the first 37 spins of each session.
I'll be on your disposal if you need further clarification.
Angelo''
NO he has not been banned. He is only on a moderated list, meaning anything he posts must be approved by a moderator first. He's already shown willingness to post spiteful and personal junk.
Quote from: Steve on Mar 03, 09:56 PM 2016
NO he has not been banned. He is only on a moderated list, meaning anything he posts must be approved by a moderator first. He's already shown willingness to post spiteful and personal junk.
K - Thanks! :thumbsup:
Quote
Ok so it worked. 1 million bets and you won
The man who registered to troll assumed you went in and out and didnt bet everytime
Nick. This is all the proof i need. Money management and progression does work
Rouletteghost,
I'm not here to troll Blue Angel. I'm simply sharing the facts.
Blue Angel's system is a failure. It fails for the same reason that the Martingale fails. There's no reason to test it. The data was curve fit, and the results are fraudulent. Nobody will be able to duplicate the results.
Money management and a progression doesn't enable the player to get the edge over the casino.
Regardless of how the player manages his bets, and regardless of the progression that he uses, the house edge will eventually consume the gambler's bankroll over time.
This isn't something that you can even debate. If you disagree, then fine... but my advice to you is to keep your bets low until you gain more experience. Please don't feel as though you should prove me wrong by going out and risking real money on such a risky scheme. Stick with pen and paper until you learn more about the game.
-The General
1 player using martingale for FOUR spins betting 1,2,4,8 units.
=
Four players making the bets:
Player 1: 1 unit
Player 2: 2 units
Player 3: 4 units
Player 4: 8 units
Its all the same. The odds wont change for the first player, or the four other players. The payouts wont change either. So what does the martingale change?.. just the amount you risk.
Quote from: thelaw on Mar 03, 09:50 PM 2016
From BA on Betselection :
"Hey guys, can anyone copy the following and post it to the Steve's forum because he restricted my account.
Anyone??
''Hi Azim, thanks for your kind offer, really appreciated.
After waiting for the first 37 spins only on the beginning of each session, then you don't wait,you just bet every spin till the end of the session.
A session ends when the player is satisfied with the profit, there no standard spins to play or units to win.
You must set the counter for ALL 6 EC's to non stop recording from the beginning of each session till the end.
Every time there is another least shown EC you change to that one regardless of how many units the bet is, selection and progression are 2 different things!
Every time there are 2 or 3 EC's with the same hits, select the one which is missing for more spins (older), if after applying the second criteria there is tie between 2 or 3 EC's, then choose the one which its opposite EC has appeared most recently.
Whenever the balance reaches a new high you are resetting the betting amount to 1 unit regardless of which EC you are betting at that time.
So the answer to your question is yes, you carry on with your selection as long it remains least appeared.
You track without betting ONLY the first 37 spins of each session.
I'll be on your disposal if you need further clarification.
Angelo''
I think I have understood, based on your Excel file provided.
The questions I have are:
What is the bankroll requirement and what is the max unit per bet?
Quote from: Azim on Mar 04, 02:28 AM 2016
I think I have understood, based on your Excel file provided.
The questions I have are:
What is the bankroll requirement and what is the max unit per bet?
You may add 2 options:
1) 64 units max bet and 600 units bankroll
2) 128 units max bet and 1000 units bankroll
Hopefully I have it right. Can someone confirm this for me?
Hi Azim,
Don't think it's right - as blue_angel's progression can rise to a higher maximum... 32, 64 or even 128 units, can't it??
A.
Yes. It can.
However as soon as a new high is reached the unit has to drop down to 1 no matter what even chance gets bet on.
The only time units increase by 2 is at the end of 37 spin cycle with the single zero wheel.
I could be wrong. Will wait for him to confirm.
Quote from: Nickmsi on Feb 29, 08:42 PM 2016
Hello all,
I also tried a very similar system to this one with the following small differences.
Instead of waiting 37 spins to get the least hit EC, I start betting after the 1st spin. Blue Angel I believe only bet one EC at a time even if there was a tie. I bet all EC that are tied so after the first spin I would be betting on 5 EC that have not hit. Eventually you will only have 1 EC to bet on but this gives us more action to start rather than wait for 37 spins before betting.
As soon as a new EC becomes the least hit, I start betting. No waiting until the 37 spin cycle completes.
Those are the only changes I can think of.
The graph of the results for 1,000,000 spins attached.
Cheers
Nick
Nick will you be able to provide us with the million spins you tested this on?
I could use my own, don't want someone to say that I fudged the number's.
Thanks for effort Azim & Nick!
Quote from: Azim on Mar 04, 05:02 AM 2016
Nick will you be able to provide us with the million spins you tested this on?
I could use my own, don't want someone to say that I fudged the number's.
It would be better to check the same results in order to compare it with Nick's variation.
Azim, you got it right!
Looking forward for your RX code.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Mar 02, 02:45 PM 2016
First, a cold EC doesn't include only cold numbers.
Second, I'm speaking with hard facts, evidence, not assumptions.
Third, I've requested twice from Les Howell of RX to code it but didn't got any reply so far.
This is crap. I can produce my number's for you, after you having confirmed that the coding was correct in the file I have posted.
I will let Steve decide how he wants to handle this one.
I can't load my 2m spin result set as the file is huge.
I don't want to break the file down for someone to say it's been altered.
I will ask anyone to produce me any set of number's over 50k. Put the file open for all to see. I will produce the result for everyone at the same time.
Spin No. # RED BLACK EVEN ODD HIGH LOW GREEN BETON UNIT BALANCE MAXUNIT HIGHBANK LOWBANK
300000 26 145710 146336 145697 146349 146058 145988 7954 Even 4 102704 65536 102706 -387021Good Luck all.
Quote from: Azim on Mar 04, 05:28 AM 2016
This is crap. I can produce my number's for you, after you having confirmed that the coding was correct in the file I have posted.
I will let Steve decide how he wants to handle this one.
I can't load my 2m spin result set as the file is huge.
I don't want to break the file down for someone to say it's been altered.
I will ask anyone to produce me any set of number's over 50k. Put the file open for all to see. I will produce the result for everyone at the same time.
Spin No. # RED BLACK EVEN ODD HIGH LOW GREEN BETON UNIT BALANCE MAXUNIT HIGHBANK LOWBANK
300000 26 145710 146336 145697 146349 146058 145988 7954 Even 4 102704 65536 102706 -387021
Good Luck all.
Why don't you give us the RX code?
Quote from: Azim on Mar 04, 05:28 AM 2016
I will ask anyone to produce me any set of number's over 50k. Put the file open for all to see. I will produce the result for everyone at the same time.
Here are 52k spins. These are Duisburg spins 20140101 - 20140114.
QuoteThis is crap. I can produce my number's for you, after you having confirmed that the coding was correct in the file I have posted.
I will let Steve decide how he wants to handle this one
i just want everyone to learn from it, and understand what works and why. It's not about advantage play. I'm taking about why you need to improve the odds, ie increasing the accuracy of predictions. Odds and payouts are very different. You can't change payout, but you can change odds.
It's not that I'm a fan of advantage play. It's just i know it already works.
Progression isn't going to help. Really we'd have a better chance with precognition than martingale. I keep saying precog and telekisis etc gave a better future than even roulette computers which one day will probably be obsolete
Quote from: Steve on Mar 04, 07:25 AM 2016
i just want everyone to learn from it, and understand what works and why. It's not about advantage play. I'm taking about why you need to improve the odds, ie increasing the accuracy of predictions. Odds and payouts are very different. You can't change payout, but you can change odds.
It's not that I'm a fan of advantage play. It's just i know it already works.
Progression isn't going to help. Really we'd have a better chance with precognition than martingale. I keep saying precog and telekisis etc gave a better future than even roulette computers which one day will probably be obsolete
So you are claiming psychic powers?
Why not go for the James Randi Million dollar prize? :question:
.......and why not prayer? :twisted:
Quote from: Azim on Mar 04, 05:28 AM 2016
This is crap. I can produce my number's for you, after you having confirmed that the coding was correct in the file I have posted.
I will let Steve decide how he wants to handle this one.
I can't load my 2m spin result set as the file is huge.
I don't want to break the file down for someone to say it's been altered.
I will ask anyone to produce me any set of number's over 50k. Put the file open for all to see. I will produce the result for everyone at the same time.
Spin No. # RED BLACK EVEN ODD HIGH LOW GREEN BETON UNIT BALANCE MAXUNIT HIGHBANK LOWBANK
300000 26 145710 146336 145697 146349 146058 145988 7954 Even 4 102704 65536 102706 -387021
Good Luck all.
First you say you can't load the 2 millions results and below the totals of all EC's plus zero are summing up to 870 k, how come??
Excel file provides pseudo-RNG results which means that in large totals it's repeating the same results more than normal.
If there was RX code we could test it with spins from B&M casinos which can make a big difference in large totals.
Everyone is free to believe what he wants...
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Mar 04, 06:18 AM 2016
Why don't you give us the RX code?
What I am having a hard time with is, you want me to give you the code?
If you agree, that I have it right, why do you need the code? Why do you need my code if you have already tested in RX?
I know Steve, has asked for the RX-script, I don't care about the script. Why can't any of you that have tested the system be able to give us the 1m file data.
Here are the results for the 52K file provided. What more do you want?
Quote from: thelaw on Mar 04, 07:41 AM 2016
So you are claiming psychic powers?
Why not go for the James Randi Million dollar prize? :question:
.......and why not prayer? :twisted:
I don't think Steve has ever claimed physic powers.
What Steve, I could be wrong too, is saying take a ball and drop it from different heights(release of the ball), depending on the force used and the diamonds on the wheel(Surface of the earth) the ball will never land based on previous results. Everything is different.
However, having said that, the roulette computer what it does is takes the 2 speeds the ball speed and the wheel speed and predicts the number's. Which to me in simple English is if you going to travel from one destination to the other, you know the distance and you know the speed you can estimate the time. Now in respect to the diamonds. The diamonds are your traffic they can and will make a difference to your time. However, in the long run, Roulette computer will not only pay for itself but make you money with no progression.
Steve, I hope I am right or understood the concept behind Roulette Computer?
Hi Azim,
Sorry, I did not save the 1MM spin file that I tested on.
However, thanks to celescliff and the 52K spin file which I imported and tested with my system.
These are Single Zero Numbers as opposed to my 1MM earlier spins which were No Zero.
I have attached the graph which shows a balance of 25,754 which includes the 10,000 starting bankroll so profit = 14,754.
If I read your excel sheet correctly, Blue Angels made a profit of over 25,338.
Both showed positive results, but I like yours better. :)
Cheers
Nick
Awesome nick
Actions speak louder then words
Quote from: Nickmsi on Mar 04, 03:29 PM 2016
Hi Azim,
Sorry, I did not save the 1MM spin file that I tested on.
However, thanks to celescliff and the 52K spin file which I imported and tested with my system.
These are Single Zero Numbers as opposed to my 1MM earlier spins which were No Zero.
I have attached the graph which shows a balance of 25,754 which includes the 10,000 starting bankroll so profit = 14,754.
If I read your excel sheet correctly, Blue Angels made a profit of over 25,338.
Both showed positive results, but I like yours better. :)
Cheers
Nick
Nick, totally understandable not keeping the file.
Can we get the betting history like the one I have produced, or any thing which shows something similar ?
Hi Azim,
By all means, I have attached the betting history.
I tweaked the system to get slightly more profit (16,052)
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on Mar 04, 04:02 PM 2016
Hi Azim,
By all means, I have attached the betting history.
I tweaked the system to get slightly more profit (16,052)
Cheers
Nick
Appreciate that. But that tells me nothing....
I can do the same and create a file that will show a profit of 100000000 with the 50k spins. Will you beleive me?
Let me give you an example:
For me to prove to everyone that GUT was a Holy Grail.. I produced 3 results with 3 different ending balances. No graphs actual betting and calculations. Showing how differently it can be played.
Now, If I give you the same RX graph and betting history exactly the way you have it, for GUT , would you believe me?
Hi All,
My mistake.
While the 52K numbers contained zeros, my RX extreme was still set for No Zero so the results above are for No Zero.
Sorry about that.
Nick
Nick, unless you going to show how you have made that decision in betting the black or any other bets on there there is no point for you to redo it.
As I said, as a programmer and you will agree with this and so will all other programmers on here.
Guys here it is.
I can read a file with any amounts of spins. for example I can load a file from spin 1 to 10 in memory.
1) 2
2) 4
3) 6
4) 12
5) 18)
6 ) 31
7) 8
9) 12
10 18.
I know at my 10th spin is number 18. What I can do is start betting at spin 7 with and 3 numbers. Which means 7,8,9 and 10 total units 12. I win with number 18. My net profit is 24... In order to show how legit the system is All I have to do is once in a while get my bets up and win.
