#1 Roulette Forum & Message Board | www.RouletteForum.cc

If you could absolutely 100% guarantee a long term 2% edge over roulette by flat betting would that be enough for you to take up semi or full time play?

You would need an average total wager of $10,000 to earn $200. Seems like a lot for a little but don’t forget, it’s a guaranteed profit.


You could expect to bet anywhere from $6000 to $14,000 on any session you play.

If you stepped it up to $30,000 then you’d earn $600 a day.

Bigger table limits and the sky’s the limit!

Do you think casinos would notice someone skimming off such a small %?

An interesting post which raises a few questions.

A 2% edge sounds great on the face of things. BUT......

How much bankroll would one need.

How much spare time does someone have. (I am playing online at the moment between 50-60 hours a week. You can't really just nip in and out for 5 minutes with a 2% edge)

A few online casinos are now stating in their terms and conditions that they can refuse to pay out winnings to anyone they consider to be a professional player. In other words, recreational (mug) players only. So you have to ask yourself what constitutes a professional player. I would say someone who treats it like a business. Someone who flat bets and wins the majority of sessions grinding out small wins with the occasional 'lucky' session thrown in.

Will the casinos notice?

I am pretty sure they will have someone flagged as a consistent winner soon enough. There are ways around that if you are creative and have friends who are happy to take a small percentage of winnings for services rendered. Some online casinos tend to come down on the winners more or less straight away making the little things more complicated than they need to be.

*The above is based on online play. I suppose playing at live B+M casinos will limit your exposure a bit however you then have to factor in expenses and such. I find playing at home more relaxing and stress free without feeling the need to win because of any time constraints.

You owe it to yourself to give pro play a try if you have spent many years studying the game and feel confident that you have an edge. Just don't throw the baby out with the bath water and hang on to what you could not afford to lose should things go pear shaped.

Just to add. I have turned over 500k over the last 6 months and I am not betting in big units either. You could say that I should have lost about 15-20k. I am making more than 5% profit on turnover and going strong. IT CAN BE DONE. It is just another job which you can argue gives you more flexibility as you are working for yourself. The downside is no sick pay, no pension plan. Some of these things mean nothing in the world we live in today anyhow.

good luck and good timing. (you still need a little bit of both)

You have to consider the style of betting. For example, a 2% edge when you need to constantly bet after ball release is likely to get attention from staff before you made enough money. But if it was completely covert (ie red/black etc) then of course it is worthwhile. It is not much different to the edge the casino has over average players.

Steve answer is OK,but I'd say something in addition.
Even with 2% edge and playing flat bet,you need a huge bankroll,otherwise you can't offset the negative unbalance that for sure you have to "tolerate"!
I think that you need 5 times the highest negative balance you have met in your test.

interesting thoughts ...i,ve recently had a debate with someone i know about if you were guaranteed an edge of 15% or even less you could compound your winnings and add it to the total bank them get 15% of that etc keep adding it on and you would pretty soon be making a lot of money.. link:://:.moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_calculator.htm (link:://:.moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_calculator.htm) here is a compound interest calculator..urrent principal would be 100 as a start bank...years to grow would be the number of sessions..interest rate would be your guaranteed edge say 2%...compound interest would stay at 1 ....so 100 start bank ...50 sessions ....interest rate 2%..compounded after 50 sessions gives you a total of..269.16....100 sessions would tally up to 724.46.....200 sessions would tally up to 5,248.49...even a 1% guaranteed edge you would make a fortune....the debate came from making money from roulette odds betting...ie arbing.....or lay betting...which is completley possible with a bit of know how....

Beating the casino is not that hard. The main issues are time, and avoiding detection. 2% is definitely worthwhile considering the points raised, but you can get much better.

Thanks for your opinions.

Because 2% is such a small return the betting volume needs to be high, so you could always throw the occasional few bets down before ball release without affecting the 2% profit to any great degree.
So 2% is enough if flat betting before ball release?

As for compounding, it’s a proven approach but I’m not sure it’s practical for roulette when playing for a living. You would probably want to spend whatever you won.

So a big initial bank is probably a prerequisite. Maybe 3 times the greatest expected drawdown would be enough. In this case that would be about $42,000 bankroll just to win $200 a day! So 84k for $400 and 126k for $600!

I wouldn’t bother for $200, but $400 a day is tempting.

Would you start a legitimate business if I told you it will earn $400 dollars a day after tax, but you need $84,000 to set up the business and remain liquid? You would need to work for 200 days to return your initial commitment?

QuoteSo 2% is enough if flat betting before ball release?

Yes. Blackjack players used to wet their pants with a 1% edge. 2% is enough. You would basically win at roughly the rate other players would lose if they flat bet.

If you are talking about casino play, 200 days is not easy. You will be so over the casino by then, winning or not. But more feasible if you work in a team. Especially with just a 2% edge, you will be over it quickly.

With a starting investment of over $80,000 you can do better though, and probably with a lot less risk. I dont know enough about what you're talking about though.

if u make 2% every day starting from 100 bucks then probably in a year or so u r a millionaire.
no need for a big bankroll, u will grow it up yourself.

Quote from: iggiv on May 14, 10:18 PM 2012
if u make 2% every day starting from 100 bucks then probably in a year or so u r a millionaire.
no need for a big bankroll, u will grow it up yourself.

On paper 2% every day from $100 and you would be rich in 12 months.

Sadly in the real world it don't work that. You need to live, eat, pay your bills, etc. So you need to earn as you go.

The big bankroll is needed to offset drawdowns. The 2% would be average earnings on dollars invested.

There is also the double edged sword of casino table limits and detection. They would not let you come in there and start betting thousands of dollars per number then walking off with 2% profit day in and day out, which is what you would have to do to turn $100 into a fortune in one year.

Slow and steady wins the race.

to tell u the truth betting 10K for 200 bucks looks a bit risky. There is no such a thing as anything guaranteed in roulette. Something can happen for whatever reason.

I agree it sounds scary but the point of this thread is to suspend reality and imagine a guaranteed profit.


Also don't forget it's an average earning. Sometimes you might only spend $6000 and profit $3000. Other times you might lose $14000. End of the day you will profit $200 per day regardless.

Now, is it worth it, and would you do it?

$200/day isnt a lot these days, especially if you spend the whole day to get it. For an $80,000 investment, there are better ways to make money that dont take so much time.

 
$80,000 is for $400 a day.

On any given day you would only invest between 12k and 28k. The 80k is a drawdown buffer.

The most you could ever lose in 1 day is about 10k.

Yes there are much better earners out there, but this is about roulette, and more specifically, roulette for a living, and is 2% good enough?

Don't forget you could always have the bulk of your bankroll invested elsewhere while it's not needed.

pretty interesting points of view....just have to say the person in question i am talking about does this for a living..he will put money o n an outcome on both teams in any kind of game..using the odds given he will win regardless of who wins or loses..he thinks nothing of betting 4000 to win 10 or 20 units ..its a guaranteed win and multiples a day add up to a good earner...anything guaranteed even 50 or 80 a day is worth the effort tax free if your a pensioner its a fortune and if you have no work and built this up its your pension its the difference between a good life or not...anything won from a bankroll is a plus...a bankroll just being spent will deplete in time..i know which i prefer...
as to a percentage is not guaranteed beouse of the nature of his proffesion this is what its all about..with so many things he does he was asking me my ideas on roulette and how to guarantee a profit.....we talked and argued a while then he told me what and how he was going to make money from this game...he was going to start lay betting through his affiliate sites...an affiliate site gets 25% return on a customers losses..live casinos use same feeds ....you would bet 100 on red and 5.5 on green...on one site then 100 on black on another site using the same live casino and on the same spin...win or lose you would win 25% of losses from one side minus 5.5 for the green...a total of 19.50 win....depending on how much you wan to bet at once this is a good return for one account...many accounts will quadruple this....you get paid at the end of the month from the sites so its one bet only for the month per customer...thats the easy bit there is a bit more to avoid detection but for numerious reasons i can,t explain them online...but i think you get the idea

Quote from: Skakus on May 14, 05:57 AM 2012
If you could absolutely 100% guarantee a long term 2% edge over roulette by flat betting would that be enough for you to take up semi or full time play?

It certainly would. Even with a paltry 0.5% edge you could make millions over time. You would need to work out your risk of ruin but there are plenty of resources on the net for this. You bankroll would depend very much on the distribution you're playing (how many numbers). Playing only 1 or 2 numbers would require a bigger bankroll than if you were playing 30 numbers (due to the increased variance).

I think it would be easy enough to stay under the radar by playing at multiple casinos. E.g if your target is $600/day, open 6 accounts and take $100 from each.

Here's something from the Wizard of Odds' site (an article on gambling systems) which might be of interest.

QuoteSystem salesmen usually promise ridiculous advantages.  For example, even with just a 1% advantage on an even money bet, it would not be difficult to parlay $100 into $1,000,000 by betting in proportion to bankroll.  I was asked to prove this claim so I wrote a computer simulation based on the toss of a biased coin, with a 50.5% chance of winning.  At all times the player bet 1% of his bankroll, rounded down to the nearest dollar.  However, if a winning bet would put the player over $1,000,000 then he only bet as much as he needed to get to exactly $1,000,000.  In addition, I ran simulations with a 2% advantage and for a starting bankroll of $1,000.  Following are the results of all four tests.
$100 Bankroll, 1% Advantage

   
• Bets won = 7,182,811,698 (50.4999%)
• Bets lost = 7,040,599,544 (49.5001%)
• Player achieved $1,000,000 first = 79,438 (83.019%)
• Player went bust first = 16,249 (16.981%)
• Average number of bets to reach $1,000,000 = 174,972 (364.5 days at 8 hours per day, 60 bets per hour)

$100 Bankroll, 2% Advantage

   
• Bets won = 7,027,117,205 (51.0000%)
• Bets lost = 6,751,539,769 (49.0000%)
• Player achieved $1,000,000 first = 215,702 (98.099%)
• Player went bust first = 4,180 (1.901%)
• Average number of bets to reach $1,000,000 = 63,775 (132.9 days at 8 hours per day, 60 bets per hour)

$1,000 Bankroll, 1% Advantage

   
• Bets won = 5,213,026,190 (50.4999%)
• Bets lost = 5,109,817,544 (49.5001%)
• Player achieved $1,000,000 first = 74,818 (99.0285%)
• Player went bust first = 734 (0.9715%)
• Average number of bets to reach $1,000,000 = 137,208 (285.8 days at 8 hours per day, 60 bets per hour)

$1,000 Bankroll, 2% Advantage

   
• Bets won = 6,332,837,070 (50.9996%)
• Bets lost = 6,084,596,671 (49.0004%)
• Player achieved $1,000,000 first = 267,445 (99.9996%)
• Player went bust first = 1 (0.0004%)
• Average number of bets to reach $1,000,000 = 46,428 (96.7 days at 8 hours per day, 60 bets per hour)

These simulations prove that with just a small advantage of as little as 1% and a bankroll of as little as $100 you can grind your way to a million dollars through the gambling equivalent of compound interest.

So even with only a $1000 bankroll, your chance of going bust with a 2% edge is negligible.

Is this just a hypothetical question?  ;)

If not I could write a simulation similar to the above to find your risk of ruin. Just let me know how many numbers you're betting on.  :thumbsup:

Thanks Bayes.

>>Is this just a hypothetical question?

Of course it is!  :thumbsup:

The problem with these % of bankroll simulations is that in order for them to work out you can never touch the money >> I like to touch the money! But I get the point.

Thanks for the offer but I’ll have to get back to you on the risk of ruin simulation because I’m not sure how many numbers would be bet. Is an average alright, or is an accurate breakdown needed?

yeah best if you say it's hypothetical, otherwise you'll get the proof police on your case.  ;D

Compounding is the best way to build up your profits, but you could still withdraw a % when you say double or triple the bank. Kelly betting is the optimum MM if you have a real edge, but I expect you already know that.

An average is ok for the numbers. More accurate would be to take a weighted average. Example: 30% of your bets are on 3 numbers, 20% are on 5 numbers and 50% are on 10 numbers, so the average quantity of numbers bet will be 0.3 x 3 + 0.2 x 5 + 0.5 x 10 = 6.9 (7 numbers rounded up).

Quote from: Bayes on May 15, 08:18 AM 2012
... yeah best if you say it's hypothetical, otherwise you'll get the proof police on your case.  ;D

I think you're confusing (historical) fact with (logical) proof.  The hypothetical is no less subject to proof.

Pretty soon we'll all be opening one of those "plain 5% bank-accts"?

Quote from: Bayes on May 15, 02:29 AM 2012
Here's something from the Wizard of Odds' site (an article on gambling systems) which might be of interest.

People like the Wizard forget, if ever realize, that the field work reigns in the simulations, as much as the other way around.  Ie, we're not a bunch of computers living in lalaland.

Besides, the Wizard isn't an expert at anything.  He started out as a simple actuarial science graduate, and ended up a "gambling writer"... neither a mathematician nor a writer.  That's what happens when someone "bounces around" aimlessly from one gimmicky "system" to another.  But you can still "sell yourself out", nay the ones who believe in you, and have someone like Bodog come along to "pick you back up".  LoL.

Ok Bayes, what's the risk of ruin?