Unless there are calculations provided or logic provided, there are no known systems out there to make you money in roulette.
Hi Azim,
I have no idea what you want.
As far as I can tell, RX extreme produces 2 history reports.
I have already posted the first one and the 2nd one (betting marquee) is attached.
If there is another report that RX produces, just let me know and I will post it.
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on Mar 04, 03:29 PM 2016
Hi Azim,
Sorry, I did not save the 1MM spin file that I tested on.
However, thanks to celescliff and the 52K spin file which I imported and tested with my system.
These are Single Zero Numbers as opposed to my 1MM earlier spins which were No Zero.
I have attached the graph which shows a balance of 25,754 which includes the 10,000 starting bankroll so profit = 14,754.
If I read your excel sheet correctly, Blue Angels made a profit of over 25,338.
Both showed positive results, but I like yours better. :)
Cheers
Nick
You are correct both showed a profit.
However Look at the Max Unit 16,384 and a bankroll drop of 76888.
So you telling me you willing to bet, 16384 units for 37 spins to make 25k?
Quote from: Nickmsi on Mar 04, 04:36 PM 2016
Hi Azim,
I have no idea what you want.
As far as I can tell, RX extreme produces 2 history reports.
I have already posted the first one and the 2nd one (betting marquee) is attached.
If there is another report that RX produces, just let me know and I will post it.
Cheers
Nick
Well, bottom line is since we now are both working with 52k file.
If your RX code is right, can we duplicate that result, by using any other software?
Wow. I will personally ask Steve in the open.... Can you please lock this thread.
I have my reasons and I am going in public to say this I hate Steve after the incident with Ken.
However, I don't like members here to be taken for a ride.
I was just asked how much Steve has paid me to fight this battle.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Mar 04, 04:44 PM 2016
Are you a fairytale?
How much Steve gave you to write this craps?!
You are "cheap" after all!
Hi Azim,
Ok, I now see what you were referring to in your results.
I did not look at them that closely to see the bet size and drawdowns.
As this thread may be locked and you do not accept PM, I suggest we continue to discuss this via emails.
If you so wish to do so my email is nickmsi@aolcom.
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on Mar 04, 05:06 PM 2016
Hi Azim,
Ok, I now see what you were referring to in your results.
I did not look at them that closely to see the bet size and drawdowns.
As this thread may be locked and you do not accept PM, I suggest we continue to discuss this via emails.
If you so wish to do so my email is nickmsi@aolcom.
Cheers
Nick
Nick Personally I don't care. It should not even bother me.
I originally was here on the forum to rent my bot's. After reading a lot of things on this forum, things changed.
There are a few people who have shown interest in my bot's. I have told them and they can come out and agree or keep quite. Either way I don't care.
Here is what I have told them. A bankroll of 1500 unit's. I will ask them to pick a casino online of their choice.
If I lose the first third of the money, I will replace the money. However, I will warn them as to why we lost.
If they still want to carry on it's their risk.
However, I will not part with the bot. I will play with the bot from where ever i am.
The account will be under their name and rest.
Quote from: Azim on Mar 04, 04:48 PM 2016
Wow. I will personally ask Steve in the open.... Can you please lock this thread.
with respect, Its not yours to lock. The post is by The Law.
definitely the holy grail I tested on 37 million spins, now we no longer need computers VB and other nonsense haha :)
By the way , I advise everyone to start as soon as possible to play this for real money, because they will likely change the roulette rules because of this system
All of these people who have turned against my method with one way or the other have something in common, they are selling something.
So they are considering me as rival but I've nothing to sell, actually I've nothing to prove because I don't profit from what you believe.
My posts are appearing after hours, thus it's pointless to keep on writing here.
We could carry on our discussions at another forum.
Goodbye,
Angelo
Quote from: speed on Mar 04, 05:34 PM 2016
definitely the holy grail I tested on 37 million spins, now we no longer need computers VB and other nonsense haha :)
By the way , I advise everyone to start as soon as possible to play this for real money, because they will likely change the roulette rules because of this system
I need that Nikola Tesla avatar back. I really do ^-^
Quote from: Nickmsi on Mar 04, 04:36 PM 2016
Hi Azim,
I have no idea what you want.
As far as I can tell, RX extreme produces 2 history reports.
I have already posted the first one and the 2nd one (betting marquee) is attached.
If there is another report that RX produces, just let me know and I will post it.
Cheers
Nick
Ok. Not sure how Nickmsi ran this, but it's nowhere near BA's actual method.
It appears that Nickmsi didn't play in 37 spins cycles as instructed, but just played until the 37 spin cycle would have been a loss, then doubled the bet.
Not sure...........the excel doc is a mess!!! :sad2:
I was hoping someone would actually take this seriously...........but it looks like we can't even test a system properly.
The good news is that Steve, or any other admin, wouldn't even need to suppress a winning system................we can screw this up all by ourselves!!! :sad2:
Quote from: thelaw on Mar 04, 06:10 PM 2016
Ok. Not sure how Nickmsi ran this, but it's nowhere near BA's actual method.
It appears that Nickmsi didn't play in 37 spins cycles as instructed, but just played until the 37 spin cycle would have been a loss, then doubled the bet.
Not sure...........the excel doc is a mess!!! :sad2:
I was hoping someone would actually take this seriously...........but it looks like we can't even test a system properly.
The good news is that Steve, or any other admin, wouldn't even need to suppress a winning system................we can screw this up all by ourselves!!! :sad2:
Its a good topic, Law, and you make a lot of sense.
Not sure about all the strutting Peac***s you hired.
Nice show with a few beers though :thumbsup:
Quote from: Turner on Mar 04, 05:57 PM 2016
I need that Nikola Tesla avatar back. I really do ^-^
You do not like Monica Bellucci? :P
Quote from: Turner on Mar 04, 06:17 PM 2016
Its a good topic, Law, and you make a lot of sense.
Not sure about all the strutting Peac***s you hired.
Nice show with a few beers though :thumbsup:
Strutting peac***s? :question:
Law, no im not claiming psychic powers. Ill explain more about my reasearch another time. And i did approach Randi for his challenge, but he refused saying the challenge is open only to celebrities. Randi is a fraud.
Azim, a roulette computer simoly measures ball and rotor speed, and does a kind of analysis to predict where the ball will land. It only needs to be right enough of the time for consistent profits.
Blueangel, you said:
QuoteAre you a fairytale?
How much Steve gave you to write this craps?!
You are "cheap" after all!
Azim is just reporting what he finds, and it appears the results dont look good for you. Dont shoot the messenger. I have nothing to do with his testing.
Blueangel you said:
QuoteAll of these people who have turned against my method with one way or the other have something in common, they are selling something.
So they are considering me as rival but I've nothing to sell, actually I've nothing to prove because I don't profit from what you believe.
My posts are appearing after hours, thus it's pointless to keep on writing here.
We could carry on our discussions at another forum.
Goodbye,
Angelo
1. Its not a big conspiracy, and nobody is turning againt anyone. Simply your system is being tested and is tanking. Now you are upset about how it makes you look.
2. Actually you are selling systems. We now know about the kavouras bet youre selling, your fake names and your amazon account also selling systems. But I dont see you as a rival at all. A martingale is a very different thing to advantage play. Even if you were some sort of competitor it wouldnt bother me. I would even care to mention you unless i had to refute nonsense you spread. Thats why i dont even talk about Jafco. He is a competitor but he never wrote crap about me, so i have no need to get into any talk about him.
3. You dont get it. I have no interest in hiding a winning system. I would LOVE for the hg to exist and i welcome all open testing here, like we are doing with your martingale. Just because your system loses isnt reason to attack the forum owner or the people who, from their own free time, are testing your system. All i keep repeating is you need to increase accuracy of predictions. You need to improve the odds. Am i really wrong?
4. Your last comment looks more like an excuse to escape a dead end situation for you. You have been harping on about how great your system is, and how me and my advantage play methods suck, that im a scammer, but you dont want to stick around and face the truth.
5. When have i ever stopped testing of systems? Try to understand. I try to help people and help steer them in the right dirction with plain facts. If people dont believe me, its fine. Do you see me stopping testing? No, i encourage testing. Its you who is avoiding testing now, and you are attacking testers and suggesting they work for me or something in a big conspiracy against you martingale holy grail.
Speed,
During my roulette research I cannot leave any stone unturned.
37 million spins?
BA, i have ample information that suggests you are kav, and more now but i dont really care. i removed your post restriction, but please dont go posting crap again. You can have opinions, but lets stick to non personal stuff and just focus on testing.
Also dont go saying im trying to supress winning systems. Im strongly encouraging testing. If you knew me better, youd know i want the truth, always. Convenient or not. I would love you system to work, then managing my profit split teams would be so much easier. Yes i know you think im all about sales. You need to look more closely at what i do.
You clearly dont have any idea about vb or computers. Im sorry i dont mean to offend you but you really have no idea. Anyways lets just keep testing your system. And if im wrong, ill give you full control of this forum after a huge apology. But if im right, then you apologize to me, ok?
Alabalah, keep this in mind. You had a previous problem with me because you were promoting a system using principles that failed. And i encouraged testing and explained why your system failed. And we found it failed. And now you know better, and are preaching what i was preaching. Good on you for learning. So whats your problem with me now?
And no i was not jailed for a mass scam. Read about it. I said stock would go up 900%, but i also published unintentional misunderstandings of the companys press release. the government said my 900% estimate was dishonest. And after my sentence, it went up around 1500%. I was right. I got charged and jailed when i wad right, but it happened later so didnt change anything. And anyone who bought the stocks and held them profited. So get your facts right please. I never scammed anyone. read here link:://:.genuinewinnerroulettesystem.com/rentech/
And alabalah, the 120% edge demo is real. i can show you too if you really like. Do you think i use magnets or something? Have a look for yourself. we play where its legal only. Our legs dont get broken. Is it all so hard for you to believe? You can see what my computers can do, and why i dont need to sell anything. And why im not threatened by another system. If theres something better, show me! Ill use it myself.
Watch it carefully. And anyone can see it in person. I even do live webcam demos. There is no reasonable proof people cant see.
link:://youtu.be/PUqjvSvEnX8
Amd BA, you dont know anything about computers either. We can win willions quickly as the ritz team did, but then we get detected. That limits winnings. Again you know nothing. You dont even understand martingale yet.
QuoteAll of these people who have turned against my method with one way or the other have something in common, they are selling something.-Blue Angel
Blue,
I have nothing to sell. Do a little more research on the history of the game, and you'll find everything that you need to know about why the Martingale fails.
Best of luck,
The General.
Alabalah, i didn't ban you for having a system that threatened me. I banned you because you were selling what you claimed was the holy grail, and couldn't provide any shred of proof it wasn't a scam. You were selling systems and using fake name and duplicate accounts.
And i explained that your previous system to called the hg also failed. Because it was a martingale.
I gave you ample chance to prove your claims and prove you weren't scamming people. Because if you sell a losing system, that's scamming. That's why i banned you. The reasons ate nothing like you claim.
Any system for sale here needs to be substantiated to protect members from scams. You had ample chance to do this but couldn't.
The rubbish you say about me is inaccurate from vedetta. No integrity. It's no different to kav. All system sellers. Don't get me wrong. I don't have vendetta. I just sincerely don't care about other systems. I have what i have and it works pretty damn well.
If either you or NA, both system sellers, prove that your audience really work with rng, I'll pay you $100k. I'll even throw in this forum for free. If you can't take the challenge and think you can beat a 120% edge as i can get, then maybe shhh. Ok?
Playing a Marty is the BEGINNING of class. Everything past that gets a bit easier. Before a Marty is what? Nothing.
Ken
ill try and simplify things:
* if anyone believes the martingale is the hg, go make millions. Put everyone else to shame.
* If you dont understand the difference between odds and payouts, learn the difference.
If you think any one of the following is true for proper rng, show me any conclusive proof of concept, and i promise ill pay you $100k and close every roulette site i have
* Betting hot or cold numbers changes odds
* Progression or changing bet size changes odds
* Any particular sequence of spins changes the odds of future spins
* winning in short term changes the odds of those spins
* you have a better chance of winning with progression
* you can consistently beat roulette without changing the odds, aka increasing the accuracy of predictions (most important)
Please, on any of the forums, this is an open challenge. Im calling everyone out here. The alabalahs, the kavs, and whoever. Please, make an idiot of me. Instead of calling me names and accusing me of trying to hide winning systems, make a total ass out of me. If you cant, then shut up.
I swear on my life this is an honest challenge. Not just because im sure im right, but also because it would mean the HG exists, and i would earn more than $100k from it.
Clarifying issues:
* Odds are the chances of winning.
* Payouts are amount you are paid on wins
* If you havent changed the odds, every spin is independent and progression like the martingale are nothing but different size bets on different spins, each with the same odds.
* With different sized bets like positive progression (increasing bet after losses) the payouts are different for wins, but the amount you risk losing are proportionally greater too.
* Without a method of bet selection that changes the odds, no money management can help you win. I mean it wont help at all. Zilch. All money management does is change amount you risk.
Personal facts:
* My explanations of these basic facts have sweet FA (nothing) to do with anything i sell.
* Im an honest person with nothing to hide. I say it exactly as it is. I would be ashamed to hide anything. Its not who i am. It is pathetic to have to lie. If i ever felt the need to lie, it would mean something about my life needs to change. I am comfortable with who i am and have no problem looking in the mirror. If anyone doesnt believe it, whoopie for them.
* Most people earn around $150/day for 8 hours work, then after tax are left with around $100. You do it almost every day for about 45 years. After living expenses, saving or accumulating wealth on such a wage is nearly impossible. And when you retire at 65, if youre lucky you own your own a small house and have a small retirement fund. And you will have spent your whole life working, not living. I chose roulette because it does better than the pathetic other option. But it doesnt work everywhere and is not always easy.
* My primary focus with roulette is using my techology, not selling it. But i have multiple businesses too that have nothing to do with roulette. i live comfortably and do not need to lie to sell anything.
* Anyone can easily find the truth about my computers, including a free trial, personal demo, public demo, live webcam demo etc. It can be on any wheel. You can even record spins from a casino and ill test on it. Its not like i could cheat because i would have never even seen the wheel before.
* If you think my trying to explain why the martingale fails is a plot to sell something, or if you think i hate systems like the kavouras bet or BAs hg, you are deluded.
* Almost everyone who attacks me is a system seller. Even the very few who arent sellers have a personal vendetta for reasons like they were banned for spamming, they had an argument with me about the martingale etc.
* Anyone who attacks me tends to use rubbish spread by others also who have vendetta. And thry dont give a crap about the accuracy of their claims. Accuracy is not their goal. It is to discredit, with prejudice, and without integrity. To anyone who does proper research, the truth is clear and they see im honest. And they see the manipulation and lack of integrity of my attackers.
* If youre one of the people who think roulette computer players are dishonest cheats, consider i personally dont cheat, by the legal definition. You can have your 9-5 slavery. We wont judge you for that. But im guessing we live more comfortable lives than you, only at the expense of casinos that take billions from people and families trying to make more money to survive. Boo hoo for the casinos and billionaires.
Roulette computer facts:
* To a layman, its cheating. The fact is in around half casinos, its legal and not cheating by legal definition. But casinos can still ban users if caught. But they will ban ANY consistent winner as a last resort.
* Banning is comparatively rare. In most cases, if computer players are suspected, the casino simply calls no more bets earlier until the player loses or leaves.
* Computers can easily win millions in a day. Even other AP methods can. It has been done. But it kicks a hornets nest, like it did with the ritz team.
* I sell computers ranging between $2000 - $80,000. The differences are huge, but mainly its because better versions beat a much broader range of wheels, are more covert so you win more without detection, easier to use, more accurate, quicker to use, and get earlier predictions. Theres a comparison page on my site.
* My claim of 93% win rate with 15 numbers is not the biggest joke, like alabalah said. He just never saw the video of my publuc demo where i show it. Really its simple if you pay attention: link:://youtu.be/PUqjvSvEnX8
so alabalah, what or whos the biggest joke?
* The video above shows an edge of 120%. The casinos edge is just -2.7%. So with the computer, using basic settings, thats an edge around 40 times greater than the casinos. Do the math.
Visual ballistics facts:
* To someone who doesnt know anything about it, vb and predicting with eyesight is impossible. Actually it is very easy for anyone with reasonable eyesight, the right wheel, and a brain.
General facts
* Almost evet new player begins with the martingale and same approaches. And they do not understand why they fail, until later when they become more experienced. Even i was no different.
* Inexperienced players think the experienced players are arrogant by saying things like you need to increase accuracy of predictions. The inexperienced players really have no idea.
* There are many experienced players on the forums who offer mostly accurate advice. Some people learn. But the majority dont listen or learn, and they dont understand the core facts of roulette. So all their systems are fundamentally the same., and they are unable to revognize a losing system when they see it. Take BAs system. An experienced player knows its just betting cold numbers with martingale. Tested a billion times before.
For those that think the kavouras bets, the BA systems or whatever work, just find out for yourself. But i hope you learn from it. When you understand core facts, you will see the delusion you had before. Im not the only one here trying to help, but then you may also better understand i dont give a shit if you dont buy my products. I really am just trying to help.
speed..... first of all congrats on your amazing testing...could you please explain if you played each cycle to completion regardless of plus or minus balance ......or did you begin a new cycle as soon as your balance was back at its NEW high............?
I forgot to add one thing:
* Most people will probably have no idea what ive just explained, and will stay on the same path for years, Woosh, over the head.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Mar 04, 08:42 AM 2016
First you say you can't load the 2 millions results and below the totals of all EC's plus zero are summing up to 870 k, how come??
Excel file provides pseudo-RNG results which means that in large totals it's repeating the same results more than normal.
If there was RX code we could test it with spins from B&M casinos which can make a big difference in large totals.
Everyone is free to believe what he wants...
I guess shows how you know your system works.
RED + BLACK + GREEN = 300000
ODD + EVEN + GREEN = 300000
HIGH + LOW + GREEN = 300000
Quote from: keepontryin on Mar 05, 07:51 AM 2016
speed..... first of all congrats on your amazing testing...could you please explain if you played each cycle to completion regardless of plus or minus balance ......or did you begin a new cycle as soon as your balance was back at its NEW high............?
I know speed quite well. I am pretty certain he was being sarcastic lol
Quote from: MrJ on Mar 05, 02:53 AM 2016
Playing a Marty is the BEGINNING of class. Everything past that gets a bit easier. Before a Marty is what? Nothing.
Ken
I think this is a good question of mine. Before a person gets interested in playing a Marty (a big no no) what betting scheme is before that? I cant think of one. Maybe progressions then a Marty? Me personally, I rocked the Marty (dropped that) then did progressions for a good FIVE years, dropped that as well.......
Ken
This idea that someone must "pay their dues" with Roulette is absolutely ridiculous, and is generally expounded by those who don't have an actual working system. :lol:
Take Sports Betting as an example : can you imagine if every handicapper said "you need to learn the game, before actually placing any bets"...........ludicrous :sad2:
So why don't we hear that.............because they actually have a way to beat the spread, and then further profit from this by selling their picks to others. Crazy how this simple fact gets lost in all the BS..........not to mention that great handicappers don't hang around on forums criticizing other players. You know why?.........because they're out making money..........not looking for attention.
So Steve sets up something similar with his devices...........sounds reasonable to me!!! :thumbsup:
As for everyone else...............including mods.............you have no system. If you did, you would be long gone by now, or using this forum to your advantage, by cutting deals with other player for a slice of the pie.
But.....hey.......maybe i'm wrong. So feel free to shut me up by providing some proof!!! :xd:
I think my above question is very legit and still not answered. It also has no tones of arguing, its only a question sir, calm down.
On the other hand, I dont hide my opinion, yes I do think you have to pay your dues, I had to. Why should others JUMP AHEAD IN THE LINE !?!?!?!?!?
Lose for years and years, then we'll talk like adults. I can do analogies all damn day long. Should a guy just getting out of culinary school be treated like the top dog working in a French restaurant?
Hell no, let the new guy put his time in....YEARS!
My opinion is very strong on this, it won't change regardless the number of posts attacking me, I dont care, my opinion stands.
Ken
MrJ,
You claim to have a winning method, I claim that it doesn't exist.
We both have equal amounts of proof for our statements.
Everything else is just "philosophy" about how to approach the game. Perhaps this is of interest to hobbyists, but for those who want to simply beat the game, it is worthless.
It appears that we will have to agree to disagree.
Best of luck to you! :thumbsup:
Its all in the wording of the post. I said I do quite well, not sure if thats the same thing as a WINNING METHOD? Also, its methods, not method. I have AT LEAST 3 that do quite well and I never use that goofy term, holy grail. It just sounds strange. You are correct...NOT ONE PERSON HERE HAS PROOF!!!
Thats a fact. Not talking about chart proof, I'm talking about NET casino results proof.
Ken
Quote from: MrJ on Mar 05, 12:51 PM 2016
Its all in the wording of the post. I said I do quite well, not sure if thats the same thing as a WINNING METHOD? Also, its methods, not method. I have AT LEAST 3 that do quite well and I never use that goofy term, holy grail. It just sounds strange. You are correct...NOT ONE PERSON HERE HAS PROOF!!!
Thats a fact. Not talking about chart proof, I'm talking about NET casino results proof.
Ken
Wow!!!........I'm speechless.........
When Reyth re-framed "test" with "experiment", I was surprised...........but switching out "winning" with "quite well"........now that's incredible.
So now I wonder if I've been chasing your method(s) that simply loses less, as opposed to actually showing a profit.
You're right Ken, I clearly have a great deal to learn...........I had no idea there was so much grey area between profit and loss...... :ooh:
Now everything is becoming clear.............thanks for enlightening me Ken........much appreciated, and best of luck to you!!! :thumbsup:
"but switching out "winning" with "quite well" >> In order for me to switch, I would of had to use the term WINNING (winning method) prior, correct? So the term "switch, switching" is on whose part?
Not mine. Oh, oh here we go. Let the post checking, all the way back ten years ago begin (rofl). I wish I had that kind of free time.
Ken
Still waiting....what type of betting plan is there before using a progression/Marty? So lets pretend there is nothing (generally speaking) prior to this. By definition, would that not mean, such-n-such person is starting off his roulette career at the *BEGINNING* of what does NOT work? Not to mention the many years ahead of what will also not work?
Ken
Quote from: Turner on Mar 05, 10:25 AM 2016
I know speed quite well. I am pretty certain he was being sarcastic lol
.....thanks turner for the heads up......i was being sarcastic also LOL
I'd like to clarify a few things, first is that I'm speaking for myself, not representing Kavouras neither anybody else. Kapis?
Two persons with Greek IP's don't prove that are the same person.
Second, I like your challenge mr Hourmouzis and I want to make a deal with you;
I'm putting MY money where my mouth is and counter challenge you to be witness in my brick and mortar casino sessions!
I'm going to win at least 30 units per session, playing 6 or 7 days per week for a month.
If you think a month is little time we could make it 2 months with at least 6 days per week, during this time I'll not lose my bankroll but over-double it.
Since I'll use my money and you believe I've a losing method, you have nothing to afraid!
But if I do what I claim you have to hand me 100,000 Euros in cash, not bank transfer.
An agreement between gentlements must be respected by both sides and well defined in documentation because I don't wish to school you for free if you get my drift.
Since I'm living at Greece the place should be one of the two Athenian casinos, however I've no problem to travel at any casino you want as long as you cover the non gambling expenses.
Fair enough? Or do you prefer to hide behind RNG simulations and posts in forums?!
I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is if you do the same!
So now it's your call, what it will be??
Blue,
I don't care who you are. I don't care if you're Kav or not.
Regardless of who you are, here's a website that you may or may not find useful. If you decide to study it, then it may end some of these debates before they start.
link:://:.math.uah.edu/stat/games/Roulette.html
Best of luck,
The General
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Mar 05, 09:00 PM 2016
I'd like to clarify a few things, first is that I'm speaking for myself, not representing Kavouras neither anybody else. Kapis?
Two persons with Greek IP's don't prove that are the same person.
Second, I like your challenge mr Hourmouzis and I want to make a deal with you;
I'm putting MY money where my mouth is and counter challenge you to be witness in my brick and mortar casino sessions!
I'm going to win at least 30 units per session, playing 6 or 7 days per week for a month.
If you think a month is little time we could make it 2 months with at least 6 days per week, during this time I'll not lose my bankroll but over-double it.
Since I'll use my money and you believe I've a losing method, you have nothing to afraid!
But if I do what I claim you have to hand me 100,000 Euros in cash, not bank transfer.
An agreement between gentlements must be respected by both sides and well defined in documentation because I don't wish to school you for free if you get my drift.
Since I'm living at Greece the place should be one of the two Athenian casinos, however I've no problem to travel at any casino you want as long as you cover the non gambling expenses.
Fair enough? Or do you prefer to hide behind RNG simulations and posts in forums?!
I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is if you do the same!
So now it's your call, what it will be??
I am going to ask you this:
What's in it for me If I accept this challenge?
What will be your maximum bet and Bankroll?
Quote from: Azim on Mar 05, 09:16 PM 2016
I am going to ask you this:
What's in it for me If I accept this challenge?
What will be your maximum bet and Bankroll?
I was speaking to Stefano Hourmouzi but for your information my max bet will be 128 units (if needed) and there is no greater reward than the HG, it's like the card without limit, universal!