Edge = +2%

Weighted average = 5.62 rounded up = 6 numbers per hypothetical bet.


Kelly betting is one of the best if you have an edge. What do you think of The Turnaround?

My favourite MM method is the KISS method. I don't like holding calculations in my head when I'm playing. It's hard enough picking the numbers without trying to calculate how much to put on. 1 unit for each selected number is as complex as I get these days. ;D 

Ok, I thought it would be more useful to know the biggest drawdown over many sessions, rather than the RoR, that way you'll know what bankroll you need.  ;)

To simulate a +2% edge, and assuming you lose 6 units per loss and gain 30 units per win, we have:

30p - 6(1 - p) = +0.02   where p is the probability of a win.

Solving for p, we get p = 6.02/36 = 301/1800. So this represents a "wheel" with 1800 pockets, and if the ball lands in say pockets 1 - 301 it corresponds to a win.

I simulated 10,000 sessions at 200 spins per session. The largest drawdown from the 10,000 sessions was approximately 700 units (I ran the test a few times and it was consistently around this number).

Since you're actually betting somewhat less than 6 numbers, this is an underestimate of what the actual drawdown would be, but I reckon a 1000 unit bank should be enough to cover the worst case scenario.

Kelly or % of bank betting will probably be safer, and more profitable over time.  :-\

QuoteWhat do you think of The Turnaround?

Not sure what you mean, are you talking about the Turnaround system for EC bets?

Quote from: GARNabby on May 15, 09:48 AM 2012
I think you're confusing (historical) fact with (logical) proof.  The hypothetical is no less subject to proof.

A hypothesis may be subject to proof, but this isn't a hypothesis in the sense of trying to explain anything, so it doesn't need proof. It's just a "what-if" question.

I have the time and the money.  Let's do it.

Sam

Quote from: Bayes on May 16, 06:13 AM 2012It's just a "what-if" question.

Well, the "proof police" have one up on the BS cops.

Skakus

"If you could absolutely 100% guarantee a long term 2% edge over roulette by flat betting would that be enough for you to take up semi or full time play?"

Are you saying this can be done or is this just a "what if" question?

Because if I could fly, Homeland Security wouldn't get to feel my junk!

Samster

Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 16, 04:59 PM 2012
>>Homeland Security wouldn't get to feel my junk!

Samster

EEEUW!

Thanks a lot for the drawdown calculation Bayes.

I reckon 1000 units is probably close but  doesn't account for much as long as things turn around. It's when you lose the whole 1000 then lose it again, and agian that gets you into trouble.

This is only a hypothetical question after all so it doesn't really matter.

Even If you could guarantee a 2% edge you still need to be able to afford the investment of both time and money. And that is a sizable investment. $80,000 locked up and 5-6 hours a day work for $400 a day pay cheque.

I don't think the casinos have much to worry about.

Quote from: Bayes on May 16, 06:01 AM 2012
>>
Not sure what you mean, are you talking about the Turnaround system for EC bets?

This one:


Roulette System - The Turnaround System
First, a glossary of Turnaround terms.-
This one comes from a PROFFESIONAL, and i haven't tested it myself. (lack of time)
A "Series" is a sequence of bets, usually one in which the player is in the hole and working towards a profit. You'll hear the term "recovery series" from time to time, and it tells you that every losing series is assumed to be reversible. There's also an animal called a "winning series": more about that later. Don't worry about losing series: Turnaround will run out of money once in a while if you impose a sensible stop loss limit, but it won't happen often.
The "LTD" is a pair of figures you will need to keep in your head at all times. If you can't handle simple mental arithmetic, this method is not for you. If you are a blackjack player who counts cards, relief is at hand -- Turnaround is a whole lot easier and more effective than counting and is virtually undetectable by pit cops. "LTD" is short for loss-to-date, and the first figure in the pair tells you how many chips you're currently down according to the special tracking method the system uses. The second figure indicates the correct next bet (NB); basically, your NB stays the same after a loss and increases according to a fixed formula after a win.
The "Steal" is a process by which the final profit when a recovery series is resolved is deliberately inflated. When you win, say, 3 units you steal one unit before deducting the win from the LTD and calculating the value of the next bet (NB). Example: -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, +1, +3, +4, -5, -5, -5, +5, +6, +7, +5. The LTD after the win that ended a streak of 9 losses was "9,3" because the single unit won was not deducted from the loss-to-date. The NB jumped from 1 to 3 units for reasons I will explain in a moment. The LTD for the series changed as follows: -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, +1 (9,3), +3 (7,4), +4 (4,5), -5 (9,5), -5 (14,5), -5 (19,5), +5 (15,6), +6 (10,7), +7 (4,5), +5 (EOS = end of series).

JUMPING AND PUMPING

The "Jump" uses the first figure in the LTD to set the value of the NB.  My recommendation is that you do not divide the LTD by less than 6 to get the revised NB, meaning that a seven-bet win streak will end the recovery series.
Don't misunderstand the thinking here: I am not saying that seven-bet hot streaks are frequent or even necessary to Turnaround's success. But I am saying that your next bet must always be guided by full knowledge of how much you must win in order to turn a recovery series around and come out with a profit.
The "Pump" is another device to maintain the value of the NB at a level that makes recovery attainable. Oscar's "plus one after a win" rule is pathetically inadequate: it won't get you where you need to go unless the dealer is having a very bad day. When the game starts going your way, you must press as hard as you can, keeping in mind that if you overdo it, a reversal will do you very serious harm.
The Pump percentage I use is 20 percent, meaning that after the first win in a potential hot streak, you multiply the previous bet by 1.2 to get the NB. The first win after a losing streak (the previous bet when you're trying to figure the Pump) was set by the Jump, and now it's time to press a little harder.
Here's a sample sequence with the Steal, the Jump and the Pump all in play: (49,8) -8, -8, -8, +8 (66,11), +11, +13, -16 (60,16), -16, +16 (61,19), +19, +23 (21,22). In this sequence there were 5 losses and 6 wins, but to get you to the opening LTD of 49,8 the house advantage must have been running high beforehand. Generally, you should expect to lose more bets than you win (the casino depends on that). The trick is to make sure that you "win more when you win than you lose when you lose," and that's what Turnaround is all about. In this example, the 5 losses averaged -11 units, and the six wins averaged +15. That's a good thing! Note that when the first figure in the LTD dropped to 21, the NB became 22 and not 23 x 1.2 (28), applying a rule that the NB after a win can never be less than the LTD divided by 6 or more than the LTD+1 unit. More about that in a moment.
Next: "Halving." This is exactly what it sounds like: at a certain point in a losing streak, Turnaround requires you to reduce further potential losses by cutting your bet down the middle. Again, balance is important here -- do it too soon or too often, and your bet will bounce up and down like a yo-yo gone wild, punching you further into the hole with each downturn.
The Halving rule limits the ploy to bets in double figures and requires you to hold off until you have lost two "whole" bets in a row or, in blackjack, have seen a double or split raked into the dealer's tray. What you're trying to avoid is the damage from a "volley" -- (60,10), -10 (70,5), +5 (66,11), -11 (77,6), +6 (72,12), -12 (84,6), +6 (79,13), and so on -- and since paired losses are about half as frequent as isolated ones -- the "two lost bets" rule works well.
If you can get away with it, keep halving until the NB gets down to single digits, remembering that the lower you go, the bigger will be the Jump when you finally win a bet and have to recalculate the NB as LTD/6. Here's another example: (169,58), -58, -58, -29, -15, -8, +8 (330,55). It's quite a jump from 8 units to 55 -- more than a parlay, that's for sure -- and in blackjack particularly, you should limit yourself to no more than two bet reductions if the pit cops are "on heat."
THE DUMP
The final Turnaround oddity is the "Dump." Translation: run for the hills. This is a concession to the tendency we all have to beat a safe retreat when a dealer gets hot or our "luck" runs cold. Computer simulations presume that a player will stick it out through thick and thin, betting bravely onward regardless of repeated punishment and waiting patiently for a negative trend to reverse itself. Human beings just don't play that way.
Take a walk if the house gets, say, 10 bets ahead.
I'd rather not apply the Dump at all, but human nature -- mine, at least -- doesn't permit me to bet on and on like a senseless robot when I'm getting my butt kicked. So, it makes sense to regulate the bail-out process. A guiding principle of Turnaround is to provide a rule to cover every situation that could possibly arise in a game of chance, relieving the player of the agonies of indecision. OK, that makes me a robot after all, but not a senseless one, since all of the system rules are based upon logic and common sense.
When Turnaround made its debut on the Internet in April of 1997, several math-mad computer mavens leaped forward to offer to write source code for simulations which would prove that this particular method of progressive betting is no better than any other. After months of to-ing and fro-ing, caused by the inability of all these experts to apply the Turnaround rules correctly, the most persistent among them pronounced that my method had an expected win rate of over 99.5 percent or about the same as a Small Martingale.
Secondly, the Martingale or double-up method is doomed as soon as it hits a losing streak of a dozen bets or more, whereas Turnaround freezes the bet in response to a loss and requires it to be repeatedly halved after a certain point. So, a Martingale bettor trying to win at a casino with a 3,000-unit house limit will run out of options once a dozen consecutive losses require that his next bet be 4,096 units. He's 4,095 units "in the hole" and the math guys say that if he reduces his next bet to 3,000 units and wins, then he's still in trouble.
 
THE Turnaround RULES
Here are the system rules, step by step:-

1. Bet the minimum (your own or the table minimum) on the first decision in a series. I recommend $5 units to start with, meaning that if the table minimum is $25, your first bet is 5 units and will go up or down in increments of $5. Don't be tempted to use a table minimum above $5 as your increment (raising your bet from $25 to $50 to $75 and so on at a $25 table).
2. WIN, bet MIN+1, and be ready to follow the Turnaround win progression: (+1), 2, 2, 4, 7, 11, 16, 22, 29, 37 etc. LOSE, bet the same amount. At a $25 table, the progression will be (+5), 6, 6, 8, 11, 15, 20, 26, 33, 41 etc. When the win progression ends, set the next bet (NB) at 2 units, except when a split/double increases the loss to more than the initial bet, in which case freeze the NB at that point.
EXAMPLE: +1, +2, +2, +4, +7, +11, -16, +2.
EXAMPLE: +1, +2, +2, +4, +7, +11, -32, +16.
3. Any win after a succession of losses invokes the Steal principle, whereby a single chip is deducted from the win before the loss to date (LTD) is revised.

4. The LTD consists of two figures, best expressed as "n1,n2." The first figure, n1, is the amount DOWN at any point, and is inflated by the Steal; n2 is the amount OUT -- meaning the value of the next bet (NB) "out" on the table. Think of the LTD as "Down comma Out" and the mental chore of revising it after each outcome will quickly become second nature.
EXAMPLE: -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, +1 (7 DOWN, 2 OUT), +2 (6,3), -3, -3, +3 (10,4), +4 (7,5), +5 (3,4), -4, -4, +4 (8,5), +5 (4,5), +5 (EOS = end of series). HA 16% but TA wins 8 units = 16% of Action of 50u.
5. A win after one or more losses also invokes the Jump, whereby NB is calculated by dividing n1 (the inflated loss to date) by a predetermined amount. I recommend that if n1 is 20 or less, NB = n1/4; if n1 is more than (>) 20 and less than (<) 51, NB = n1/5; if n1 > 50, NB = n1/6.
6. After a win, NB must never be LESS than the first figure in the LTD (n1) divided by 6 or MORE than n1+1. If EOS is achieved, NB always falls back to the minimum.
7. After a win to which the Jump has been applied, use the Pump to press the NB further. This increase should be 20 percent, rounded, meaning that it has no effect until the previous bet (PB) hits 8 units (8 x 1.2 = 9.6 = 10).
EXAMPLE: (99,17), -17, -17, -17, +17 (134,23), +23, +28, -34 (119,34), +34 (86,41), +41 (46,47), +47 = EOS. NOTE that 41 x 1.2 = 49.2 = 49 but the final Turnaround bet was reduced to 47 that your next bet (NB) must never exceed DOWN+1.
8. Use Halving to limit potential losses as soon as you lose two successive bets of 10 units or more, and keep Halving until NB reaches single digits. In blackjack, start Halving if a double/split (two or more hands, in effect) costs you 20u or more. Blackjack players conscious of dealer/pit scrutiny should not use Halving more than twice in any sequence.
EXAMPLE: (99,17), -17, -17, -9, +9 (134,23), -23, -23, -12, -6, +6 (192,32), -32, -32, -16, -8, -8, +8 (271,46), +46, +55, +66, +79 (28,29), +29 = EOS.

9. Halving does NOT apply if a win progression ends with a lost double/split but takes effect if another double-digit loss is suffered.
EXAMPLE: +1, +2, +2, +4, +7, +11, -32 (17,16), -16, -8, +8 (34,10), +10, +12 (14,14), +15.

10. If, as above, raising the NB to match DOWN+1 will increase it by not more than 10 percent, make the adjustment in the hope that EOS will be achieved. Otherwise, a series will be extended for an extra one or two bets, which is contrary to our objective: wrapping up a recovery series in as few bets as possible before reverting to a minimum bet and starting a new series. In our example above, a win at 14,14 would have given us an LTD of 1,2 because of the Steal.