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Mar 05, 09:24 PM 2016
I was speaking to Stefano Hourmouzi but for your information my max bet will be 128 units (if needed) and there is no greater reward than the HG, it's like the card without limit, universal!
So......
Max bet : 128 units
Bankroll : 1000 units (not sure the min of tables)
Correct? :question:
Quote from: thelaw on Mar 05, 09:27 PM 2016
So......
Max bet : 128 units
Bankroll : 1000 units (not sure the min of tables)
Correct? :question:
Correct, the table limit for EC's is 250 times the minimum, more than sufficient for me.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Mar 05, 09:24 PM 2016
I was speaking to Stefano Hourmouzi but for your information my max bet will be 128 units (if needed) and there is no greater reward than the HG, it's like the card without limit, universal!
What difference does it make to you who gives you the 100 000 Euros in cash?
If he accepts your challenge you can kill 2 birds with one stone.
So back at you, if I am willing to accept this bet, What's in it for me?
If you are refusing to accept the challenge from anyone, you must really hate STEVE!!!
Quote from: Azim on Mar 05, 09:49 PM 2016
What difference does it make to you who gives you the 100 000 Euros in cash?
If he accepts your challenge you can kill 2 birds with one stone.
So back at you, if I am willing to accept this bet, What's in it for me?
If you are refusing to accept the challenge from anyone, you must really hate STEVE!!!
I've nothing against Stefano in personal level and to be true, it's more about prestige rather than money in my point of view.
The more the better, as long as you can pay me I won't refuse!
Anyone else?!
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Mar 05, 10:04 PM 2016
I've nothing against Stefano in personal level and to be true, it's more about prestige rather than money in my point of view.
The more the better, as long as you can pay me I won't refuse!
Anyone else?!
So if you that confident, give me a number as to whats in it for me?
Quote from: Azim on Mar 05, 10:07 PM 2016
So if you that confident, give me a number as to whats in it for me?
To give you a number?
Are you serious?!
Are you expecting me to use my money, teach you and pay you??
I'm going to repeat it for final time, the greatest reward is the HG, it's priceless!
If you don't accept, here is your excuse to retreat in dignity and please don't make me repeating myself!
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Mar 02, 02:45 PM 2016
First, a cold EC doesn't include only cold numbers.
Second, I'm speaking with hard facts, evidence, not assumptions.
Third, I've requested twice from Les Howell of RX to code it but didn't got any reply so far.
What will you pay me to code this for you in RX?
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Mar 02, 03:38 PM 2016
Let me clarify what I said, many users have tried to find a worse sequence than the one of the example I've posted on this topic but they didn't find anything worse among LITERALLY millions of results.
So instead of making vague assumptions like: ''I don't think so...'' better to speak in terms of results and I'm talking about millions of simulated results, including also the WHOLE archive of Wiesbaden casino.
All these people just confirmed that there was not worst 200 spins sequence, they were not trying my method.
Therefore it was like an open challenge for anyone who can come out alive after such session from hell.
What I did was to try several ways and first I've concluded to another one which needed roughly 1000 units and the max bet was about 350 units.
I was not completely satisfied with my findings, mostly because of the huge max bet (350 units), then it hit me suddenly to use a very old and well known progression in a different way, in different scale actually!:-)
That's how the whole concept came into existence and Fallacious Holy Grail was born.
Isn't this what you said:
You are a liar and you have just come to this forum to ruin and upset everyone else.
If you did this. GIVE US THE FILE OF THE SPINS.
YOU HAVE AGREED I HAVE THE CODING RIGHT.
I CAN RE-RUN THE NUMBERS
WHY ARE WE NOW NOT GETTING THE FILE?
@ Azim,
Everything I said is true, the Wiesbaden casino files are available online for EVERYONE to check.
I don't know about you but I don't consider you as enemies, why such hostile reception??
And sorry but you came second about the coding, if you've offered me yesterday I'd say yes but thanks to user Nick I've found a programmer to RX code it, actually Nick gave me good reference about the said person.
Anyway, thanks for your offer Azim.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Mar 04, 05:37 PM 2016
All of these people who have turned against my method with one way or the other have something in common, they are selling something.
So they are considering me as rival but I've nothing to sell, actually I've nothing to prove because I don't profit from what you believe.
My posts are appearing after hours, thus it's pointless to keep on writing here.
We could carry on our discussions at another forum.
Goodbye,
Angelo
A will repeat this again for you:
I am not selling any system. I give my bot's on rent for a fee of 25% commission on winnings.
You don't get access to the bot.
You open an account at any online site you want with your email and money.
I have access to the account. So if I do any withdrawals they go to you first.
After you get the money. You send it to me.
So get that fact right about me!!!.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Mar 05, 11:15 PM 2016
@ Azim,
Everything I said is true, the Wiesbaden casino files are available online for EVERYONE to check.
I don't know about you but I don't consider you as enemies, why such hostile reception??
And sorry but you came second about the coding, if you've offered me yesterday I'd say yes but thanks to user Nick I've found a programmer to RX code it, actually Nick gave me good reference about the said person.
Anyway, thanks for your offer Azim.
Well we got the 14 days which were the 52K file provided it tanked.
So did you not claim you went through the whole library?
I Personally think you are a cheap person who wants your system tested for free!!!!!
Nick,
I respect you a lot for what you have done on this forum.
I just want to point something out to you and others.
If you can explain your system and it can be replicated else where it should be valid. I totally understand you have said your system is not for sale.
If it's not for sale I don't care about the bet selection, however can you explain something I have noticed from the files provided.
Why the uneven units of bets placed?
What do I mean by that is sometimes you place 10 1 unit bets and some times only twice and your bets go up?
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Mar 05, 11:15 PM 2016
@ Azim,
Everything I said is true, the Wiesbaden casino files are available online for EVERYONE to check.
I don't know about you but I don't consider you as enemies, why such hostile reception??
And sorry but you came second about the coding, if you've offered me yesterday I'd say yes but thanks to user Nick I've found a programmer to RX code it, actually Nick gave me good reference about the said person.
Anyway, thanks for your offer Azim.
You should have known or found out more about me instead of calling me cheap and accusing me of getting money from Steve.
Quote from: Steve on Mar 05, 07:17 AM 2016
ill try and simplify things:
* if anyone believes the martingale is the hg, go make millions. Put everyone else to shame.
* If you dont understand the difference between odds and payouts, learn the difference.
If you think any one of the following is true for proper rng, show me any conclusive proof of concept, and i promise ill pay you $100k and close every roulette site i have
* Betting hot or cold numbers changes odds
* Progression or changing bet size changes odds
* Any particular sequence of spins changes the odds of future spins
* winning in short term changes the odds of those spins
* you have a better chance of winning with progression
* you can consistently beat roulette without changing the odds, aka increasing the accuracy of predictions (most important)
Please, on any of the forums, this is an open challenge. Im calling everyone out here. The alabalahs, the kavs, and whoever. Please, make an idiot of me. Instead of calling me names and accusing me of trying to hide winning systems, make a total ass out of me. If you cant, then shut up.
I swear on my life this is an honest challenge. Not just because im sure im right, but also because it would mean the HG exists, and i would earn more than $100k from it.
Clarifying issues:
* Odds are the chances of winning.
* Payouts are amount you are paid on wins
* If you havent changed the odds, every spin is independent and progression like the martingale are nothing but different size bets on different spins, each with the same odds.
* With different sized bets like positive progression (increasing bet after losses) the payouts are different for wins, but the amount you risk losing are proportionally greater too.
* Without a method of bet selection that changes the odds, no money management can help you win. I mean it wont help at all. Zilch. All money management does is change amount you risk.
Personal facts:
* My explanations of these basic facts have sweet FA (nothing) to do with anything i sell.
* Im an honest person with nothing to hide. I say it exactly as it is. I would be ashamed to hide anything. Its not who i am. It is pathetic to have to lie. If i ever felt the need to lie, it would mean something about my life needs to change. I am comfortable with who i am and have no problem looking in the mirror. If anyone doesnt believe it, whoopie for them.
* Most people earn around $150/day for 8 hours work, then after tax are left with around $100. You do it almost every day for about 45 years. After living expenses, saving or accumulating wealth on such a wage is nearly impossible. And when you retire at 65, if youre lucky you own your own a small house and have a small retirement fund. And you will have spent your whole life working, not living. I chose roulette because it does better than the pathetic other option. But it doesnt work everywhere and is not always easy.
* My primary focus with roulette is using my techology, not selling it. But i have multiple businesses too that have nothing to do with roulette. i live comfortably and do not need to lie to sell anything.
* Anyone can easily find the truth about my computers, including a free trial, personal demo, public demo, live webcam demo etc. It can be on any wheel. You can even record spins from a casino and ill test on it. Its not like i could cheat because i would have never even seen the wheel before.
* If you think my trying to explain why the martingale fails is a plot to sell something, or if you think i hate systems like the kavouras bet or BAs hg, you are deluded.
* Almost everyone who attacks me is a system seller. Even the very few who arent sellers have a personal vendetta for reasons like they were banned for spamming, they had an argument with me about the martingale etc.
* Anyone who attacks me tends to use rubbish spread by others also who have vendetta. And thry dont give a crap about the accuracy of their claims. Accuracy is not their goal. It is to discredit, with prejudice, and without integrity. To anyone who does proper research, the truth is clear and they see im honest. And they see the manipulation and lack of integrity of my attackers.
* If youre one of the people who think roulette computer players are dishonest cheats, consider i personally dont cheat, by the legal definition. You can have your 9-5 slavery. We wont judge you for that. But im guessing we live more comfortable lives than you, only at the expense of casinos that take billions from people and families trying to make more money to survive. Boo hoo for the casinos and billionaires.
Roulette computer facts:
* To a layman, its cheating. The fact is in around half casinos, its legal and not cheating by legal definition. But casinos can still ban users if caught. But they will ban ANY consistent winner as a last resort.
* Banning is comparatively rare. In most cases, if computer players are suspected, the casino simply calls no more bets earlier until the player loses or leaves.
* Computers can easily win millions in a day. Even other AP methods can. It has been done. But it kicks a hornets nest, like it did with the ritz team.
* I sell computers ranging between $2000 - $80,000. The differences are huge, but mainly its because better versions beat a much broader range of wheels, are more covert so you win more without detection, easier to use, more accurate, quicker to use, and get earlier predictions. Theres a comparison page on my site.
* My claim of 93% win rate with 15 numbers is not the biggest joke, like alabalah said. He just never saw the video of my publuc demo where i show it. Really its simple if you pay attention: link:://youtu.be/PUqjvSvEnX8
so alabalah, what or whos the biggest joke?
* The video above shows an edge of 120%. The casinos edge is just -2.7%. So with the computer, using basic settings, thats an edge around 40 times greater than the casinos. Do the math.
Visual ballistics facts:
* To someone who doesnt know anything about it, vb and predicting with eyesight is impossible. Actually it is very easy for anyone with reasonable eyesight, the right wheel, and a brain.
General facts
* Almost evet new player begins with the martingale and same approaches. And they do not understand why they fail, until later when they become more experienced. Even i was no different.
* Inexperienced players think the experienced players are arrogant by saying things like you need to increase accuracy of predictions. The inexperienced players really have no idea.
* There are many experienced players on the forums who offer mostly accurate advice. Some people learn. But the majority dont listen or learn, and they dont understand the core facts of roulette. So all their systems are fundamentally the same., and they are unable to revognize a losing system when they see it. Take BAs system. An experienced player knows its just betting cold numbers with martingale. Tested a billion times before.
For those that think the kavouras bets, the BA systems or whatever work, just find out for yourself. But i hope you learn from it. When you understand core facts, you will see the delusion you had before. Im not the only one here trying to help, but then you may also better understand i dont give a shit if you dont buy my products. I really am just trying to help.
I can vouch on this. I don't think anyone here has supressed a winning system.
I think, people are just lazy or as Winkel said they want it on a platter.
I can personally say I have already shown 1 strategy for all to use. There are many more that have fallen down the cracks.
That's one of the reasons I can't stay away from here.
Azim you know of a system that beats rng, I'm all ears.
Kav I'll respond to your misconceptions in detail soon, but a martingale can survive any losing run if the table limits allow it. Even Alabalah understands this. Like most martingales, your system has enormous risks for a little bit of profit.
Quote from: Steve on Mar 06, 12:44 AM 2016
Azim you know of a system that beats rng, I'm all ears.
Kav I'll respond to your misconceptions in detail soon, but a martingale can survive any losing run if the table limits allow it. Even Alabalah understands this. Like most martingales, your system has enormous risks for a little bit of profit.
Steve, I have beaten RNG. It's all over the forum. However, I try and not discuss it. I let the original posters know once I have played with their systems.