11. Use the Dump to stop play in a damaging location, transferring the LTD in full to a new deck, shoe or table whenever it's convenient. Experienced gamblers know that trends exist, and that a persistent downturn will sometimes seem unbeatable. The basic rule is to quit playing and move as soon as the second of two successive losses takes the LTD above 100 units, then 200, then 500, 1000, 2000 and so on. Don't Dump if Halving has already begun, or within five bets of the last move. An alternative is to track wins and losses and Dump as soon as the house gets, say, 10 bets ahead of you in any series (for instance, if the house has taken 16 bets vs. your 6). The advantage of this method is that it's more consistent than the original variable trigger approach.

12. In blackjack, play strictly according to basic strategy. There are about as many variations on the BPS (basic playing strategy) as there are "experts" on the game, but if you stick strictly to whichever book you choose, you will reduce the house edge to substantially less than 1 percent. Here's the BPS I recommend...

STRATEGY TABLE #1 Turnaround FINAL
6 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A A A A A A A A A A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X
2 3 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X
------------------------------------------------------------
A: H H H H D H H H H H H H H H H H S S - T H H H H H H T S S
2: H H D D D H S S S S H H H H D S S S - T T T H D H T T T S
3: H H D D D H S S S S H H H H D D S S - T T T H D T T T T S
4: H H D D D S S S S S D D D D D D S S - T T T H D T T T T S
5: D D D D D S S S S S D D D D D D S S - T T T T D T T T T S
6: D D D D D S S S S S D D D D D D S S - T T T T D T T T T S
7: H H D D D H H H H H H H H H H S S S - T T T H D T T T S S
8: H H H D D H H H H H H H H H H S S S - T H H H D H T T T S
9: H H H D D H H H H H H H H H H H S S - T H H H D H H T T S
X: H H H H D H H H H H H H H H H H S S - T H H H H H H T S S

D = DOUBLE S = STAND T = SPLIT H = HIT

Notes: With 4,4 against 5 or 6, split if DAS, otherwise D; some
"experts" (usually card counters) recommend standing with 7,7
against 10 and standing with 16 against A but it's a bad idea;
never, ever, take insurance or even money (which is the same
thing); there's a case to be made for doubling A,8 or A,9
against 4-6, but it's a very aggressive play.

"CUSTOMIZING" Turnaround
Many of the rules of Turnaround can be adapted to suit the style of the individual player. For example, since the Steal drives the required bet rapidly upward in a downturn, you might feel that once it has been applied often enough to guarantee a reasonable win when EOS is eventually achieved, it should be abandoned after a certain point. Let's say you decide to ditch the Steal once the LTD hits 50. Here's how a tough sequence of bets might look: -1, -1, -1, +1 (3,2), -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, +2 (16,4), -4, -4, -4, -4, -4, -4, -4, -4, -4, +4 (49,9), -9, -9, -9, -9, -9, +9 (86,15), +15 (72,18), +18 (55,22), +22 (34,26), -26, -26, -13, +7 (93,16), +16 (78,19), +19 (60,23), +23 (38,28), +28 (11,12), +12 (EOS). Here, the house won 27 bets out of 40, but Turnaround bested an HA of 14/40 = 35% by exploiting upturns and backing off during downturns, overcoming the fact that losing streaks were longer and more frequent than winning ones. The 27 losses cost the player a total of 163 units for an ALB (average losing bet) of 6 units. The 13 winning bets recouped 178 units for an AWB of 14 units, kicking the HA all the way back to breakfast-time and making a profit of 15 units against horrendous odds.
If we "replay" those same hands with the Steal abandoned about half way through, the sequence looks like this: -1, -1, -1, +1 (3,2), -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, +2 (16,4), -4, -4, -4, -4, -4, -4, -4, -4, -4, +4 (49,9), -9, -9, -9, -9, -9, +9 (85,15), +15 (70,18), +18 (52,22), +22 (30,26), -26, -26, -13, +7 (88,16), +16 (72,19), +19 (53,23), +23 (30,28), +28 (2,3), +3 (EOS). The effect in this case was simply to reduce the "Turnaround bet" -- the last bet needed to end a recovery series with a profit -- from 12 units to 3 units. Since the critical bet was a winner, that was a bad thing, but if it had lost, the next bet (NB) would also have been much smaller, thus confronting the player with a greatly reduced exposure.
The recommended levels for the Steal (-1), the Jump (LTD/4,5,6) and the Pump (PB x 1.2) could all be said to be "aggressive," and a cautious player could limit his exposure while still following the Turnaround rules and principles. Keep in mind that the more timid the play, the longer it will sometimes take to exploit an upward trend and end a series with a profit before falling back to a minimum bet. When we reduced the Steal above, we cut the EOS win from 15 units to 6 -- a high price which a conservative player might consider worth every penny. Note that in the first version of the sequence (the recommended approach) Turnaround won 15 units on action of 341 units, achieving a player "hold" of 4.4 percent. A 1-chip flat bettor would have lost 14 units on total action of 40 units, giving the house a "hold" of 35 percent. If you play Turnaround for long enough, even if all you're willing to do is try it out at home, you will learn that making money from sequences of bets in which the house had the clear edge is commonplace.
The concept of "stealing" one unit before figuring out the loss to date and the related next bet is unique to Turnaround in spite of the fact that reward proportionate to risk is as reasonable and sensible a goal in gambling as it is in any other money-making endeavor.
In contrast, Turnaround applies the requirement that the longer a recovery sequence (or series) lasts, the greater should be the final profit. I have experimented with applying the Steal to lost bets as well as winning ones, and naturally the end result is always an even greater profit; the downside is that when wins are few and far between, the strain on the bankroll is greatly increased.
For example, consider a TA sequence which plays out like the one used at the very beginning of this article: -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, +1 (9,3), +3 (7,4), +4 (4,5), -5 (9,5), -5 (14,5), -5 (19,5), +5 (15,6), +6 (10,7), +7 (4,5), +5 (EOS = end of series). With the Steal applied to all bets, win or lose, the same sequence would be as follows: -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, +1 (18,3), +3 (16,4), +4 (13,5), -5 (19,5), -5 (25,5), -5 (31,5), +5 (27,6), +6 (22,7), +7 (16,8), +8 (9,10).
Stealing after wins only earned us a profit of 7 units and delivered a resolution after a series in which the house won 12 bets and we won 7 bets. The more aggressive approach gave us a profit of 10 units but left us in need of another win to achieve Turnaround. The effect of applying an all-around Steal, then, is to win more chips after facing greater risks. Either way, you can be confident that Turnaround will consistently hand you a profit after you have lost more bets than you won.
THE RED/BLACK TEST OF Turnaround

If you're among the doubters, try this little test: take the K and Q of hearts out of a single deck, creating a stack of 50 cards in which there are 26 blacks and 24 reds and black therefore has an advantage over red of 4 percent. Shuffle them rigorously, then turn them over one by one, using the Turnaround method to bet that the next card will be red. The HA will vary before each card is dealt, depending on how many blacks and reds have preceded it, but you can realistically expect a 4 percent house edge before the first card is turned over, and the same house edge before the 50^th card is exposed. Time and again, you will finish the deck with Turnaround substantially in profit in spite of a clear, absolute house advantage. The red/black test will sometimes hit the end of the deck in the middle of the recovery series, but then you do just as you would in a casino and roll over the LTD to the first "hand" of the new "shoe."
 
Lastly, a clarification of the Dump. Walking away from a costly string of losses is not merely an option for a real gambler (as opposed to someone who bases his "knowledge" of casino games upon computer simulations): it's a fact of life. Everyone does it, and everyone should do it. It's a difficult thing to regulate because so many influences push us to the point where we don't want to play any more against a particular dealer or at a particular table. To name a few: dealer hot streaks, prod-nose pit bosses, incompetent and/or inebriated players, fatigue, boredom, hunger and a stressed-out bladder. Proponents of computer simulations argue that their pale imitations of casino games are mathematically accurate, but in truth they can't be. No simulation exists which can imitate more than one or two components of real casino play at a time, and their most critical omission is human nature. I don't recommend changing your bet or varying basic blackjack strategy on a whim because one of the primary principles of Turnaround is that consistency is critical to long-term profit. But I do encourage you to back off from a game the moment you begin to feel uncomfortable or pessimistic: never, ever play if it doesn't "feel right."
There's no way a computer simulation can ape a gut feeling that tells a player when to quit, and it's difficult to devise rules to cover that situation. Turnaround's Dump will sometimes save your bankroll and will sometimes pull you out of the frying pan and into the fire. The one advantage of a computer simulation is that it enables you to test a variety of strategems against the same set of outcomes, but even when analysis of a million plays indicates that you would have won more without the Dump than with it, you can't say, "OK, I'll never walk away from a game again" because uninterrupted betting is an impossibility in real life.
I suggested earlier that one way to "Dump" is to walk away from a shoe (or a series) if the house pulls 10 bets ahead of you, winning 15 bets out of the first 20, for example. At -10, you won't have to move very often, whereas at -5 you'll be abandoning non-profitable situations pretty frequently, taking your LTD with you to another location and resuming play per the system rules. Personally, I favor frequent moves and "natural breaks" -- they alleviate boredom and keep me alert, and reduce the temptation to wobble off the rails and temporarily depart from the rules (always a no-no!). Bottom line: it's up to the player.

WRINKLES

I can't over-emphasize the wisdom of the individual player tailoring Turnaround to meet his/her needs and circumstances, so long as the key elements are not totally disabled. I didn't offer specific suggestions in the original presentation on my web site because I was concerned that the system was already quite complicated enough, and E-mail from all over the world confirmed that assessment. Now that Turnaround is, in effect, "retired" from the Internet, I can cover this topic in greater detail.
Anyone who has bet against a game of chance for just a few hundred outcomes knows that while skilled money management can beat the odds for very long periods of time, eventual damaging streaks in favor of the house are inevitable. Turnaround's damage control is effective but not infallible, and absent a very large bankroll, it is sometimes wise to help it out a little. A technique I call "Breakdown" would take an LTD of, for example, 19,3 x $100 units and break it up into four separate targets of 19,3 x $25 units. It will take much longer to achieve Turnaround -- at least four times longer! -- but the strain on the bankroll will usually be substantially reduced.
"Breakdown" assumes the use of a couple of other Turnaround concepts, "Multi-level Betting" and "Target Betting," both of which also further complicate the system but greatly enhance its effectiveness, and extends the idea of the Dump (a natural break in play in response to a downturn) into something called "Deferred Betting."
The idea of Multi-level Betting is to enhance the system's response when the house edge is biting extra hard. Assuming a start-up at $5 units, you would apply the Dump when the LTD exceeds 100 units and make a quick conversion to $10 or $25 units before resuming play against a new shoe. For example, an LTD of 117,19 x $5 would become 59,10 x $10
or 24,4 x $25, the idea being that the value of incremental increases goes up and the likelihood of achieving Turnaround is often improved because fewer consecutive wins are needed. In essence, use of the multi-level conversion puts a little more power behind the Pump, which increases the next bet (NB) by 20 percent after every win until the LTD+1 ceiling is reached. Say you're at 117,19 x $5 and you log a win, bringing the LTD down to 99,23 and the NB to $115. At 59,10 x $10, a win would take the LTD to 50,12 and the NB to $120, and at 24,4 x $25, the LTD would drop to 21,5 and the NB would therefore be worth $125. Small differences, maybe, but small differences are what Turnaround is all about!
"Target Betting" is a sneaky profit-builder which is, in essence, Deferred Betting without any actual prior losses. It exploits the fact that the mathematicians are right on the money when they remind us that the cards, dice or whatever have no memory and so are unaffected by bets that have been won or lost to date. Usually, Turnaround starts betting in a new series with a clean slate and the opening wager is therefore 1 unit and the LTD is, in effect, 0,1. But what if we open play with a fictitious LTD of, say, 19,3? If the house edge stays reasonably close to the norm, we'll make more money when Turnaroundachieves end of series (EOS) is what.
Here's a blackjack Target Betting example, starting out with a spurious LTD of 19,3: -3 (22,3), +4.5 (BJ), +4, -5 (22,5), -10 (32,5), +5, +6, -7 (30,7), +7, +8, -10 (27,10), -10 (37,10/2), -5 (42,5), -5 (47,5), +5 (43,8), +12 (BJ), -10 (42,10), +10 (31,12), +12 (20,14), +14 (7,8 TA), -8 (15,8), +16 (EOS).
Of course, Target Betting increases the risk that a runaway house edge will push the Turnaround bet into what I call brown trouser territory, and the potential exposure disqualifies it from the repertoire of a conservative player. It's just another wrinkle in the Turnaround technique: an example of how the system can be "customized" to suit the personality of the person who's using it.


The absolute minimum required to beat a pendulum that refuses to swing your way is 100 units. My greatest success has been with a 500-unit bank, but the real objective of Turnaround is to keep building your stash by adding to it after every winning session, splitting the take down the middle and extracting only half of your winnings as true profit.

If you really did have a guaranteed 2% edge then that means you couldn't lose in the long run. Things won't turn around. Problem is that the only way to guarantee it is to prove it mathematically, and since it's already proved mathematically that you CAN'T get a positive expectation, you're always going to wonder how long your edge will last, and how solid it is based purely on past results (in other words, if it's based on past results, it ain't guaranteed).

I coded the Turnaround system years ago, in fact it was one of the very first systems I played. It can win for VERY long stretches, but it requires a big bankroll and the balls to use it. If you get into a prolonged bad run, it takes forever to recover.

Quote from: Bayes on May 17, 07:19 AM 2012
If you really did have a guaranteed 2% edge then that means you couldn't lose in the long run. Things won't turn around. Problem is that the only way to guarantee it is to prove it mathematically, and since it's already proved mathematically that you CAN'T get a positive expectation, you're always going to wonder how long your edge will last, and how solid it is based purely on past results (in other words, if it's based on past results, it ain't guaranteed).

Well that's the end of that then. Thanks Bayes.

So a guaranteed 2% edge is good enough to play professionally, but a sizable bankroll is needed unless you can afford to reinvest any winnings by way of increased stakes, which presents its own problems.

Good luck.

Quote from: Skakus on May 14, 05:57 AM 2012
If you could absolutely 100% guarantee a long term 2% edge over roulette by flat betting would that be enough for you to take up semi or full time play?

You would need an average total wager of $10,000 to earn $200. Seems like a lot for a little but don’t forget, it’s a guaranteed profit.


You could expect to bet anywhere from $6000 to $14,000 on any session you play.

If you stepped it up to $30,000 then you’d earn $600 a day.

Bigger table limits and the sky’s the limit!

Do you think casinos would notice someone skimming off such a small %?

Nice thought but its not realistic Skakus for the average Joe. What they want is something that can make a tidy profit without a huge outlay/risk. If I told you you could take a 100 units and make it grow to 1000 plus in one month would you be interested?

If I told you you could take a 100 units and make it grow to 1000 plus in one month would you be interested?

I am very interested!  Open a thread on how to do this and I will be your front-row student.

Sam
   

Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 17, 06:37 PM 2012
If I told you you could take a 100 units and make it grow to 1000 plus in one month would you be interested?

I am very interested!  Open a thread on how to do this and I will be your front-row student.

Sam
   

I cant I know the way but its not my baby. Its up to Wolfat or Atlantis to author this method. I want to call it CODE 4 REVERSE ATTACK. But I will tell you this now. Played properly 100 units to a 1000 in a calendar month is the WORST you will do. Its the end of roulette if enough people had the right mind to get hold of this one. Fortunately they wont. But all who play this right. Are going to do very, very nicely.

Quote from: Johnlegend on May 17, 06:55 PM 2012Played properly 100 units to a 1000 in a calendar month is the WORST you will do.

Emphasis on the "played properly" part of that spiel.  Sounds like Ellis Davis "junk", from BTC.

By the way, Ellis uses the username "wolfat".

Quote from: GARNabby on May 17, 07:00 PM 2012
Emphasis on the "played properly" part of that spiel.  Sounds like Ellis Davis "junk", from BTC.

By the way, Ellis uses the username "wolfat".

Is that supposed to mean something to me? ??? ? I make a statement from my own analysis no-one elses. Negative pessimists like yourself I avoid like the plague. You will be whinging it can't be done 20 years from now. I know what is possible with the reverse CODE 4 because I have enough experience and a years playing experience with CODE 4 to know it will stand up. BY PROPERLY. I of course mean in controlled short bursts. The same reason 80 units could turn a profit will be the same reason a daily risk of half that much will turn a profit. Hence why I say a bank of 100 units will very realistically make 1000 units plus in 30 days.

The difference is the TURNOVER. It will be a lot faster. 20% growth PER DAY is more than possible playing 10 short sessions. The results doing so are nothing short of stellar. Breaking up the sessions into two by two play doesn't allow any downturn in randoms ebb and flow to get going and do any real damage. EXAMPLE no three consecutive sessions I can put together show me 6 consecutive losses. There may be 5 losses in the 6 plays but NEVER 6. What I propose requires 1 win in 6 to show positive results. And this is going to occur virually all the time. Is that starting to register with you. Probably not. But there you go.

Quote from: Johnlegend on May 18, 01:37 PM 2012
Negative pessimists like yourself I avoid like the plague.

Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names could drive me crazy?  Can you not accept the simple fact that not every one of us here thinks your "roulette claims" are sound, let alone not plain-crazy?  Where did i attempt to stereotype and insult you, personally?  Even Einstein made plenty of major mistakes which were debated by others; and not all of those were even honest ones.  But i wouldn't, nay don't have to, comment upon the man, himself.  Not to imply that, eg, someone who shows the proper symptoms of a delusion shouldn't be called a delusional.  Such persons do exist, you know, even here.

At least, Einstein, for one, showed us "the beef".  And until you, yourself, do likewise, you haven't made even your first mistake. 

Quote from: Johnlegend on May 18, 01:37 PM 2012
You will be whining it can't be done 20 years from now.

My book will be out by then, for all to judge.  Where will you be, Mr. Legend?  Still in your own mind, i think.  Till then, idiotic "claims" with substance won't do.  Perhaps that's where all the patience and discipline figure in?  Stay on a real course.

Quote from: Johnlegend on May 18, 01:37 PM 2012
I know what is possible with the reverse CODE 4 because I have enough experience and a years playing experience with CODE 4 to know it will stand up. BY PROPERLY. I of course mean in controlled short bursts. The same reason 80 units could turn a profit will be the same reason a daily risk of half that much will turn a profit. Hence why I say a bank of 100 units will very realistically make 1000 units plus in 30 days.

100 --> 1000 --> 10,000 --> 100,000 --> 1 million dollars, after the 4th month!  That's lalaland.  Like computer simulations of a 0.5% overall edge amounting to millionaires.  Where are they all?

Quote from: Johnlegend on May 18, 01:37 PM 2012
And this is going to occur virually all the time.

No.  What does happen every few months is that another delusional/scammer pops up with a fake username and a made-up past.  Mr. Perfect Player who won each and every time he ever played.  A real "nice guy" with all the simplistic "answers".  Another stranger with a phone, and a lot of really-free time to himself.

I mean, the guys with "half a brain" should be trying to do more good than harm, here by not "selling out" the ones without any clue.  (The rich can't help themselves.  Unless they're so-rich that not even money matters to them, the "whales".)

Quote from: Johnlegend on May 18, 01:37 PM 2012
Is that starting to register with you. Probably not. But there you go.

Nobody ran away.  I replied again.  Garbage in warrants garbage out.

Quote from: GARNabby on May 18, 05:51 PM 2012

Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names could drive me crazy?  Can you not accept the simple fact that not every one of us here thinks your "roulette claims" are sound, let alone not plain-crazy?  Where did i attempt to stereotype and insult you, personally?  Even Einstein made plenty of major mistakes which were debated by others; and not all of those were even honest ones.  But i wouldn't, nay don't have to, comment upon the man, himself.  Not to imply that, e.g., someone who shows the proper symptoms of a delusion shouldn't be called a delusional.  Such persons do exist, you know, even here.

At least, Einstein, for one, showed us "the beef".  And until you, yourself, do likewise, you haven't made even your first mistake. 
 
My book will be out by then, for all to judge.  Where will you be, Mr. Legend?  Still in your own mind, i think.  Till then, idiotic "claims" with substance won't do.  Perhaps that's where all the patience and discipline figure in?  Stay on a real course.
 
100 --> 1000 --> 10,000 --> 100,000 --> 1 million dollars, after the 4th month!  That's lalaland.  Like computer simulations of a 0.5% overall edge amounting to millionaires.  Where are they all?
 
No.  What does happen every few months is that another delusional/scammer pops up with a fake username and a made-up past.  Mr. Perfect Player who won each and every time he ever played.  A real "nice guy" with all the simplistic "answers".  Another stranger with a phone, and a lot of really-free time to himself.

I mean, the guys with "half a brain" should be trying to do more good than harm, here by not "selling out" the ones without any clue.  (The rich can't help themselves.  Unless they're so-rich that not even money matters to them, the "whales".)
Nobody ran away.  I replied again.  Garbage in warrants garbage out.

Like I said negative pessimist. Your response justified the term to perfection. Perfect player? Theres no such thing. Smart player yes. I will let you stay in the dark. Only a certain mindset was ever made to best this game. You can stay with the 99.9 percent who follow the crowd. And think roultte is a losing option. Mine is not to waste my time on such closed books. The mindset is either there or it isnt.

i believe John. Some kind of feeling tells me he is not lying.

QuoteSome kind of feeling tells me he is not lying

I think I believe him too, hes been peddling the same hype for a long time, shame nobody else can get the same results as him, thats what mistifies everyone, although his words can mislead many, "turning random on its head", "random can't compete" etc etc random cannot be changed, he's one lucky fella if it's not all BS that is

Quote from: superman on May 19, 02:49 PM 2012

I think I believe him too, he's been peddling the same hype for a long time, shame nobody else can get the same results as him, that's what mistifies everyone, although his words can mislead many, "turning random on its head", "random can't compete" etc etc random cannot be changed, he's one lucky fella if it's not all BS that is
[/quote

If you play method with 1/81 odds just the way he plays its possible to achieve strike rate much better than your odds. Our friend Bayes can say something about it.
What bothers most people is mostly too much hype about his methods. They should be treated with caution.

progressions used are nonsense.
and there is no such thing as 1/81 odds

If I told you that Dozen 2 would come up for four consecutive spins, I would have a 1/81 chance of getting it right.  (1/3)^4. 

Quote from: superman on May 19, 02:49 PM 2012

I think I believe him too, he's been peddling the same hype for a long time, shame nobody else can get the same results as him, that's what mistifies everyone, although his words can mislead many, "turning random on its head", "random can't compete" etc etc random cannot be changed, he's one lucky fella if it's not all BS that is

Superman I am not the only player to attain success with the methods I use. I've had players PM to tell me of theirs One tonight And I have asked him to come on here and share it with you all. I have nothing to gain making up stories using mostly other peoples methods. I may overhype something but ONLY. If I know it works.And the missing ingredient as Bayes puts it is SIMPLE. PLAY EXACTLY AS I PLAY. Then my success will be no mystery to you or anyone. Very few if any are A, playing exactly as I outline. And B, staying with it long enough to attain the numbers. And you know that's the truth Superman.

When 10 people on these boards all do that and none of them come close to my figures. You will never hear another word from me.

Quote from: Colbster on May 19, 05:32 PM 2012
If I told you that Dozen 2 would come up for four consecutive spins, I would have a 1/81 chance of getting it right.  (1/3)^4.

it is ok for 4 spins.

Quote from: Johnlegend on May 18, 06:07 PM 2012
I will let you stay in the dark.

You have to know a truth before you can hide it.  And even then, what's real and of value is soon independently re-discovered by others.  That's life.

Have a good one!  Be good to yourself.

Quote from: Johnlegend on May 19, 05:57 PM 2012
When 10 people on these boards all do that and none of them come close to my figures. You will never hear another word from me.

Since you're throwing down the gauntlet, I'll play the modified CODE4 you post on monday (exactly as you describe). So here is the list so far:

1. Bayes


Any other members feel free to add your name to the list. Let's have a little fun.  :)

Quote from: Bayes on May 20, 07:53 AM 2012
Since you're throwing down the gauntlet, I'll play the modified CODE4 you post on monday (exactly as you describe). So here is the list so far:

1. Bayes


Any other members feel free to add your name to the list. Let's have a little fun.  :)

-------------------

already tested over 50 old c4 sections the reverse way and not impressed.

vundarosa

Quote from: Bayes on May 20, 07:53 AM 2012
Since you're throwing down the gauntlet, I'll play the modified CODE4 you post on monday (exactly as you describe). So here is the list so far:

1. Bayes


Any other members feel free to add your name to the list. Let's have a little fun.  :)

You can count me in as well  :)

Quote from: Bayes on May 20, 07:53 AM 2012
Since you're throwing down the gauntlet, I'll play the modified CODE4 you post on monday (exactly as you describe). So here is the list so far:

1. Bayes


Any other members feel free to add your name to the list. Let's have a little fun.  :)

1. Bayes
2. Vundarosa
3. Robeenhut
4. Alberto Jonas


:o

I think I've made myself clear in the past, but to make it official.................



1. Bayes
2. Vundarosa
3. Robeenhut
4. Alberto Jonas
5. TwoCat


I have no desire to silence JL; I have a desire to learn a winning method.  Here's hoping................

Who's the next five?

TCS

 

QuoteSince you're throwing down the gauntlet, I'll play the modified CODE4 you post on monday (exactly as you describe). So here is the list so far:


1. Bayes


Any other members feel free to add your name to the list. Let's have a little fun.

1. Bayes
2. Vundarosa
3. Robeenhut
4. Alberto Jonas
5. TwoCat
6. Sniper


JL, thanks for your system.

i think JL somehow feels the "rhythm" of his methods when to start and when to quit plus money management stuff. Some kind of ability like some others have about VB for example. Yes, there are no reasons for him to lie, and he is not a kind of a forum member to fool the public. He is a serious fella.

there are extraordinary people like John Patrick and Brett Morton, they achieve good results with regular losing (for majority) methods. they have already a gut feeling for roulette i think.


and it will be interesting for me to see his (JL) results as well

@ iggiv,

I don't deny that intuition can play a part in winning, but JL has said that if we play EXACTLY as he says, then we will all win, so it's up to him to make the rules clear. I Just hope that if and when members report negative results, he doesn't then try to weasel out by saying something like "it's gut instinct" or "you need more practice" or adding extra conditions he didn't mention before, which is what he's done in the past.  ::)

So we have 6 lined up so far, and we need 10.