I tell them the changes I have made and it's up to them to reveal it or not. Not my place to reveal.
I have also warned people to be careful.
This one I proposed to help test for the reason it being marty.
I am actually changing the code in my current app for testing this. I will be putting it up but not the code. It will have to be registered and can only be used for 7 days.
If anyone can produce a 1m file that beats this. I want to know the source of the file and be able to repeat the process in getting that file with the same numbers.
Azim try the 2m spins from :.roulettetraining.com
I have a 2m file or larger and I can re-create it whenever i want it will have the same numbers every time.
Source is random.org
Do you want me to use that?
The file on the link only has 1m
If it's the same numbers then it isn't random.
Quote from: Steve on Mar 06, 02:16 AM 2016
If it's the same numbers then it isn't random.
Here is the file as promised.
It will create a result.txt file. Open that file in notepad with the font set as "Lucidia console bold."
Blue Angel,
You can load a small file and verify the logic.
BA, i don really care if you are Kav or not, but there are numerous reasons why i have little doubt. Your ips being not just in greece, but all the same region of greece too. There more but lets not get distracted.
Regarding your proposal, doubling your bankroll is not proof of a winning system. In fact virtually any progression system can double the bankroll in the short term. The problem is when the inevitable losing streak occurs, you lose it all and more. A progression system can quite easily show profit over tens of thousands of spins with some luck, by winning on the right spins for maximum profit. I explained how it works in a previous post.
Another problem with your proposal is there is no way i could sit and watch you play a martingale, all to prove to you the martingale loses. I have better things to do really, even if it was practical. You know its not practical at all, so really your proposal is absurd, as is your expectation that anyone would take it seriously.
There is no escaping this with the martingale. Loss is inevitable unless you increase your odds of winning, and betting on sleepers doesnt work. You still dont undestand it. You still think i need to know your kavoras bet money management to properly assess it. The bet selection is all i need to know. Any professional can tell you.
Also any martingale could theoretically win billions if you had unlimited bankroll and no table betting limit. But be realistic. There is a betting limit, so theoretical approaches arent enough.
QuoteOr do you prefer to hide behind RNG simulations and posts in forums?!
I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is if you do the same!
So now it's your call, what it will be??
Are you serously saying that doubling your bankroll in maybe 2000 spins compares to testing millions of spins? And you say im the one hiding? any system can win in the short term, which is obviously why you prefere a short term test. I mean 30 units day in even 2 months is maybe around 2000 spins. in so few spins you can even double bankroll betting black with some luck over so few spins. Practically any of the progression systems that come free with rx can do the same, so why arent they making millions?
Kav, im all for a challenge, but if im going to front $100k youll need to better than that. So heres what i propose:
1. we get the system properly coded in rx, and test millions of spins. anyone else can test too. someone please give a price quote for the coding.
2. if you see the maximum bets needed to profit are clearly outside typical table limits, then clearly your martingale is no better than any other. That means you lost the challenge. ie $5 min and $250 max bet is typical.
i could have a martingale betting red and doubling after a loss, and it would be no different to your system except it either tanks or wins quicker, depending on luck and the spins. you need to understand martingale relies entirely on maximum bet and available bankroll.
3. we run simlar tests with the kavouras bet. This will give you another chance, althought you already say on your site the most it beats is 20,000 spins, with some luck. So you already know it doesnt work. But you have the audacity to claim my computers are a scam and overpriced, when you can plainly see them get a 120% edge in the public demo - just one of many ive conducted. Know what it means Kav? It means youre a liar. You have no integrity. You just dont like me for telling you why your systems lose, and for removing your spam. So you publish absolute bullshit as revenge. You know i also have people i dont like, but i never lie about them and still give them credit where due.
4. you then apologize publicly and remove your rubbish about me on your site. if you really arent kav, then you agree to follow a process so you can prove it. you may think its not possible without kavs assistance, assuming you arent him, but i have a simple way.
There may be some details to work out, but basically im saying you can apologize to me when you see im right. And if wrong, sincerely ill pay you $100k aud, give a public apology and ill close every roulette site i have.
And kav, consider this:
The kavouras bet is just scattered chips, which you say is "ingeniuosly chaotic" to cover lots of areas of the wheel, supposedly so the dealer cannot avoid your bets. Uh, why not just bet red or black?
But anyway, surely even youd acknowledge your bets dont change the odds. Whether just you, or 10 people placed the bets, wouldnt make a difference. So clearly, flat bets gives you no edge all, and you claim the money management is the magic.
Well my computers can get a 120% edge, with flat bets.
So just imagine if we combined your apparently magic money management with my useless overpriced computers that get a 120% edge... instead of using your kavouras bet which anyone would know doesnt change the odds at all. Wouldnt that be a tad bit better than your self proclaimed famous bet?
Kav if you are going to argue against truth, you will lose. And if you persist in lying about me, its not going to end well for you.
Remember how it started. I just removed your spam like i would remove any spam. And i tried to explain why your approach wont work. You took it very personally. Thats your shortcoming, not mine. Any man with interity would accept truth and learn, not attack the person trying to educate and help them.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Mar 02, 05:06 PM 2016
There are some cases where you have a tie between 2 EC's and also both of them have appeared on the last spin/result, in this case bet the opposite EC from the one which have more hits and its last appearance was more recent.
So, in the case described above I'm looking among all those 6 ECs for EC that has most hits and bet its opposite. If there are 2 ECs with most hits, then between these 2 ECs I'm looking for the EC whose appearance was more recent and bet its opposite, right? But what to do in a case when I have 2 ECs with most hits and both of them hit in the last spin?
Quote from: MrG on Mar 06, 07:43 AM 2016
So, in the case described above I'm looking among all those 6 ECs for EC that has most hits and bet its opposite. If there are 2 ECs with most hits, then between these 2 ECs I'm looking for the EC whose appearance was more recent and bet its opposite, right? But what to do in a case when I have 2 ECs with most hits and both of them hit in the last spin?
No that's not what I was told.
take the 6 even chances.. Keep a running total of the session. Doesn't matter how long the session is...
so spin 1 3 even chances are at 1 and the other 3 are at zero..
keep adding the even chance till spin 37
After spin 37 now find the lowest count if 2 even chances produce the same lowest count pick the one that has slept the most.
Keep the tally going so if at spin 37 RED was lowest bet RED if at spin 40 Even is low now bet even.
Betting is 1 unit for the start and any reset to 1 after a new high.
Progression goes up only after the 37 cycle.
If in between 37 spin cycle you reach a new high you drop to 1 unit and carry on the same cycle.
so if you are betting 4 units and third spin of that cycle you bet 33 more spins with 1 unit and increase bet at the end of that cycle.
I guess here is the situation in question.
Blue Angel can answer where will the bet be placed?
Red -> 33 LastHit -> 63
Black-> 27 LastHit -> 64
Even -> 33 LastHit -> 63
Odd -> 27 LastHit -> 64
High -> 32 LastHit -> 64
Low -> 28 LastHit -> 58
IF you going to answer can you answer this too:
Red -> 460 LastHit -> 951
Black -> 464 LastHit -> 950
Even -> 464 LastHit -> 949
Odd -> 460 LastHit -> 951
High -> 464 LastHit -> 950
Low -> 460 LastHit -> 951
Quote from: Azim on Mar 06, 08:38 AM 2016
I guess here is the situation in question.
Blue Angel can answer where will the bet be placed?
Red -> 33 LastHit -> 63
Black-> 27 LastHit -> 64
Even -> 33 LastHit -> 63
Odd -> 27 LastHit -> 64
High -> 32 LastHit -> 64
Low -> 28 LastHit -> 58
I'd select one between Black and Odd, there's nothing to separate them so chose one of the two randomly.
Quote from: Azim on Mar 06, 10:07 AM 2016
IF you going to answer can you answer this too:
Red -> 460 LastHit -> 951
Black -> 464 LastHit -> 950
Even -> 464 LastHit -> 949
Odd -> 460 LastHit -> 951
High -> 464 LastHit -> 950
Low -> 460 LastHit -> 951
In this case like the previous there's nothing to separate between Red and Low, so pick 1 from these 2 randomly.
Well glad you said that cause that's exactly what I have done.
Come on BA, do you agree to my challenge? Maybe you should agree before you find the result of proper tests. But in either case, the truth will be obvious. That would be enough for me.
Quote from: Steve on Mar 06, 05:22 PM 2016
Come on BA, do you agree to my challenge? Maybe you should agree before you find the result of proper tests. But in either case, the truth will be obvious. That would be enough for me.
What's your challenge?
The only objective and valid criterion is the risk of ruin test.
If a method can double the initial bankroll and then re-doubles it without losing it, then that method must be considered winning method.
Achieving two times +100% before one time -100% is valid regardless of the amount of units a bankroll may be.
Whether it's 100 or 1000 units the +/- 100% applies equally to every bankroll.
Ok, so let's look at one thing at a time:
QuoteIf a method can double the initial bankroll and then re-doubles it without losing it, then that method must be considered winning method.
1. Say I start with $200, and this happens:
a. I bet $100 on red and win. Bankroll = $300.
b. I bet $100 on red and lose. Bankroll = $200
c. I double my bet to $200 and bet on red. I win, and bankroll is $400.
So I just doubled my bankroll. Now if the same thing happened over the next three spins, I can double the bankroll again.
And this is your definition of a "winning system".You've just showed me you have even less experience than I thought. You said you had a physics degree, right?
Kav, first you were all confident that your system would pass a 1m spin test. Now you have backed right off saying you only need to double your bankroll. And we saw above how easily it is done from luck.
QuoteThe only objective and valid criterion is the risk of ruin test.
Yeah ok, so let's do a proper test then. The martingale is like a gambling addict making a bet with his friend. He keeps losing, so makes a new bet with higher stakes. He thinks eventually he'll win back all his losses. And if he had unlimited money to bet with, and the friend accepted any bet size, then yeah eventually the gambling addict will win. But the problem is the gambling addict doesnt have unlimited money, and the friend wont accept any sized bet.
The martingale with roulette is no different, except the payouts and odds are unfair. Unless the player has an edge with more accurate bet selection, the player is guaranteed to eventually reach the maximum bet and blow the bankroll.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Any person with half a brain here would understand the logic. Do you want to do a proper challenge, or not?
If you want to proceed with your potentially 6 spin challenge, then ok. But I get to replicate your test with a red/black martingale to show the results are no different. And if I replicate your results, then I win the challenge. If I cant replicate it, then you win. And what happens in each case is explained in my earlier post. Basically you apologize to me etc, or I pay you $100k and close all my roulette sites.
But if you are going to persist with your suggestion of short term test, then anyone with a brain here can see you backed right off, because you know what will happen with any proper test.
QuoteAchieving two times +100% before one time -100% is valid regardless of the amount of units a bankroll may be.
Whether it's 100 or 1000 units the +/- 100% applies equally to every bankroll.
Now you are really wasting my time. I think you now know your mistake but I dont think I'm getting my apology.
You keep on mention Kavouras but I don't care because I'm not him.
You have misunderstood, I never suggested 6 spins test, for God's sake where this 6 spins came from??
My method is calculating in 37 spins cycles, therefore to properly evaluate it we should test it for 370 cycles.
Kav I dont care if you have secret identity or not.
So now you are saying 37 x 370 = 13,690 spins for a test. You do know that a martingale can still profit over that, right? Again its just a question of available bankroll and maximum bet. So what are you trying to prove, that a gambler can get lucky with the martingale?
Sure we can test over 13,690 spins, but I'm not wagering $100k on that because, like I keep saying, any martingale can get lucky in the short term. See above. If you dont want to do proper tests, then we can keep it simple, we do some tests and eventually you and everyone see the martingale doesnt work. Then you can just say sorry for wasting everyone's time, ok?
QuoteI never suggested 6 spins test, for God's sake where this 6 spins came from??
From this:
QuoteIf a method can double the initial bankroll and then re-doubles it without losing it, then that method must be considered winning method.
Achieving two times +100% before one time -100% is valid regardless of the amount of units a bankroll may be.
Whether it's 100 or 1000 units the +/- 100% applies equally to every bankroll.
So by your logic the 6 spins would prove your system worked.
Really this is a waste of everyones time.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Mar 03, 08:55 PM 2016
Hi Azim, thanks for your kind offer, really appreciated.
After waiting for the first 37 spins only on the beginning of each session, then you don't wait,you just bet every spin till the end of the session.
A session ends when the player is satisfied with the profit, there no standard spins to play or units to win.
You must set the counter for ALL 6 EC's to non stop recording from the beginning of each session till the end.
Every time there is another least shown EC you change to that one regardless of how many units the bet is, selection and progression are 2 different things!
Every time there are 2 or 3 EC's with the same hits, select the one which is missing for more spins (older), if after applying the second criteria there is tie between 2 or 3 EC's, then choose the one which its opposite EC has appeared most recently.