Any more for any more?  :P

I would like my name added to the list as well.

Atlantis.

QuoteSo we have 6 lined up so far, and we need 10.

Any more for any more?

I'll play, when I get the time that is

QuoteI would like my name added to the list as well

1. Bayes
2. Vundarosa
3. Robeenhut
4. Alberto Jonas
5. TwoCat
6. Sniper
7. Superman
8. Atlantis

Quote from: superman on May 20, 01:56 PM 2012
1. Bayes
2. Vundarosa
3. Robeenhut
4. Alberto Jonas
5. TwoCat
6. Sniper
7. Superman
8. Atlantis

Sounds like a new bunch of marvel comic superheroes !
I wonder what Sniper's and TwoCat's special powers could be ....?

Bayes, there is no such a thing as "all win all the time". For example John Patrick is also sure that
following all his rules from his book everyone should sooner or later show positive edge over the game. But before u get this positive edge u may still lose quite a few bucks, right? For example i tried his stuff and lost (not too much, but lost anyway). I have no doubts that with some time
if i did not play frequently i could show positive edge after a while after spending some money on it. Well, i did not go for it.
The same story can be with John Legend's stuff. He has been playing this stuff for long time, he feels by his skin already all "dos" and "donts", and if he loses for a week or so he is still in big plus and does not panic.

I doubt that all the guys are in the same situation. They lost some and they gave up i guess. And they have no desire to continue, cause the stuff is not easy and takes time. No free lunch here.

Quote from: Bayes on May 20, 12:58 PM 2012
@ iggiv,

I don't deny that intuition can play a part in winning, but JL has said that if we play EXACTLY as he says, then we will all win, so it's up to him to make the rules clear. I Just hope that if and when members report negative results, he doesn't then try to weasel out by saying something like "it's gut instinct" or "you need more practice" or adding extra conditions he didn't mention before, which is what he's done in the past.  ::)

So we have 6 lined up so far, and we need 10.

Any more for any more?  :P

Quote from: iggiv on May 20, 11:02 AM 2012
i think JL somehow feels the "rhythm" of his methods when to start and when to quit plus money management stuff. Some kind of ability like some others have about VB for example. Yes, there are no reasons for him to lie, and he is not a kind of a forum member to fool the public. He is a serious fella.

there are extraordinary people like John Patrick and Brett Morton, they achieve good results with regular losing (for majority) methods. they have already a gut feeling for roulette i think.


and it will be interesting for me to see his (JL) results as well

Its not really that Iggiv. The real difference between me and most others. Is I REALLY BELIEVE in what I am doing from the get go. I am not just going through the motions. Like oh another system to be defeated by math and random doomed from the start.

You see most people don't even think roulette is beatable to start with. Because the genius known as Einstein said so. He is this genius and John Legend is this nobody upstart. that's their thinking from the start. So its a no contest in their minds. So they may play a couple of hundred games and if they don't get instant stellar results. They will immediately dismiss the method as yet another failure. Then others will make changes to the original concept and again they won't get decent results. So the overiding attitude again becomes JL is pulling a fast one with us.

Then the only person who is really playing the method to the letter on real live spins. And staying with it for several 1000 games (ME) Comes on here and posts my results. And the thinking is I am inventing it all. Meantime some less outspoken people in the background are playing the methods to the, or close to the letter. And getting very good results. But they aren't posting them religiously like me. So again the forum thinking is only JL tastes success it can't be real.

Its quite amusing that 5 of the nearly 10 people making up the assault team are people who would like to see me gone from here permanently. Lets hope you are true to the testing and as honest with your results. As the more positive less naturaly biased members of the forum. Again I have asked a few members to post up their results for the methods I already play.
Its time to see I am not the only person on here consistently beating random. Its annoying that this is the general thinking. Especially on a forum that is a lot more positive than some of the awful ones out there.

I am one of the guys in the background that Johnlegend is referring to that is having great success with the hit and run style while challenging randomness.  I have practiced the discipline of hit and run and challenging randomness to do something it simply can't do time and time a again and that's repeat a specific pattern at that very moment in time when i walk up to the table to begin play.   I am from the USA and can only play B&M Casino's.  Sometimes I get a chance to play 5 times a week and sometimes none .... but when I go there, I go there to win and play Code 4, Pattern Breaker and Divide and Conquer.  My BR continues to grow each time.  I posted some comments under the Code 4 thread openly thanking Johnlegend and others for continuing to offer up new ideas and approaches to the game.  I track all my resluts and will be posting them under Johnlegends Reverse Code 4 Attack thread.   I can't wait to see what that thread brings and I look forward openly discussing it and sharing my results.

Quote from: iggiv on May 20, 03:06 PM 2012
Bayes, there is no such a thing as "all win all the time". For example John Patrick is also sure that
following all his rules from his book everyone should sooner or later show positive edge over the game. But before u get this positive edge u may still lose quite a few bucks, right? For example i tried his stuff and lost (not too much, but lost anyway). I have no doubts that with some time
if i did not play frequently i could show positive edge after a while after spending some money on it. Well, i did not go for it.
The same story can be with John Legend's stuff. He has been playing this stuff for long time, he feels by his skin already all "dos" and "donts", and if he loses for a week or so he is still in big plus and does not panic.

I doubt that all the guys are in the same situation. They lost some and they gave up i guess. And they have no desire to continue, cause the stuff is not easy and takes time. No free lunch here.

You have more or less nailed it with this post Iggiv. You have to really stay with these methods for a long time to see their value. For example my last 1000 games with CODE 4 produced 4 losses. 273--w 1 lost 506--w 1 lost 49--w 1 lost 108--w 1 lost-----60 won.
Lets say someone else had played 500 games but got the REVERSE results to me. So instead of winning 273 then 506. They won 108 then 49. They would be in negative figures. Likely dismiss the method as a failure. And cease testing/playing it. And then nonsense my claims about its worth.

When they may have soon hit a winning streak of 400 plus. This I believe is what's been going on here for too long. Everyone wants the golden egg. A solid winner. But how many REALLY can put the real work in?? Theres no gift not even in gambling you have to work hard at it, stay with it to reap the rewards. I don't think many people realize this. They want a perfect method that never loses. IT doesn't EXIST. That's a fact without doubt. If it does you will get very few bets. So what will be the point??

That's why I've starting posting the breakdown of my winning streaks. Earlier sessions had losses 21 games apart. Did I stop playing the method because of this? Of course not its all part and parcel of randoms behaviour. You can't dictate where the losses will come but if you know the methods strength you know that sooner or later positive numbers are coming.

To be fair I was getting stellar results playing code 4 until I messed up big. It's the discipline needed to play it correctly that's the fall down point for most people.

What, he asks, are TwoCat's special powers? 

I wish I knew!

Hey, folks and people; friends and neighbors..............

We have an exciting challenge ahead of us.  Once the new thread is opened, can we all just work toward a common goal?  Will I be trying to prove JL wrong?  You bet!  Because if I can't prove him wrong, I've got something real on my hands.

I would ask the "tweakers" to stand down.  It's their method; if it needs tweaking, they will or will have done that.  Usually, as Bayes suggests, tweaking is making the system fit the available data.  Reverse engineering.

So let's all play by the rules, try our best to honestly prove him wrong and rejoice if we can't.

Sam

John Legend, please take it easy when they declare your method as a failure. It would be really shame if u r gone from here. I believe that most of the members want u here and have great interest in your information. Well, this is a case for me.

So if u get negative responses about your methods, u better don't take it personally. and i appreciate  very much your info.

Quote from: iggiv on May 20, 11:02 AM 2012
Yes, there are no reasons for him to lie, and he is not a kind of a forum member to fool the public. He is a serious fella.

No one is saying otherwise.  But you can't hide, or reveal, truths which you don't know.  Doesn't matter how honest, or nice, a person is regarding what they can, or can't, do.  Some of the meanest characters contribute some of the greatest works.

Quote from: iggiv on May 20, 11:02 AM 2012
... there are extraordinary people like John Patrick

He lost all credibility many years ago after faking a casino-trip video.  Besides that, today, the "leading authority on gambling" can't be found at any of the tables of note..

Just to set the record straight, JL is the one who has said he'll leave the forum if this latest incarnation of CODE4 fails for 10 members, it was HIS suggestion, not mine. I've no desire to drive JL away from the forum, and as he's pointed out, some of the systems he hypes weren't even his ideas.

Also, iggiv, you misread what I wrote, I didn't say "all win all the time", and I'm not sure what that means anyway. If JL's system wins overall (total wins - total losses > 0) then that's the holy grail, isn't it?

It isn't really JL's bet selections that are the problem for me, it's his money management (martingale) and the fact that he makes OTT claims. I think members are blinded by the bet selections because they seem kind of clever in that they 'go against random'. The premise is that random behaves a certain way, and these bet selections go another way, therefore you can't lose! That's just plain wrong. Think about it - if the bet selections were really that great, you wouldn't have to resort to doubling up your stakes.

If anyone else suggested this kind of MM with more 'mundane' bet selections, they would very quickly be set straight, right?

-

@Johnlegend

I don't know much about how you play - but i know you can be winning allot using various methods.
I speak to pepole who i trust and that are serious system players - they state that you can be ahead for months playing systems.
But they also state that sooner or later there are some serious drawdowns or sequences from hell no matter how you play witch take such a big bite into your bankroll that they don't feel it was worth it at the very end.
So i wondering - even if you can win overall - is it worth it - i guess only does who play nonstop for 1 to 2 years in a row could answer that question.

QuoteIts quite amusing that 5 of the nearly 10 people making up the assault team are people who would like to see me gone from here permanently

I think we know who your "famous 5" are, well, from my side, I don't wish to see anyone leave the forum, we've got used to the OTT hype you provide as posts from the 5 don't appear much on your threads anymore. I don't think any of the 5 care if you stay or go.

I just hope your explanation is good for the method you are about to launch on the world, hopefully you will fully cover the hit n run (main part according to yourself) in your descrpition as with all your methods so far, you have maintained that nobody has been playing "like you" would play and this seems to have been the achillies heel so far.

I will be playing the challenge at dublinbet, no RNG, (although as always I will code it for rng too) do you approve of dublinbet live wheel JL?

Quote from: iggiv on May 20, 09:00 PM 2012
John Legend, please take it easy when they declare your method as a failure.

"when" they declare your method as a failure? hey, let's not jump the gun. It sounds like either you yourself don't have any faith that it will work, or that "they" are out to attack JL. I think I speak for everyone when I say that I want JL's method to be as successful as he claims it to be. Let's not make this about personalities, but about the merit of the method itself, no more and no less.  :thumbsup:

QuoteI will be playing the challenge at dublinbet

Me too. No nasty RNG.  :xd:

No one’s playing nothing unless you wild west bunch of thread hijackers get 10 starters. So far you have 8, which is not bad considering there are about 3,500 members on this forum. ;D   
Seeing as you have shredded my thread I’ll put my hand up as player 9.

How will his work? Are the exact rules of play going to be posted?

If so, once they’re posted there should be a sample session of spins that all the players complete then post their results. If we get 10 identical bank balances we will be ready to roll.
  1.    Bayes
2. Vundarosa
3. Robeenhut
4. Alberto Jonas
5. TwoCat
6. Sniper
7. Superman
8. Atlantis
9. skakus

Hello JL,


I will test your system exactly as you post without any tweak. I will report back the outcome as I play it out without fear or favor.


At this moment I am playing at the B&M casino 6 to 8 hours per day and 7 days a week.


Regards.

Gentlemen, let me complete the list.

1. Bayes
2. Vundarosa
3. Robeenhut
4. Alberto Jonas
5. TwoCat
6. Sniper
7. Superman
8. Atlantis
9. skakus
10. Rolletti

And to come back to topic:
Yesterday I did some calculation concerning edge. I took some old results posted by JL and came to the result that he has an edge of about 8.5% with D&C.

I posted my games in the who is currently making money topic. For my games I have an edge of about 3.8% playing online real wheel and RNG.

Concerning BR: I started with 100$ making smaller or bigger bets, betting overall 31000$ in the past 1 month winning net about 1000$. What I want so say is that when talking about edge and BR its not necessary with an edge of 2 % to have 2500$ BR in order to make a 50$ daily on average. Do the math. Average means you have good and bad days.

1. Bayes
2. Vundarosa
3. Robeenhut
4. Alberto Jonas
5. TwoCat
6. Sniper
7. Superman
8. Atlantis
9. skakus
10. Rolletti
11. Still

Only need one more to tell the world the good news.  ;)

i'm a US Citizen without yet a live account.  Any suggestions, please advise.  BR=100. 

Quote from: Skakus on May 21, 04:50 AM 2012
How will his work? Are the exact rules of play going to be posted?

If so, once they’re posted there should be a sample session of spins that all the players complete then post their results. If we get 10 identical bank balances we will be ready to roll.

Good to have you on board, Skakus.  :)

JL said he's going to post the rules this evening (GMT as I think he's in the UK). Can you wait that long?  ;D

Great idea about the sample session, that way we'll know if we're all on the same page.  :thumbsup:

Quote from: iggiv on May 20, 11:02 AM 2012
i think JL somehow feels the "rhythm" of his methods when to start and when to quit plus money management stuff. Some kind of ability like some others have about VB for example. Yes, there are no reasons for him to lie, and he is not a kind of a forum member to fool the public. He is a serious fella.

there are extraordinary people like John Patrick and Brett Morton, they achieve good results with regular losing (for majority) methods. they have already a gut feeling for roulette i think.


and it will be interesting for me to see his (JL) results as well

Hello Iggiv

I disagree with you on your  take on roulette gurus like Patrick,Morton,Ward Dickson,Ellison,John Solitude,Diodoro and etc. No systems ever produced by them were proven to be a long time winners- they were nicely presented with lots of theoretical explanations but.... Yeah i learned lots from them. What not to do ;D RWD system is the most appealing one but not very playable. Its an example of what might actually work in roulette. Recognizing and riding a trend. It never works 100% but you have greater chance of winning then playing as you said a rigid system over and over again. Yesterday i saw for example on SML 0,10,20,30 combination hit 16 times in a row separated by less than 9 spins. The day before 12 times. Somebody posted before here a system based on exploiting previous combination of numbers.  Gamblers fallacy?  Maybe but it works many times. As to JL methods of play. At least we know that you can not play them continuously. And any other person playing his style might produce a completely different strike rate. Over 4k games played its a pretty high number but considered odds of 1\81 its like playing 400 games of any 1\8 event like for example P4. The overall strike rate might fluctuate a lot because a sample size its not big enough yet. The reported strike rate of D&C played hit n run style is around 11\1 as opposed to average expected 9\1 so its only 20% better.  In Code 4 we have 300\1 so far.

Regards

-

Why is there a challenge - when there is noting to prove - i don't understand.
If JL wins that he has nothing to prove for others.

If i was JL i would let any one feel free to prove him wrong - not the other way around.
Why - because that would be a waste of energy and time.

Quote from: ego on May 21, 10:34 AM 2012
-

Why is there a challenge - when there is noting to prove - i don't understand.
If JL wins that he has nothing to prove for others.

If i was JL i would let any one feel free to prove him wrong - not the other way around.
Why - because that would be a waste of energy and time.

Hello Ego

Its not about any ego trip :D   I guess that nobody has anything 2 prove here. If anybody agrees to do that i don't see any harm.  And i have lots of time and energy and an opportunity 2 learn something.  ::)

Regards

If i was JL i would let any one feel free to prove him wrong - not the other way around.

ego


I fully intend to try to prove him wrong--following his instructions exactly.


Isn't this done is science?  Some doctor posts a hypothesis and the others--using the same methods of collecting data---try to prove him wrong.  If they can't, we have Enbrel and my arthritis is held in remission and I can walk the dogs.  We have Advair and my asthma is controlled.

How many drugs never see the light of day because some scientist finds a flaw in the hypothesis and it all goes down the toilet?  We'll never know.

Just the way I see it.....

Sam

-

I understand what you are saying...

My point is if you where winning why would you care to prove your way or care about others.
Keep doing what you do and be happy with no worries.

We all already know what happens if we run any existing method for 1M.
Some tank with negative drawdown and some tank with some positive overall profit.

Quote from: Rolletti on May 21, 05:17 AM 2012
Gentlemen, let me complete the list.

1. Bayes
2. Vundarosa
3. Robeenhut
4. Alberto Jonas
5. TwoCat
6. Sniper
7. Superman
8. Atlantis
9. skakus
10. Rolletti

Well, my first instinct appears to be correct.  I didn't want to comment upon that one until things started to firm up after my initial (blatant) "lalaland" reply to Mr. Legend, himself.  And being that Steve is a sort of a "conspiracy guy", this has turned out to be a good board to share such claims.

What invariably happens among the core-group of something, especially among the "rich and famous", is that when one of them "goes too far", they all "circle the wagon" to drive out, prosecute (in a court of law), etc, depending upon the circumstances.  Even a few of the major casinos have been thusly (quietly) "drawn-and-quartered" after putting the others at risk of losing their own public "credibilities".

A different sort of "dimming the lights", if you will.

So, don't forget to put in some 100, or larger bulbs, as studies have overwhelmingly confirmed that "living in the dark" kills the brain.  (Dark) panelling on the walls, back in the 70's, was another bad idea.

Quote from: iggiv on May 20, 09:00 PM 2012
John Legend, please take it easy when they declare your method as a failure. It would be really shame if u r gone from here. I believe that most of the members want u here and have great interest in your information. Well, this is a case for me.

So if u get negative responses about your methods, u better don't take it personally. and i appreciate  very much your info.

Thanks for that iggiv. I won't dis-appear off the face of the earth. I will be stunned if ten people can truly report negative numbers. After playing 1000 games minumum. Which you must to see a decent sample. If I have three members reporting excellent results to me for CODE 4, PATTERN BREAKER and DIVIDE and CONQUER. There should be at leat half of those 10 reporting postive numbers after a 1000 game sample. Because lets get this straight. CODE 4 REVERSE ATTACK. Is the most rewarding of them all in relation to RISK AND REWARD. You are about 3 to 4 hours away from its appearance on here. Be back later cheers.

Quote from: Johnlegend on May 21, 12:40 PM 2012
Because lets get this straight. CODE 4 REVERSE ATTACK. Is the most rewarding of them all in relation to RISK AND REWARD.

What happened to that sure million dollars from 100 when played properly?  American Idol speak, everybody's the "best of the best" all the time (to build ratings hype.)

Quote from: Johnlegend on May 21, 12:40 PM 2012
You are about 3 to 4 hours away from its appearance on here. Be back later cheers.

And about 6 monhs from "falling off the face of the earth".

Quote from: GARNabby on May 21, 01:53 PM 2012
What happened to that sure million dollars from 100 when played properly?  American Idol speak, everybody's the "best of the best" all the time (to build ratings hype.)And about 6 monhs from "falling off the face of the earth".

GARNabby do you actually do anything aside from attack anyone showing any positive attitude on this forum??? I mean what do you do? Why so down on everything MR NEGATIVE. So you couldnt beat this game or don't have the right stuff to stick with it?? So now you dedicate your existence to spreading doom and gloom on everyone else. Or so it seems. Can anyone tell GARNabby's story. Where did this super negative being spring from? ???

Quote from: Johnlegend on May 21, 12:40 PM 2012
Thanks for that iggiv. I won't dis-appear off the face of the earth. I will be stunned if ten people can truly report negative numbers. After playing 1000 games minumum. Which you must to see a decent sample. If I have three members reporting excellent results to me for CODE 4, PATTERN BREAKER and DIVIDE and CONQUER. There should be at leat half of those 10 reporting postive numbers after a 1000 game sample. Because lets get this straight. CODE 4 REVERSE ATTACK. Is the most rewarding of them all in relation to RISK AND REWARD. You are about 3 to 4 hours away from its appearance on here. Be back later cheers.

Hi JohnLegend,
Good to hear that. It truly sounds promising so look forward to some fair, honest and genuine testing from me. See ya later!
A.

Quote from: atlantis on May 21, 02:19 PM 2012
Hi JohnLegend,
Good to hear that. It truly sounds promising so look forward to some fair, honest and genuine testing from me. See ya later!
A.

Thanks Atlantis, I know you are a solid and neutral person. You will tell it as you find it. I have some positive data for you too regarding your preferred playing style across the lines that might be of interest to you. I am a little annoyed with this GARNabby charactor. I really dont see his point for being here. He makes Bayes look super positive.

john theres no point responding to these guys if the system is so good post it up and it will shut them up thats your best defense not words

Quote from: StackBundles on May 21, 02:44 PM 2012
john theres no point responding to these guys if the system is so good post it up and it will shut them up that's your best defense not words

Stacks patience isnt you strong point is it lol?? Its coming im just chewing the fat and finalizing a few things. Besides for most its all downhill from the moment it goes public remember that. I will get the truth from those I expect it from. And be shocked if I get it from those I dont.

lol its not that i havent got any patients i just dont see the difference from code 4 betting opposite to this new code 4 of betting the same

Quote from: StackBundles on May 21, 02:55 PM 2012
LoL its not that i haven't got any patients i just don't see the difference from code 4 betting opposite to this new code 4 of betting the same

What you don't see a difference between 28 units risk and 80 units risk a game? The idea is to try and bring a bankroll friendly version of AMKS gem to the people. I can afford to play CODE 4 forever. Some can't. That means many are missing out on a great method. Wolfat brought something very interesting and powerful to my attention last week. That I was annoyed I didn't really see before. But oh yeah its there and it works. And I love it because I started out on a single dozen/column method THE ZONE. And this is much better. Its a gift. STAY WITH IT don't be drawn on to anything new and see how far it will take you. I have waded through thousands of past results and played 100 real games. Results will be posted under the rules 10pm GMT.

Then let it begin. As per usual it will require a degree of that word that begins with P. But those who step up will move up. that's for certain...

Quote from: Johnlegend on May 21, 02:15 PM 2012
GARNabby do you actually do anything aside from attack anyone showing any positive attitude on this forum???

Best just to ignore him. Every forum has a troll or two.

Hey, just noticed this is my 1000th post!  8)

Quote from: Johnlegend on May 21, 02:15 PM 2012
GARNabby do you actually do anything aside from attack anyone showing any positive attitude on this forum??? I mean what do you do? Why so down on everything MR NEGATIVE. So you couldnt beat this game or don't have the right stuff to stick with it?? So now you dedicate your existence to spreading doom and gloom on everyone else. Or so it seems. Can anyone tell GARNabby's story. Where did this super negative being spring from? ???

--Mostly on Gamblers Glen,all day long philosophy with other losers overthere.
Don't take any notice of this creature John,just ignore him.

yes i understand the bank risk but instead of betting the opposite your betting for it to be the same

Quote from: vile on May 21, 03:09 PM 2012
--Mostly on Gamblers Glen,all day long philosophy with other losers overthere.
Don't take any notice of this creature John,just ignore him.

Thanks for the info Vile. I thought he was a disgruntled loser. Have crossed paths with too many of them in my time.

Quote from: StackBundles on May 21, 03:11 PM 2012
yes i understand the bank risk but instead of betting the opposite your betting for it to be the same

Yes but its the betting criteria that makes the difference. Remember not all of CODE 4s games win on STEP 1. Thats why this works.

Quote from: Bayes on May 21, 03:09 PM 2012
Best just to ignore him. Every forum has a troll or two.

Hey, just noticed this is my 1000th post!  8)

Thanks Bayes and congrats on the milestone. Thats actually the number of games I will expect you to test CODE 4 REVERSE ATTACK for lol. So its kinda relevant to the job at hand lol.

OK John, I was just about to ask how many spins would be an adequate test. This could take some time, hopefully most of us will see it through to the end.  :thumbsup:

Quote from: Bayes on May 21, 03:25 PM 2012
OK John, I was just about to ask how many spins would be an adequate test. This could take some time, hopefully most of us will see it through to the end.  :thumbsup:

Bayes youre always asking what is the secret ingredient. Well I am laying it EXACTLY on the line. You play EXACTLY as I play and your results should be similar. I have one guy who PMed me the other day doing better than me at the other three methods I play. Because he is following the rules very closely. BTW thats not spins Bayes thats GAMES. This is a 2 month journey.

i think this should be interesting jl...i,m pretty much sitting on the fence here...you are on one side just coming out to mow the lawn becouse its overgrown..xxvv richard is on the other side of the fence  lawn cut already and weeded out most of the beds...and preparing his garden...picking the flowers that are starting to bloom.
richard already told everyone where to look,check his threads.you seem to be on the right track...the question is are you going to do a quick garden make over?? mow ang go or are you going to maintain a showroom garden which took team xxvv took nearly a year to grow and nurture..i hope so.
remember you have nothing to prove..only to yourself...other members give you a hard time i,m not one be careful ...there is nothing wrong with code 4...people should show a bit more respect than goad you just to knock you down..chin up good luck

Quote from: 6th-sense on May 21, 03:52 PM 2012
i think this should be interesting jl...I'm pretty much sitting on the fence here...you are on one side just coming out to mow the lawn becouse its overgrown..xxvv richard is on the other side of the fence  lawn cut already and weeded out most of the beds...and preparing his garden...picking the flowers that are starting to bloom.
richard already told everyone where to look,check his threads.you seem to be on the right track...the question is are you going to do a quick garden make over?? mow ang go or are you going to maintain a showroom garden which took team xxvv took nearly a year to grow and nurture..i hope so.
remember you have nothing to prove..only to yourself...other members give you a hard time I'm not one be careful ...there is nothing wrong with code 4...people should show a bit more respect than goad you just to knock you down..chin up good luck

6th sense thanks for that little scenario. No there is nothing wrong with CODE 4. I for one will be playing it for the rest of my days. But I appreciate 80 units risk for a 1 unit return isnt an attractive proposition for the average roulette player. Even 28 units risk for 2--4 units return might not be. Some people want something for nothing.

But the latter is more affordable and viable than the former. And I think it could/should attract more players to the concept. It is without question a profit maker. How much?? I cannot fully gauge at present. But certainly worthy of a players time. Its strikerate will only be known over several 1000 games. But 1000 should give us the picture. that's why its the number that must be played before verdicts are cast by the forums elite.