Whenever the balance reaches a new high you are resetting the betting amount to 1 unit regardless of which EC you are betting at that time.
So the answer to your question is yes, you carry on with your selection as long it remains least appeared.
You track without betting ONLY the first 37 spins of each session.
I'll be on your disposal if you need further clarification.
Angelo
So now the rules have changed to 370 spins or cycles and not become rich overnight?
I honestly think you are full of shit and want your system tested for free. No one on the other forums would do it for you so you decide to get it going here..
Well I have codded the original system. Anymore changes for this to be tested will cost from here on. Be it you or Steve, someone will have to remit the money for any more changes.
Azim, as I said in PM:
* I have no doubt his system will lose. There is no value in coding to test it, except to teach other people a lesson.
* If he changes the rules after it loses, then you know he's full of shit and just wants free testing.
Thankyou Azim for putting time into this, but I suggest you dont waste more time. All testing indicates the system is just another losing martingale.
So blueangel, you lost. I think at the very least you should stop selling your systems, since now you know they lose. They all apply the same losing principles.
This is what I do not understand.
The worst case scenario in millions of spins is only 68 Red hits in 200 spins which is just a 34% hit rate.
BA's MM did not pass these 200 spins as he was -466.5 at spin 200. (Data below)
However within 29 spins after this point at spin 229 his MM secured the win.
So there were 87 hits in 229 spins which is a still just a 38% hit rate, a 4% difference from 68 hits in 200 spins.
I am pretty sure that was also the worst 229 spin sequence in millions of spins. But lets say a 34% hit rate in 229 spins is the worst case scenario which would total just 77 hits. This will only happen once, let say twice in 1 million spins where a hit rate is between 34% and 37% during a 229 spin stretch. All other scenarios have a 38% or higher hit rate.
1 million consecutive spins divided by 229 is 4366 total sessions played (each consisting of 229 spins)
Total BR (that BA uses is 1000 units) an average win per session is +-? 10 units (I am sure its higher, but lets go lower say just 2 units)
4364 x 2 = +8728
minus 2 losing sessions = 2 x -1000 (a hit rate of less than 38% in a stretch of 229 spins) = -2000 units
+8728 - 2000 = +6728 units for 4366 session played of 229 spins each
My conclusion is: as long as we achieve a 38% hit rate for 229 spins we will be in the plus which should be everytime you play in a casino for the next 11 years if you played one 229 spin session per day. However, there will be +- 2 days when you lose out of the 4366. The average session will not be 229 spins long.......
Yes, BA played this on a French roulette wheel with the Le Partage rule for the zero, but this should not matter as we can also choose to play on the French wheel ( at least in Europe)
Blue Angels Data for only 68 hits in 200 spins and 87 hits in 229 spins
BETTING ALWAYS ON RED / FRENCH ROULETTE WITH "LE PARTAGE" RULE
S=Spin R=Result T=Total
S R T
1 -1 -1
2 -1 -2
3x +1 -1
4 -1 -2
5x +1 -1
6 -1 -2
7x +1 -1
8 -1 -2
9 -1 -3
10x +1 -2
11 -1 -3
12x +1 -2
13 -1 -3
14/ZERO -0.5 -3.5
15 -1 -4.5
16x +1 -3.5
17 -1 -4.5
18 -1 -5.5
19 -1 -6.5
20 -1 -7.5
21x +1 -6.5
22 -1 -7.5
23x +1 -6.5
24 -1 -7.5
25 -1 -8.5
26 -1 -9.5
27 -1 -10.5
28 -1 -11.5
29x +1 -10.5
30 -1 -11.5
31x +1 -10.5
32x +1 -9.5
33 -1 -10.5
34 -1 -11.5
35x +1 -10.5
36x +1 -9.5
37x +1 -8.5
38x +2 -6.5 BET RAISES TO 2 UNITS
39 -2 -8.5
40 -2 -10.5
41 -2 -12.5
42x +2 -10.5
43 -2 -12.5
44 -2 -14.5
45x +2 -12.5
46x +2 -10.5
47 -2 -12.5
48 -2 -14.5
49 -2 -16.5
50 -2 -18.5
51 -2 -20.5
52x +2 -18.5
53 -2 -20.5
54 -2 -22.5
55x +2 -20.5
56 -2 -22.5
57 -2 -24.5
58x +2 -22.5
59 -2 -24.5
60 -2 -26.5
61 -2 -28.5
62x +2 -26.5
63 -2 -28.5
64 -2 -30.5
65x +2 -28.5
66 -2 -30.5
67 -2 -32.5
68x +2 -30.5
69x +2 -28.5
70 -2 -30.5
71x +2 -28.5
72 -2 -30.5
73 -2 -32.5
74 -2 -34.5
75x +4 -30.5 BET RAISES TO 4 UNITS
76 -4 -34.5
77x +4 -30.5
78 -4 -34.5
79 -4 -38.5
80x +4 -34.5
81 -4 -38.5
82 -4 -42.5
83 -4 -46.5
84 -4 -50.5
85 -4 -52.5
86 -4 -56.5
87 -4 -60.5
88 -4 -64.5
89 -4 -68.5
90x +4 -64.5
91 -4 -68.5
92x +4 -64.5
93 -4 -68.5
94 -4 -72.5
95x +4 -68.5
96 -4 -72.5
97x +4 -68.5
98 -4 -72.5
99 -4 -76.5
100 -4 -80.5
101x +4 -76.5
102x +4 -72.5
103 -4 -76.5
104x +4 -72.5
105/ZERO -2 -74.5
106 -4 -78.5
107 -4 -82.5
108 -4 -86.5
109 -4 -90.5
110 -4 -94.5
111 -4 -98.5
112 -8 -106.5 BET RAISES TO 8 UNITS
113 -8 -114.5
114x +8 -106.5
115 -8 -114.5
116 -8 -122.5
117x +8 -114.5
118 -8 -122.5
119x +8 -114.5
120 -8 -122.5
121 -8 -130.5
122x +8 -122.5
123 -8 -130.5
124 -8 -138.5
125 -8 -146.5
126 -8 -154.5
127 -8 -162.5
128x +8 -154.5
129x +8 -146.5
130x +8 -138.5
131x +8 -130.5
132 -8 -138.5
133 -8 -146.5
134x +8 -138.5
135 -8 -146.5
136 -8 -154.5
137 -8 -162.5
138x +8 -154.5
139 -8 -162.5
140x +8 -154.5
141 -8 -162.5
142 -8 -170.5
143x +8 -162.5
144 -8 -170.5
145x +8 -162.5
146x +8 -154.5
147x +8 -146.5
148 -8 -154.5
149x +16 -138.5 BET RAISES TO 16 UNITS
150x +16 -122.5
151 -16 -138.5
152 -16 -154.5
153/ZERO -8 -162.5
154x +16 -146.5
155x +16 -130.5
156 -16 -146.5
157 -16 -162.5
158x +16 -146.5
159 -16 -162.5
160 -16 -178.5
161 -16 -194.5
162 -16 -210.5
163x +16 -194.5
164x +16 -178.5
165 -16 -194.5
166 -16 -210.5
167 -16 -226.5
168x +16 -210.5
169 -16 -226.5
170 -16 -242.5
171x +16 -226.5
172x +16 -210.5
173 -16 -226.5
174x +16 -210.5
175x +16 -194.5
176 -16 -210.5
177 -16 -226.5
178 -16 -242.5
179 -16 -258.5
180x +16 -242.5
181 -16 -258.5
182 -16 -274.5
183 -16 -290.5
184x +16 -274.5
185 -16 -290.5
186/ZERO -16 -306.5 BET RAISES TO 32 UNITS
187x +32 -274.5
188 -32 -306.5
189 -32 -338.5
190/ZERO -16 -354.5
191 -32 -386.5
192x +32 -354.5
193x +32 -322.5
194 -32 -354.5
195 -32 -386.5
196x +32 -354.5
197 -32 -386.5
198 -32 -418.5
199/ZERO -16 -434.5
200 -32 -466.5 34% Hit Rate in 200 spins
201 10 -32 -498.5
202 6 -32 -530.5
203 14 +32 -498.5
204 21 +32 -466.5
205 30 +32 -434.5
206 11 -32 -466.5
207 12 +32 -434.5
208 10 -32 -466.5
209 22 -32 -498.5
210 34 +32 -466.5
211 10 -32 -498.5
212 16 +32 -466.5
213 0 -16 -482.5
214 14 +32 -450.5
215 8 -32 -482.5
216 34 +32 -450.5
217 18 +32 -418.5
218 19 +32 -386.5
219 25 +32 -354.5
220 35 -32 -386.5
221 34 +32 -354.5
222 29 -32 -386.5
223 16 +64 -322.5 BET RAISES TO 64 UNITS
224 21 +64 -258.5
225 12 +64 -194.5
226 30 +64 -130.5
227 9 +64 -66.5
228 34 +64 -2.5
229 32 +64 +61.5 BET RESETS TO 1 UNIT 38% Hit Rate in 229 spins
Quote from: amk on Mar 07, 08:37 AM 2016
This is what I do not understand.
The worst case scenario in millions of spins is only 68 Red hits in 200 spins which is just a 34% hit rate.
BA's MM did not pass these 200 spins as he was -466.5 at spin 200. (Data below)
However within 29 spins after this point at spin 229 his MM secured the win.
So there were 87 hits in 229 spins which is a still just a 38% hit rate, a 4% difference from 68 hits in 200 spins.
I am pretty sure that was also the worst 229 spin sequence in millions of spins. But lets say a 34% hit rate in 229 spins is the worst case scenario which would total just 77 hits. This will only happen once, let say twice in 1 million spins where a hit rate is between 34% and 37% during a 229 spin stretch. All other scenarios have a 38% or higher hit rate.
1 million consecutive spins divided by 229 is 4366 total sessions played (each consisting of 229 spins)
Total BR (that BA uses is 1000 units) an average win per session is +-? 10 units (I am sure its higher, but lets go lower say just 2 units)
4364 x 2 = +8728
minus 2 losing sessions = 2 x -1000 (a hit rate of less than 38% in a stretch of 229 spins) = -2000 units
+8728 - 2000 = +6728 units for 4366 session played of 229 spins each
My conclusion is: as long as we achieve a 38% hit rate for 229 spins we will be in the plus which should be everytime you play in a casino for the next 11 years if you played one 229 spin session per day. However, there will be +- 2 days when you lose out of the 4366. The average session will not be 229 spins long.......
Yes, BA played this on a French roulette wheel with the Le Partage rule for the zero, but this should not matter as we can also choose to play on the French wheel ( at least in Europe)
Blue Angels Data for only 68 hits in 200 spins and 87 hits in 229 spins
229 32 +64 +61.5 BET RESETS TO 1 UNIT 38% Hit Rate in 229 spins
I am not here to argue with you.Just trying to make my point why this is garbage. Never mind the Marty. We have proved that .
However, lets think about it from bankroll perspective. A bankroll of 1000 and in the spins you have presented the highest drop down was 500+.
I will use 500 as a base and not 1000. Giving you advantage there.
your win was only 61.00 do the math. 61 / 500 = 12.2% You just said your win rate is 38%. from my books 38% of 500 is 190.00 so unless you make more that 200 every time you will never come out ahead.
Sorry I might as well give my money to charity.
BA do you agree to my simple terms? You're very quiet lately...
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Mar 05, 10:29 PM 2016
To give you a number?
Are you serious?!
Are you expecting me to use my money, teach you and pay you??
I'm going to repeat it for final time, the greatest reward is the HG, it's priceless!
If you don't accept, here is your excuse to retreat in dignity and please don't make me repeating myself!
Steve,
I think he has retreated thinking he still has dignity.
Thanks for your reply Azim but I dont quite get your math explanation, keep in mind I am not that good in math. However, my basic math concept should hold up.
My question:
If the worst case scenario is 87 Reds in 229 spins (38% hit rate) and the MM passed this, why wouldnt it pass all other scenarios which have more then 87 Reds in 229 spins (more than a 38% hit rate)? Keep in mind that a session ends at spin 229 win or lose.
@Amk,
I think that it also depends on when you get hits.
Of course those last hits bring more money...
So, if you have 68/200, and than 87/229, obviously you had 19 hits in last 29 spins and you are betting highest chips, so there is a secret...
... or not?!
Quote from: amk on Mar 08, 11:11 AM 2016
Thanks for your reply Azim but I dont quite get your math explanation, keep in mind I am not that good in math. However, my basic math concept should hold up.
My question:
If the worst case scenario is 87 Reds in 229 spins (38% hit rate) and the MM passed this, why wouldnt it pass all other scenarios which have more then 87 Reds in 229 spins (more than a 38% hit rate)? Keep in mind that a session ends at spin 229 win or lose.