 Some people want something for nothing....you are right there...who are the forums elite? people who post the most? or people who post good methods and show others respect? or is the forums elite made up of obnoxious,argumentitive..two faced stab you in the back bully boys?
i think a lot of people don,t post any more becouse of the latter....look at this thread its turned out completley from opinions please...to opinions please if jl is full of sxxt....excuse the language.

Quote from: 6th-sense on May 21, 04:26 PM 2012
Some people want something for nothing....you are right there...who are the forums elite? people who post the most? or people who post good methods and show others respect? or is the forums elite made up of obnoxious,argumentitive..two faced stab you in the back bully boys?
i think a lot of people don't post any more becouse of the latter....look at this thread its turned out completley from opinions please...to opinions please if jl is full of sxxt....excuse the language.

Im being polite 6th sense for the sake of giving a picture of what will unfold in the coming weeks. I dont really see anyone as elite or above anyone else. You know what they say about opinions. But I want an honest appraisal of this excellent method.
I know its a profit maker, just not how good at present. Anyway I am about to give it to the forum. Cheers.

in 10mins time? lol

Gd look jl and thumbs up,,everyone should give you a bit of respect and honest opinions,don,t be too quick to judge, a forum divided is not as good as a forum united towards a common goal.

Quote from: Bayes on May 21, 03:09 PM 2012
Best just to ignore him. Every forum has a troll or two.

LoL.  The second sign of delusional behavior.  (The first is failing to distinguish between a person and his/her work.)

Not even the great pretend "Bayes" has in any way backed up this repeated, though serious, claim against myself.  Maybe he's the troll here, trying to provoke me?  Well, at least i've pointed out his insults, etc.

Can't absorb even a simple obversation that there's "no way in hell" that an equally-grumpy and self-styled member, Mr. Legend no less, is certainly going to make a million dollars from 100 in four months.

You guys! 

Quote from: GARNabby on May 21, 05:50 PM 2012
LoL.  The second sign of delusional behavior.  (The first is failing to distinguish between a person and his/her work.)

Not even the great pretend "Bayes" has in any way backed up this repeated, though serious, claim against myself.  Maybe he's the troll here, trying to provoke me?  Well, at least i've pointed out his insults, etc.

Can't absorb even a simple obversation that there's "no way in hell" that an equally-grumpy and self-styled member, Mr. Legend no less, is certainly going to make a million dollars from 100 in four months.

You guys!

A million dollars in one month? And you call others delusional. Learn to read before you comment.

QuoteSolitude,Diodoro

I dont know all of the names that were mentioned well, but these two are certainly not experts. If by diodoro you mean andruchi, he's a first class scammer. And solitude mostly just doesnt know what he's talking about.

Quote from: Johnlegend on May 21, 05:58 PM 2012
A million dollars in one month? And you call others delusional. Learn to read before you comment.

Where did i write, "in one month"?

Whom, exactly, did i call delusional?

I don't know, would have to confer with the experts, but the inability to read well would seem like another symptom somehow?

Quote from: Steve on May 21, 07:52 PM 2012
I don't know all of the names that were mentioned well, but these two are certainly not experts. If by diodoro you mean andruchi, he's a first class scammer. And solitude mostly just doesn't know what he's talking about.

Hello Steve

Diodoro is not Andruchi. Its about sleepers in 2 sectors. And Raindrop method by JS was quite popular back then. I just mentioned them as an example of systems that seem 2 work in the beginning  ;D

Regards

The raindrop is one of the biggest gamblers fallacies. It is very easy to prove it is ineffective and has been done many times.

It may have been "popular". Losing is also "popular". Methods that DO work arent popular because people like it clean and simple, but the real world is dynamic.

"Methods that DO work aren't popular because people like it clean and simple, but the real world is dynamic."

u SAID it

In roulette game the odds are what they are. We are not going to change them whatever we do.
You can apply witty fixed rules and smart progressions to whatever system you develope but in the end randomness will kill you with the same certainty night follows day.

Why a dynamic entity as randomness will be trapped along mechanical behaviour from our part?

Good news are randomn outcomes dont last long in the middle of the field. Unbalance will happen sooner or later. When that happens something is outracing while something is falling back or missing. That gives an edge while it continues to happen. Speculate, speculate and speculate we are left to. Nothing is granted then. It's a game (of luck?) after all.

I believe Rhythms and Tendencies of whatever events (variances) randomness produces can be tracked with proper tools (matrices). From there on one tries to catch up with them.
Not easy task at all. Timing will be subject to the right reading of results to produce more accurate bet selections.

As everyone know this issue is too complex to claim written on stone solutions. 

Cheers,
Carlos.

QuoteI believe Rhythms and Tendencies of whatever events (variances) randomness produces can be tracked with proper tools (matrices). From there on one tries to catch up with them.
Not easy task at all. Timing will be subject to the right reading of results to produce more accurate bet selections.

But the ball has no memory and what impact does that have on rhythms and tendencies of whatever events - i tell you - you can play random against random and no other selection produce better result.

Casinos make billions and there is a obvious reason for that.
I know so many who try Kimo Li methods and guess what they end up with - empty wallet.

Good luck with your approach to roulette game, Ego.

Thanks for reading and answering my post.


Cheers,
Carlos.

Quote from: carpanta on May 23, 08:35 AM 2012
Good luck with your approach to roulette game, Ego.

Thanks for reading and answering my post.


Cheers,
Carlos.

-

Thank you for understanding - so if you play systems you better quit playing roulette - easy.

-

Thanks for reading and answering to my reply.

Quote from: ego on May 23, 07:39 AM 2012I  know so many who try Kimo Li methods and guess what they end up with - empty wallet.

Long have I suspected the above.

Sam

Quote from: ego on May 23, 07:39 AM 2012
[spin... you can play random against random and no other selection produce better result.

I have heard something about this effect in a trading forum i frequent.

Where this might apply is to somehow add some random application to JohnLegend's latest solution. 

Until an actual edge has been found (if ever) what we can expect to do is shift the inevitable bust as far out (later) as possible, to one, three or five years. (Like holding back the river with a dike).  What i mean, for example, is, under normal distributions, a player should expect to lose almost every game of 50 spins, even more if 100 spins.  But, if busts can be spread farther apart, it may be possible to win 100 games before going bust. JohnLegend's system may accomplish this (we'll see).   Given a bankroll of $100 to begin with (no big deal if lost), this provides an opportunity to get started with not much, and, if lucky, grow a bankroll to $300, $1000, or $3000 before the hammer drops.  If it drops, oh well, $100 down the drain.  But it's a way to get a bigger bankroll for other games with better odds (with an edge).   The hammer could drop at any time, however, so that's where a little luck (and not too much greed) is needed.  With JohnLegend's current method, you'd need to lose 4 games before a $100 BR is busted (assuming unit of $1).  That's already happened to one participant.  it will be interesting to see if that hammer will be lifted, allowing him to get ahead for a while.  Someone else is down -8 chips after MANY games, when they ought to be down 50+ units.  So it may not be as bad as it seems.  I like that his system has a kind of stop-loss-limit where the bust can be controlled (or less emotional), unlike a flat-out martingale.

Of course, i could be completely wrong about all this, and it might turn out better (or worse) than expected. 

Random is truly the best predictor of random.  (My opinion; I have not been up the mountain!)

Still

Consider this:  You spend hours building your bankroll and the the hammer falls.  It's not the money that bothers me, but the time spent.

Geez, I could learn another song on the guitar in that time.

By the way, that was one good thing about the Code 4 variations--I had lots of waiting time to practice.

Nothing is all bad........

TCS

Yes, there is the time consideration.  Allegedly,  there is a disadvantage to playing on RNG because many players feel there is some cheating going on there.  However, if that could be overcome, or isn't really true, then a bot could handle the time-investment issue.  I am looking for something i can bot-ize and run from a server-image i have running on Amazon Web Services Ec2.  That way i can close my laptop and relax, assuming the bot is well-programmed. 

Still

BV is a fair casino.

Many people won money with their bots.  BV changed the rules,  how you bet and several other things to cause bots not to work.

Lastly, it is easy to see when a bot is working.  They would just refuse to pay.

Until someone invents the human bot, bots will never work.  A bot must make mistakes and vary time time from bet to bet.  No human works at the speed of a bot, the BV knows it.

BV is fair.  Take your system there and play by hand.  Don't be greedy.

I'm in the USA and I can't play there, but if I could I would.  Dublin, too!

Sam

Quote from: Still on May 23, 02:57 PM 2012
I have heard something about this effect in a trading forum i frequent.

Where this might apply is to somehow add some random application to JohnLegend's latest solution. 

Until an actual edge has been found (if ever) what we can expect to do is shift the inevitable bust as far out (later) as possible, to one, three or five years. (Like holding back the river with a dike).  What i mean, for example, is, under normal distributions, a player should expect to lose almost every game of 50 spins, even more if 100 spins.  But, if busts can be spread farther apart, it may be possible to win 100 games before going bust. JohnLegend's system may accomplish this (we'll see).   Given a bankroll of $100 to begin with (no big deal if lost), this provides an opportunity to get started with not much, and, if lucky, grow a bankroll to $300, $1000, or $3000 before the hammer drops.  If it drops, oh well, $100 down the drain.  But it's a way to get a bigger bankroll for other games with better odds (with an edge).   The hammer could drop at any time, however, so that's where a little luck (and not too much greed) is needed.  With JohnLegend's current method, you'd need to lose 4 games before a $100 BR is busted (assuming unit of $1).  That's already happened to one participant.  it will be interesting to see if that hammer will be lifted, allowing him to get ahead for a while.  Someone else is down -8 chips after MANY games, when they ought to be down 50+ units.  So it may not be as bad as it seems. I like that his system has a kind of stop-loss-limit where the bust can be controlled (or less emotional), unlike a flat-out martingale.

Of course, i could be completely wrong about all this, and it might turn out better (or worse) than expected.

-----------------
depends of what you were expecting....i'm already down 56u in 50 games

vundarosa

Quote from: Steve on May 22, 10:05 PM 2012
Methods that DO work aren't popular because people like it clean and simple, but the real world is dynamic.

It's the apparent "clean and simple" of, for example, a gaming system which is the best "cover" of all.  You have to be able to at least make it appear effortless.

Dynamic is only one aspect of the "real world".  We must at least strive to harness the powers of complexity through careful thought in specific, and outline of the world around us in general... in accordance with the static.

For example, isn't that how a bank views a financial business plan when determining a loan?  Not so much about a complex bunch of numbers which add up as some sort of practical economic edge over the competition?  You don't want to build something so outright-complex that, for example, by the time you have it working, there's no longer the same application, or demand, for it.

Just "fiddle away" at it a few minutes every other day, far from the felt, until you have something useful.  Which you can refine, amplify, and re-cycle, in earnest then.  Next to no such methods in the literature, including the internet, for games like baccarat, and roulette, but there are plenty of bad ideas waiting to re-phrased and massaged into potentially-good ones.  (Isn't brainstorming the hardest part of something new?)

Quote from: vundarosa on May 23, 04:58 PM 2012

-----------------
depends of what you were expecting....i'm already down 56u in 50 games

vundarosa

I sympathize.  This is definitely a critical juncture for you or anyone.   I understand you are playing a pre-recorded list of live (?) spins from an authentic (fair) game somewhere.  This would be a good time to have an idea of what kind of  "draw-down" would be expected to be possible or normal (average)...beyond which you would either need a bigger BR, or just need to call it quits.  Seems to me a 100u BR is necessary for this or just about any system.  So i hope those involved in the tests are willing to go at least that far before throwing in the towel...for the sake of learners here.   

Are you playing no-zero, European, or American Roulette?  Are you dealing with the zero(s) like JL suggests?

Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 23, 04:34 PM 2012
Still

BV is a fair casino.

Many people won money with their bots.  BV changed the rules,  how you bet and several other things to cause bots not to work.

Lastly, it is easy to see when a bot is working.  They would just refuse to pay.

Until someone invents the human bot, bots will never work.  A bot must make mistakes and vary time time from bet to bet.  No human works at the speed of a bot, the BV knows it.

BV is fair.  Take your system there and play by hand.  Don't be greedy.

I'm in the USA and I can't play there, but if I could I would.  Dublin, too!

Sam

Thanks for the tip.  Yes, anymore, or at least at certain online casinos, a bot would somehow need to *act* like a human...to stay under some new kind of *radar*.  I haven't gotten yet into RX and the others to see if they can accomplish this, but i can say with confidence that if a *human signature* could be identified, it could be programmed somehow, someway.  I'll look into it and report back eventually. 

Meanwhile, i do have issues being a U.S. citizen and am considering to register from a proxy server to get around local ID (IP) issues.  Anybody with more info on this please let me know.  I did not know a U.S. citizen (you?) could play at BV so if you can let me know how you are doing that i would appreciate.  Thnx. 

Quote from: Still on May 23, 05:30 PM 2012
I sympathize.  This is definitely a critical juncture for you or anyone.   I understand you are playing a per-recorded list of live (?) spins from an authentic (fair) game somewhere.  This would be a good time to have an idea of what kind of  "draw-down" would be expected to be possible or normal (average)...beyond which you would either need a bigger BR, or just need to call it quits.  Seems to me a 100u BR is necessary for this or just about any system.  So i hope those involved in the tests are willing to go at least that far before throwing in the towel...for the sake of learners here.   