I dont believe there is a set number of spins to which a session is classified as ended.... Only a profit ends the session! from my understanding.
Azim, I tried to send you a pm about a bot. How can i reach you?
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Mar 08, 12:47 PM 2016
I dont believe there is a set number of spins to which a session is classified as ended.... Only a profit ends the session! from my understanding.
Azim, I tried to send you a pm about a bot. How can i reach you?
First off:
I have based my calculations on the original method. The session never ends till a player gets rich. The rest is up to you guys to do whatever you want.
@Amk.
The win rate should be equal to your return rate.
so in the case of 38% win rate you are looking at losing 62% of the time. In other words (61(profit) * 38) = 2,318 .
You can lose 62% of the time (500 * 62(losses)) = 31, 000.
What I said was (200(plus profit) * 38) = 7600.00
Lose (500 * 62) = 31,000
If there are no worse case scenerio from the one mentioned, why did we end up with a negative balance, using the 52K spins provided.
There are worst cases out there. Original system thinker used that as a bait for everyone to test the system for him for free.
In Business, which is what you want to look at if you want to make money in Gambling.
Its called don't throw your good money to chase bad money. Draw a line somewhere and cut your losses start again.
Are you really going to bet 64 units 7 times to make 61.5units?
Thanks for the interesting replies! Will get back to you shortly.
Question:
The below example is from the first post on this thread. It has 234 spins but I disregard the last 8 spins, a total of 226 spins. If I counted correctly this then has 87 wins for RED.
Just 87 wins for RED in 226 spins.
The EC stat for 226 spins could be for any of the 6 ECs.
Using BAs progression we had to go to a betting level of 64 units on a EC.
Using BAs progression on a dozen we only went to betting level of 2 units twice, the zeros appeared 13 times (Dozen 1 hit 60 times).
Ended plus 54 units.
Is this in any way unique?
BETTING ALWAYS ON RED / AMERICAN 00 WHEEL
1. 26 -1 -1
2. 17 -1 -2
3. 27 +1 -1
4. 9 +1 0
5. 33 -1 -1
6. 35 -1 -2
7. 19 +1 -1
8. 5 -1 -2
9. 4 -1 -3
10. 8 -1 -4
11. 8 -1 -5
12. 24 -1 -6
13. 22 -1 -7
14. 11 -1 -8
15. 2 -1 -9
16. 17 -1 -10
17. 26 -1 -11
18. 1 +1 -10
19. 22 -1 -11
20. 7 +1 -10
21. 28 -1 -11
22. 24 -1 -12
23. 13 -1 -13
24. 18 +1 -12
25. 36 +1 -11
26. 20 -1 -12
27. 15 -1 -13
28. 13 -1 -14
29. 13 -1 -15
30. 15 -1 -16
31. 15 -1 -17
32. 12 +1 -16
33. 13 -1 -17
34. 11 -1 -18
35. 24 -1 -19
36. 00 -1 -20
37. 00 -1 -21 GO UP TO 2 UNITS
38. 28 -2 -23
39. 4 -2 -25
40. 19 +2 -23
41. 26 -2 -25
42. 9 +2 -23
43. 24 -2 -25
44. 34 +2 -23
45. 14 +2 -21
46. 9 +2 -19
47. 8 -2 -21
48. 24 -2 -23
49. 23 +2 -21
50. 27 +2 -19
51. 25 +2 -17
52. 24 -2 -19
53. 13 -2 -21
54. 29 -2 -23
55. 18 +2 -21
56. 4 -2 -23
57. 1 +2 -21
58. 12 +2 -19
59. 00 -2 -21
60. 10 -2 -23
61. 8 -2 -25
62. 20 -2 -27
63. 18 +2 -25
64. 18 +2 -23
65. 18 +2 -21
66. 7 +2 -19
67. 33 -2 -21
68. 31 -2 -23
69. 21 +2 -21
70. 28 -2 -23
71. 23 +2 -21
72. 22 -2 -23
73. 21 +2 -21
74. 31 -2 -23 GO UP TO 4
75. 35 -4 -27
76. 9 +4 -23
77. 31 -4 -27
78. 25 +4 -23
79. 32 +4 -19
80. 35 -4 -23
81. 27 +4 -19
82. 29 -4 -23
83. 31 -4 -27
84. 23 +4 -23
85. 6 -4 -27
86. 20 -4 -31
87. 1 +4 -27
88. 13 -4 -31
89. 7 +4 -27
90. 27 +4 -23
91. 26 -4 -27
92. 34 +4 -23
93. 29 -4 -27
94. 33 -4 -31
95. 00 -4 -35
96. 17 -4 -39
97. 34 +4 -35
98. 28 -4 -39
99. 1 +4 -35
100. 6 -4 -39
101. 22 -4 -43
102. 3 +4 -39
103. 35 -4 -43
104. 4 -4 -47
105. 2 -4 -51
106. 34 +4 -47
107. 5 +4 -43
108. 36 +4 -39
109. 33 -4 -43
110. 10 -4 -47
111. 3 +4 -43 GO UP TO 8
112. 15 -8 -51
113. 24 -8 -59
114. 27 +8 -51
115. 36 +8 -43
116. 16 +8 -35
117. 23 +8 -27
118. 9 +8 -19
119. 2 -8 -27
120. 22 -8 -35
121. 21 +8 -27
122. 11 -8 -35
123. 33 -8 -43
124. 00 -8 -51
125. 19 +8 -43
126. 12 +8 -35
127. 16 +8 -27
128. 14 +8 -19
129. 31 -8 -27
130. 8 -8 -35
131. 1 +8 -27
132. 19 +8 -19
133. 11 -8 -27
134. 8 -8 -35
135. 20 -8 -43
136. 15 -8 -51
137. 19 +8 -43
138. 25 +8 -35
139. 28 -8 -43
140. 31 -8 -51
141. 32 +8 -43
142. 11 -8 -51
143. 4 -8 -59
144. 21 +8 -51
145. 6 -8 -59
146. 28 -8 -67
147. 8 -8 -75
148. 00 -8 -83 GO UP TO 16 UNITS
149. 33 -16 -99
150. 35 -16 -115
151. 20 -16 -131
152. 5 +16 -115
153. 34 +16 -99
154. 4 -16 -115
155. 21 +16 -99
156. 8 -16 -115
157. 3 +16 -99
158. 20 -16 -115
159. 0 -16 -131
160. 00 -16 -147
161. 10 -16 -163
162. 10 -16 -179
163. 22 -16 -195
164. 0 -16 -211
165. 16 +16 -195
166. 9 +16 -179
167. 0 -16 -195
168. 11 -16 -211
169. 35 -16 -227
170. 9 +16 -211
171. 00 -16 -227
172. 26 -16 -243
173. 29 -16 -259
174. 33 -16 -275
175. 0 -16 -291
176. 11 -16 -307
177. 29 -16 -323
178. 32 +16 -307
179. 24 -16 -323
180. 16 +16 -307
181. 30 +16 -291
182. 24 -16 -307
183. 20 -16 -323
184. 20 -16 -339
185. 30 +16 -323 GO UP TO 32
186. 14 +32 -291
187. 33 -32 -323
188. 30 +32 -291
189. 19 +32 -259
190. 9 +32 -227
191. 15 -32 -259
192. 4 -32 -291
193. 1 +32 -259
194. 10 -32 -291
195. 33 -32 -323
196. 14 +32 -291
197. 26 -32 -323
198. 20 -32 -355
199. 31 -32 -387
200. 7 +32 -355
201. 23 +32 -323
202. 22 -32 -355
203. 7 +32 -323
204. 28 -32 -355
205. 9 +32 -323
206. 00 -32 -355
207. 14 +32 -323
208. 22 -32 -355
209. 24 -32 -387
210. 3 +32 -355
211. 26 -32 -387
212. 31 -32 -419
213. 14 +32 -387
214. 22 -32 -419
215. 29 -32 -451
216. 25 +32 -419
217. 9 +32 -387
218. 12 +32 -355
219. 35 -32 -387
220. 31 -32 -419
221. 18 +32 -387
222. 30 +32 -355 GO UP TO 64
223. 7 +64 -291
224. 16 +64 -227
225. 9 +64 -163
226. 7 +64 -99
227. 4 -64 -163
228. 1 +64 -99
229. 26 -64 -163
230. 24 -64 -227
231. 32 +64 -163
232. 1 +64 -99
233. 18 +64 -35
234. 9 +64 +29 RESTART AT 1 UNIT
Quote from: amk on Mar 08, 04:48 PM 2016
Thanks for the interesting replies! Will get back to you shortly.
Question:
The below example is from the first post on this thread. It has 234 spins but I disregard the last 8 spins, a total of 226 spins. If I counted correctly this then has 87 wins for RED.
Just 87 wins for RED in 226 spins.
The EC stat for 226 spins could be for any of the 6 ECs.
Using BAs progression we had to go to a betting level of 64 units on a EC.
Using BAs progression on a dozen we only went to betting level of 2 units twice, the zeros appeared 13 times (Dozen 1 hit 60 times).
Ended plus 54 units.
Is this in any way unique?
BETTING ALWAYS ON RED / AMERICAN 00 WHEEL
1. 26 -1 -1
2. 17 -1 -2
3. 27 +1 -1
4. 9 +1 0
5. 33 -1 -1
6. 35 -1 -2
7. 19 +1 -1
8. 5 -1 -2
9. 4 -1 -3
10. 8 -1 -4
11. 8 -1 -5
12. 24 -1 -6
13. 22 -1 -7
14. 11 -1 -8
15. 2 -1 -9
16. 17 -1 -10
17. 26 -1 -11
18. 1 +1 -10
19. 22 -1 -11
20. 7 +1 -10
21. 28 -1 -11
22. 24 -1 -12
23. 13 -1 -13
24. 18 +1 -12
25. 36 +1 -11
26. 20 -1 -12
27. 15 -1 -13
28. 13 -1 -14
29. 13 -1 -15
30. 15 -1 -16
31. 15 -1 -17
32. 12 +1 -16
33. 13 -1 -17
34. 11 -1 -18
35. 24 -1 -19
36. 00 -1 -20
37. 00 -1 -21 GO UP TO 2 UNITS
38. 28 -2 -23
39. 4 -2 -25
40. 19 +2 -23
41. 26 -2 -25
42. 9 +2 -23
43. 24 -2 -25
44. 34 +2 -23
45. 14 +2 -21
46. 9 +2 -19
47. 8 -2 -21
48. 24 -2 -23
49. 23 +2 -21
50. 27 +2 -19
51. 25 +2 -17
52. 24 -2 -19
53. 13 -2 -21
54. 29 -2 -23
55. 18 +2 -21
56. 4 -2 -23
57. 1 +2 -21
58. 12 +2 -19
59. 00 -2 -21
60. 10 -2 -23
61. 8 -2 -25
62. 20 -2 -27
63. 18 +2 -25
64. 18 +2 -23
65. 18 +2 -21
66. 7 +2 -19
67. 33 -2 -21
68. 31 -2 -23
69. 21 +2 -21
70. 28 -2 -23
71. 23 +2 -21
72. 22 -2 -23
73. 21 +2 -21
74. 31 -2 -23 GO UP TO 4
75. 35 -4 -27
76. 9 +4 -23
77. 31 -4 -27
78. 25 +4 -23
79. 32 +4 -19
80. 35 -4 -23
81. 27 +4 -19
82. 29 -4 -23
83. 31 -4 -27
84. 23 +4 -23
85. 6 -4 -27
86. 20 -4 -31
87. 1 +4 -27
88. 13 -4 -31
89. 7 +4 -27
90. 27 +4 -23
91. 26 -4 -27
92. 34 +4 -23
93. 29 -4 -27
94. 33 -4 -31
95. 00 -4 -35
96. 17 -4 -39
97. 34 +4 -35
98. 28 -4 -39
99. 1 +4 -35
100. 6 -4 -39
101. 22 -4 -43
102. 3 +4 -39
103. 35 -4 -43
104. 4 -4 -47
105. 2 -4 -51
106. 34 +4 -47
107. 5 +4 -43
108. 36 +4 -39
109. 33 -4 -43
110. 10 -4 -47
111. 3 +4 -43 GO UP TO 8
112. 15 -8 -51
113. 24 -8 -59
114. 27 +8 -51
115. 36 +8 -43
116. 16 +8 -35
117. 23 +8 -27
118. 9 +8 -19
119. 2 -8 -27
120. 22 -8 -35
121. 21 +8 -27
122. 11 -8 -35
123. 33 -8 -43
124. 00 -8 -51
125. 19 +8 -43
126. 12 +8 -35
127. 16 +8 -27
128. 14 +8 -19
129. 31 -8 -27
130. 8 -8 -35
131. 1 +8 -27
132. 19 +8 -19
133. 11 -8 -27
134. 8 -8 -35
135. 20 -8 -43
136. 15 -8 -51
137. 19 +8 -43
138. 25 +8 -35
139. 28 -8 -43
140. 31 -8 -51
141. 32 +8 -43
142. 11 -8 -51
143. 4 -8 -59
144. 21 +8 -51
145. 6 -8 -59
146. 28 -8 -67
147. 8 -8 -75
148. 00 -8 -83 GO UP TO 16 UNITS
149. 33 -16 -99
150. 35 -16 -115
151. 20 -16 -131
152. 5 +16 -115
153. 34 +16 -99
154. 4 -16 -115
155. 21 +16 -99
156. 8 -16 -115
157. 3 +16 -99
158. 20 -16 -115
159. 0 -16 -131
160. 00 -16 -147
161. 10 -16 -163
162. 10 -16 -179
163. 22 -16 -195
164. 0 -16 -211
165. 16 +16 -195
166. 9 +16 -179
167. 0 -16 -195
168. 11 -16 -211
169. 35 -16 -227
170. 9 +16 -211
171. 00 -16 -227
172. 26 -16 -243
173. 29 -16 -259
174. 33 -16 -275
175. 0 -16 -291
176. 11 -16 -307
177. 29 -16 -323
178. 32 +16 -307
179. 24 -16 -323
180. 16 +16 -307
181. 30 +16 -291
182. 24 -16 -307
183. 20 -16 -323
184. 20 -16 -339
185. 30 +16 -323 GO UP TO 32
186. 14 +32 -291
187. 33 -32 -323
188. 30 +32 -291
189. 19 +32 -259
190. 9 +32 -227
191. 15 -32 -259
192. 4 -32 -291
193. 1 +32 -259
194. 10 -32 -291
195. 33 -32 -323
196. 14 +32 -291
197. 26 -32 -323
198. 20 -32 -355
199. 31 -32 -387
200. 7 +32 -355
201. 23 +32 -323
202. 22 -32 -355
203. 7 +32 -323
204. 28 -32 -355
205. 9 +32 -323
206. 00 -32 -355
207. 14 +32 -323
208. 22 -32 -355
209. 24 -32 -387
210. 3 +32 -355
211. 26 -32 -387
212. 31 -32 -419
213. 14 +32 -387
214. 22 -32 -419
215. 29 -32 -451
216. 25 +32 -419
217. 9 +32 -387
218. 12 +32 -355
219. 35 -32 -387
220. 31 -32 -419
221. 18 +32 -387
222. 30 +32 -355 GO UP TO 64
223. 7 +64 -291
224. 16 +64 -227
225. 9 +64 -163
226. 7 +64 -99
227. 4 -64 -163
228. 1 +64 -99
229. 26 -64 -163
230. 24 -64 -227
231. 32 +64 -163
232. 1 +64 -99
233. 18 +64 -35
234. 9 +64 +29 RESTART AT 1 UNIT
I can't answer that, I personally don't think it is. But I could be wrong.
(link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=16641.0;attach=21301;image)
I'm impressed how you do pics like that, wish I had the talant.
Ken
link:s://:.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=link:s://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-gqqyGnP_6eg/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAACI/-obQim1xyVM/s0-c-k-no-ns/photo.jpg&imgrefurl=link:s://plus.google.com/u/0/112536142655444924657&h=487&w=487&tbnid=voJlZfYZDBcg6M:&tbnh=186&tbnw=186&docid=FGMhp4QiOrWKUM&itg=1&usg=__mNbFlZhPiMYke2NONNJ3Vi8Tb2c=
(link:://:.celebitchy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/FFN_Pope_Francis_SGP_011514_51305536.jpg)
I didnt do the original picture, just made the angel blue, only took 2 mins. But cutting out images isnt hard to do, you just click the mouse along the edges to define the shape, then and click cut. I did a sloppy job though, as in a hurry
Steve, what do you think about reply #288?
AMK, basically whether or not the martingale works is not the question. If there are no betting limits, and you have an unlimited bankroll, then you are guaranteed to win. But in reality you'll either:
a. Run out of money with too many large losing bets, or
b. Reach the table betting limit, in which case any wins wont cover previous losses. Then your bankroll just depletes.
When people look at the martingale, they focus on what they can win back with their large bets. But they forget what they are risking too. In this case, it's a lot of risk, for such a small return. That's the balance that really occurs. No give without take, and the house edge makes it disproportionate and unfair. The only solution is increase your odds.
Also a common mistake people make is thinking waiting for X spins before starting a progression will help. It makes no difference at all. Because waiting for something wont change the odds.
for example say you waiting for 10 reds in a row. Does it change the odds that red or black will spin next? Not at all. The wheel doesnt give a crap what you or anyone thinks is due, or what the odds should be. The odds are just whatever they are. No amount of player delusion will change that.
The only exception where "waiting" will change the odds is something like waiting for spins with a slower rotor. Something like that can change the odds, if your method of bet selection is advantage play, like visual ballisitics.
There is always this stupid division between advantage players and system players. Advantage play is just increasing accuracy of predictions. I call my advantage play methods "systems" too, because they are methodical. But typically "systems" are a term used mostly for things like the martingale.
I mean look at this from betselection.cc:
Quote10 streaks of red,
then wait for a black to hit,
and the you bet that TEN RED won't HIT AGAIN.
HOW can this possibly change the odds? It doesnt. It's no different to waiting for RBRBRBRB then betting. Anyone can test these principles with the free software I recently published. But instead, many players prefer to stay on a path of "head in the sand"
I tried this system, the bankroll ballance for 50 000 spins for single zero wheel can be seen in attached screenshot - biggest drawdown is -172 551, maximum bet is 32 768. Doesn't seem to be working. :-) Though it is still possible that there is a mistake somewhere in the script. I played with sessions in a way that a session ends when a new highest BR is reached.
Quote from: Azim on Mar 08, 05:06 PM 2016
I can't answer that, I personally don't think it is. But I could be wrong.
This was from 00 wheel.
Every bet selection has its own cycle, for EC's is 2 spins, for dozens and columns 3 spins, for lines 6 spins, for corners 9 spins, for streets 12 spins, for splits 18 spins and for numbers 36 spins.
Betting each selection separately, on its own cycle with the proper progression is the way to go.
Answer the following questions:
1) The probability of 1/37 has NEVER being confirmed, why we never ever going to see 37 different numbers in 37 successive outcomes??
2) Why all sections of the wheel's and table's layout will never contain ALL of the hot or cold numbers??
?
As the OP, I wanted to present some new info regarding this method from the creator himself.
BlueAngel has now admitted that this was a fake method produced to deceive other members.
Here is our interaction from GF:BA: Quote''The (f)Law"' can identify a HG when he sees one, such as Martingales, Laboucherets, Fibonaccis and the list goes on...not to mention that he had invited me to Steve's forum to present my Fallacious Holy Grail...
Have you ever thought why I called it fallacious?!
I've created and used much better than that but there are so many fools around the web who think: "if it's winning, has to be Marty!"
Go figure...!
TL: QuotePersonally, never found any HG, so not sure what BA is referring to here.
I posted one of BA's methods from BetSelection over at .cc for discussion, and he openly defended it, so not sure why he appears to be distancing himself from it now.
From the above post, it appears that he is implying that he created and posted a method specifically designed to lose............I'm officially confused.o_O
If anyone can clear this up, I would appreciate it
Then there is another exchange regarding info from Turbo (unrelated) where BA calls out Turbo's method as deception.
TL: QuoteAren't you the one who posted a fake method with the Fallacious Holy Grail?
BA: QuotePeople out there are constantly looking for the next big thing, I've only provided them the means to destroy themselves, can't blame me, they asked for it!
I would like to offer an apology to anyone who invested any time in this method. Had I known it was a fake, I never would have posted it.
Another member bites the dust.
Cheers! :thumbsup:
Quote from: thelaw on Sep 19, 10:11 AM 2017BlueAngel has now admitted that this was a fake method produced to deceive other members.
The guy is a dickhead. You didn't know?
There's quite a few of them. Around.
Quote from: Steve on Sep 21, 11:07 PM 2017
The guy is a dickhead. You didn't know?
There's quite a few of them. Around.
Steve you are right, I'm a dickhead because I pay attention to such craps as those coming from you.
BA I've never seen you post anything of value. Your latest approach is just touching on AP, but its a terrible version showing no understanding.
You're not in any position to criticize my understanding especially while touting your own. You are just another dickhead attacking me but knowing nothing. if we had any rational discussion about who knew what they were talking about and who was full of shit, the result wouldn't suit you.
And you're just another troll who loves to create drama at other peoples expense. There's a forum for people like you.
Quote from: Steve on Sep 24, 04:42 AM 2017
BA I've never seen you post anything of value. Your latest approach is just touching on AP, but its a terrible version showing no understanding.
You're not in any position to criticize my understanding especially while touting your own. You are just another dickhead. if we had any rational discussion about who knew what they were talking about and who wad full of shit, the result wouldn't suit you.
Well that's just your opinion, whether reflects reality or not is another thing.
What did you expect? To reveal step by step instructions of how I play?
I just share some ideas, not my main methods, and I expect through interaction to develop and improve them.
Unfortunately the vast majority of members just read without actively participating, by participating I don't mean necessarily to share systems but at least to provide some feedback and suggestions based on testing.
Since this situation doesn't change for the better, regardless of which forum, how could someone like me continue to share? Let alone of something valuable.
Why to do so? For receiving your throwing "rocks" and in best case the nothing?!
People whether care only for what they take without giving anything back, or they already know better than anyone else, therefore it's pointless to discuss since they have already made up their minds.
Posting without interaction is pointless, I'm not writing to read it myself but that's how most of the forums for most of the time are sadly.
Afterall, perhaps it's my fault to expect so much from others when they don't give a shit except from what they can get.
Deliberately misleading people then making fun of them is not helping them. Its harmful to them.
Or is that just my opinion?
There are many holes in what you say and your behavior. Many contradictions and misunderstandings.
Quote from: Steve on Sep 24, 06:51 AM 2017
Deliberately misleading people then making fun of them is not helping them. Its harmful to them.
Or is that just my opinion?
There are many holes in what you say and your behavior. Many contradictions and misunderstandings.
You got me, what can I say? ;D
Assume what you like, everyone is free to form his/her own conclusions.
No need to "assume". Anyone who deliberately misleads people for kicks is a dickhead.
You have other problems too but no point in wasting the time. People like you never change. You are already "grown up". It's just the person you are. It's not something to be proud of.
Quote from: Steve on Sep 24, 11:11 PM 2017
No need to "assume". Anyone who deliberately misleads people for kicks is a dickhead.
You have other problems too but no point in wasting the time. People like you never change. You are already "grown up". It's just the person you are. It's not something to be proud of.
Thank you of letting me know of who I'm and what I do.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Jul 24, 07:56 AM 2016
Answer the following questions:
1) The probability of 1/37 has NEVER being confirmed, why we never ever going to see 37 different numbers in 37 successive outcomes??
2) Why all sections of the wheel's and table's layout will never contain ALL of the hot or cold numbers??
Focusing on your second question, it is a little bit unclear what you are asking. More specifically, your usage of the term "all sections" is a tad bit nebulous.
Do you mean why ONE PARTICULAR section of the wheel (or table) will NOT contain all of the hot or cold numbers?
Or do you mean why all of the the hot or cold numbers are NOT uniformly distributed across all of the various sections of the wheel (or table)?
What I mean is that not all hits are gathering in a single part of the wheel.
In a chaotic and random behavior there's no perfect symmetry, will we ever witness 1 hit on every slot around the wheel? no
Will we ever witness 19 slots (any half of the wheel) with 37 hits while the other has none? no
Will we ever witness adjacent, continuous slots to form a pattern of hits like 2 hits, 1 hit, 0 hits, 2 hits, 1 hit, 0 hits, 2 hits, 1 hit, 0 hits...all over the wheel? definitely no
By discarding what it's not going to happen we effectively shorting out our available options, the focus should be on mid-short term, when it's being confirmed by the results it starts all over.
Quote from: vladir on Feb 26, 12:50 PM 2016
I have tested this over 2 billions spins. You would need a huge bankroll to play this - almost 20.000 units and also table limmits over 5000 on EC to survive the biggest drawdowns... Not playable anywhere as far as I know of...
Play with cents only and you've got yourself a HG! My Table limits when i would like to play with cent are 30.000 units and a bankroll of 1000 euro (100.000 cents) should do the trick. The only question is, are you willing to put that time and effort in it and only get 29 cents in return ? :thumbsup:
Too bad, that it a fake i'm the End. Well we should ha e known.
If that is your only problem then why don't you bot it in order not to waste your precious time with it?
You could also apply it on all 3 EC pairs simultaneously for 3 times its profit.