Are you playing no-zero, European, or American Roulette?  Are you dealing with the zero(s) like JL suggests?

-------------------
testing from an European table spins results....I’ve attached the test results so anyone can see for themselves.....it seems to me that all the gymnastics, arranging numbers in a matrix, waiting for triggers and qualifiers bring no advantage whatsoever to choosing a dozen and having a go at it for 6 consecutive bets...... I suspect the results would be the similar......

vundarosa

Meanwhile, i do have issues being a U.S. citizen and am considering to register from a proxy server to get around local ID (IP) issues.  Anybody with more info on this please let me know.  I did not know a U.S. citizen (you?) could play at BV so if you can let me know how you are doing that i would appreciate.  Thnx. 

Still

About 2 or more years ago, I was a tester for Super Roulette.  The fellow who owned it set me up an account at Bet Voyager and I did play for real money.  Another fellow set me up an account and I play there for play money.  I play regularly at Dublin for play money and have started with #1,000 and now am at nearly #5,000.  Too bad it's not real!!

Before anyone asks, I use the G.U.T.  I know it won't work but I use it anyway.

As to setting up an account if you are a U.S. citizen--forget it.  They require all kinds of I.D. like driver's permit, water bills, lease agreements and many of them actually snail mail a number to you that you must input on the computer so you can play.  I'm sure someone will come along and say they can do it and have done it.  I'd have to see it to believe it.

Sam





   

Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 23, 09:14 PM 2012
Meanwhile, i do have issues being a U.S. citizen and am considering to register from a proxy server to get around local ID (IP) issues.  Anybody with more info on this please let me know.  I did not know a U.S. citizen (you?) could play at BV so if you can let me know how you are doing that i would appreciate.  Thnx. 

Still

About 2 or more years ago, I was a tester for Super Roulette.  The fellow who owned it set me up an account at Bet Voyager and I did play for real money.  Another fellow set me up an account and I play there for play money.  I play regularly at Dublin for play money and have started with #1,000 and now am at nearly #5,000.  Too bad it's not real!!

Before anyone asks, I use the G.U.T.  I know it won't work but I use it anyway.

As to setting up an account if you are a U.S. citizen--forget it.  They require all kinds of I.D. like driver's permit, water bills, lease agreements and many of them actually snail mail a number to you that you must input on the computer so you can play.  I'm sure someone will come along and say they can do it and have done it.  I'd have to see it to believe it.

Sam

Hello Sam

Overcoming IP issues is easy. Dont bother with free proxy servers. You can use VPN. It works like proxy server and costs around 10$ a month. For it you get access 2 servers from many countries. Overplay is the best option. I used it.
The other problem is 2 find a money service thats accepted by a casino. Moneybookers has problem with US citizens. Maybe Neteller? An option is 2 get someone you trust 2 open an account in a country thats accepted by a casino and you can play from your place using VPN.
One issue is that VPN slows you down. I live in Philippines now but have an european bank account and address...

Regards

Quote from: Robeenhuut on May 23, 09:33 PM 2012
I live in Philippines now but have an european bank account and address...

Regards

Yes VPN should solve an IP issue.  Might also be able to do it through Amazon Web Services Ec2 if  able to choose a server location (probably).  This leaves the problem of the other verifications and a money service.  PayPal no go? 

I have a Facebook friend native to the Philippines.  Any suggestions how a collaboration might work i'd be interested to hear.  I used to have a bank account in the Philippines, but is probably defunct due to abandonment. 

Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 23, 09:14 PM 2012
Another fellow set me up an account and I play there for play money.  I play regularly at Dublin for play money and have started with #1,000 and now am at nearly #5,000.  Too bad it's not real!!

Before anyone asks, I use the G.U.T.  I know it won't work but I use it anyway.
Sam

Thanks. If i may ask, how did they set you up?  Is the account in their name and address and everything...and you have the password? 

Sorry, i don't know what G.U.T. is.  Does that mean i'm a newbie?  Is that a betting system?

Quote from: Still on May 23, 09:53 PM 2012
Yes VPN should solve an IP issue.  Might also be able to do it through Amazon Web Services Ec2 if  able to choose a server location (probably).  This leaves the problem of the other verifications and a money service.  PayPal no go? 

I have a Facebook friend native to the Philippines.  Any suggestions how a collaboration might work i'd be interested to hear.  I used to have a bank account in the Philippines, but is probably defunct due to abandonment.

I play mostly on Smartlive and they accept everybody except US guys. Before i played Paddy Power and used Overplay VPN. I had an european banking account for 4 that. My issue was  connection speed. Where i live i dont have access 2 any decent net provider and VPN slowed me down 2 much. Otherwise everything worked like a charm. Casino does not really care where you live. They only verify your IP address.

Regards

Quote from: Robeenhuut on May 23, 10:04 PM 2012
I play mostly on Smartlive and they accept everybody except US guys. Before i played Paddy Power and used Overplay VPN. I had an european banking account for 4 that. My issue was  connection speed. Where i live i don't have access 2 any decent net provider and VPN slowed me down 2 much. Otherwise everything worked like a charm. Casino does not really care where you live. They only verify your IP address.

Regards

I'm trying to understand why you would need to use a VPN.  Was your normal IP not allowed? 

So you would connect to your VPN, and play from there?  And it was slow goin?

Thanks for answering these questions.  I'd like to "jailbreak" these restrictions. 

Quote from: Still on May 23, 10:46 PM 2012
I'm trying to understand why you would need to use a VPN.  Was your normal IP not allowed? 

So you would connect to your VPN, and play from there?  And it was slow goin?

Thanks for answering these questions.  I'd like to "jailbreak" these restrictions.

Yeah Still. Paddy Power does not allow players with IP from Philippines so i had 2 go around it.
If you have a faster connection then VPN slowing you down should not be an issue. Each casino has  a different list restricted territories but US players are generally most affected by it.
Dont waste your time with free proxy servers. VPN works and its very easy 2 set up.

Regards

Quote from: Robeenhuut on May 23, 11:20 PM 2012
Yeah Still. Paddy Power does not allow players with IP from Philippines so i had 2 go around it.
If you have a faster connection then VPN slowing you down should not be an issue. Each casino has  a different list restricted territories but US players are generally most affected by it.
don't waste your time with free proxy servers. VPN works and its very easy 2 set up.

Regards

Ok i get it now.  So once you line up with a money service you're good to go. 

So would you be a pro gambler then?

Thanks much.

Still

The G.U.T is a system posted by a man named winkel.  Search for it.  I am not the second coming of winkel, but I consider myself an expert on the G.U.T. and Track4, the program droidman wrote to use with it.

Before you go to far, you had better talk to someone who has an account at a casino.  They will tell you about verification by the casino.  Yes, there are places that will take your money, and for a fee, make a deposit, but you cannot withdraw.  Trust me; I've been skinned!  I paid dearly for one supposedly reputable company to set me up a bank account in the UK and get me a debit card.  I had an address in the UK where I could get mail ad have it forwarded to the U.S.  Let my loss of money speak to you!  I've said all I will on this subject.

Yes, the person who set me up an account at BV used his own name and correct personal data.  That way, we could have gotten paid if I had won.  Mores the pity I didn't!!

Since the ban by the U.S. Government, I've had several people offer to set me up accounts and be my go-between.  Frankly, I felt they just wanted me to PayPal them some money and I'd never hear from them again.  None of those people are now on either forum, so I think I was probably right.

Now, as to IP.  If you try to log into Dublin for real money, they will tell you your IP is from an banned country.  I can only log in as a "fun player".  Try to log in from the U.S. to Ladbrokes, CasinoWebCam, William Hill or just about any other.  You'll find out.

Trying' to be your friend here, Still.

Sam

Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 24, 12:35 AM 2012
Still

The G.U.T is a system posted by a man named winkel.  Search for it.  I am not the second coming of winkel, but I consider myself an expert on the G.U.T. and Track4, the program droidman wrote to use with it.

Before you go to far, you had better talk to someone who has an account at a casino.  They will tell you about verification by the casino.  Yes, there are places that will take your money, and for a fee, make a deposit, but you cannot withdraw.  Trust me; I've been skinned!  I paid dearly for one supposedly reputable company to set me up a bank account in the UK and get me a debit card.  I had an address in the UK where I could get mail ad have it forwarded to the U.S.  Let my loss of money speak to you!  I've said all I will on this subject.

Yes, the person who set me up an account at BV used his own name and correct personal data.  That way, we could have gotten paid if I had won.  Mores the pity I didn't!!

Since the ban by the U.S. Government, I've had several people offer to set me up accounts and be my go-between.  Frankly, I felt they just wanted me to PayPal them some money and I'd never hear from them again.  None of those people are now on either forum, so I think I was probably right.

Now, as to IP.  If you try to log into Dublin for real money, they will tell you your IP is from an banned country.  I can only log in as a "fun player".  Try to log in from the U.S. to Ladbrokes, CasinoWebCam, William Hill or just about any other.  You'll find out.

Trying' to be your friend here, Still.

Sam

Bigger problem is a verification by your money wallet like MB. They might ask 4 pics of your ID, proof of address. They also send some activation code 2 your home address. It happened 2 me but i was prepared. You can deposit directly 2 casino or use credit card but the card can not be issued in restricted territory and so on. Opening an account is free so d person should not charge you any money but d problem is that he or she still has an access 2 yr account. In this case you would need 2 transfer online immediately your winnings after they arrive to your other account. 

the best place for vnp service to hide your ip is here  link:://whm.reliablehosting.com/whmcs/ (link:://whm.reliablehosting.com/whmcs/) my son in law just come back from 6 months in australia and this is what he used to access all betting on his english accounts...doesn,t slow down anything i,m using too when needed

Quote from: 6th-sense on May 24, 02:58 AM 2012
the best place for vnp service to hide your ip is here  link:://whm.reliablehosting.com/whmcs/ (link:://whm.reliablehosting.com/whmcs/) my son in law just come back from 6 months in australia and this is what he used to access all betting on his English accounts...doesn't slow down anything I'm using too when needed

You can not say that if you had no problem with connection speed using a particular VPN provider that other person wont have a problem as well. It depends on too many factors. Strong VPN also has a good reputation so you do your research but generally you can expect some drop in speed.
But it depends

Yes it probably depends.   
The first time i downloaded some software using a remote desktop at Amazon Web Services Ec2 i was stunned.  Have never downloaded anything so fast.  I thought there was an error of some sort.  Anyway they have a free level of service for a year to draw people in that's pretty generous. Been testing a forex bot (demo mode) on it non-stop for about three months without a problem.  Its up about 300% at the moment.

[attach=1]

Quote from: Robeenhuut on May 24, 01:37 AM 2012
Bigger problem is a verification by your money wallet like MB. They might ask 4 pics of your ID, proof of address. They also send some activation code 2 your home address. It happened 2 me but i was prepared. You can deposit directly 2 casino or use credit card but the card can not be issued in restricted territory and so on. Opening an account is free so d person should not charge you any money but d problem is that he or she still has an access 2 yr account. In this case you would need 2 transfer online immediately your winnings after they arrive to your other account.

I might propose a club of sorts.  I would prefer to call it an investment club but no matter.  The idea is to have a "Treasurer" who will handle deposits and withdrawals for the group for a fee plus enough to cover any tax liabilities.  For a local group of us i've already sketched up a spreadsheet that would keep track of all the numbers coming and going for multiple members.  The spreadsheet i'm attaching is for a binary options club.  It's not done yet but you get the idea. 

[attach=1]

I don't have a problem trusting people with small amounts of capital if they have incentive to stay with the program for a % of a growing account.  Club members have to be agreed about a game-plan, and stay within risk limits.  But it's a way to keep capital active by motivating the members to roll up their sleeves and execute the various methods agreed upon. 

This was my solution for a few of us (locally) who are having a hard time opening forex accounts (or any other kind of account) and none of us with a lot of capital to start with.  The Treasurer is someone we all trust, who, having a physical address and some net worth, more easily opens accounts. 

Robeenhuut (link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?action=profile;u=1045) that's true about the speed ...he was using a dongle as he was touring all over and it worked just fine no problems that's why he reccommended it to me and I'm using his password for testing which is pretty darn good..I've used vnp stuff before and always had issues with opening sites and taking forever this was doesn't......

Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 24, 12:35 AM 2012
Still

The G.U.T is a system posted by a man named winkel.  Search for it.  I am not the second coming of winkel, but I consider myself an expert on the G.U.T. and Track4, the program droidman wrote to use with it.

Thanks for pointing those out.  Would you say these are how you took a fun account from $1000 to $5000? 

Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 24, 12:35 AM 2012
Before you go to far, you had better talk to someone who has an account at a casino.  They will tell you about verification by the casino.  Yes, there are places that will take your money, and for a fee, make a deposit, but you cannot withdraw.  Trust me; I've been skinned!  I paid dearly for one supposedly reputable company to set me up a bank account in the UK and get me a debit card.  I had an address in the UK where I could get mail ad have it forwarded to the U.S.  Let my loss of money speak to you!  I've said all I will on this subject.

Sounds like a lot of work and a lot of risk.  I propose a solution, mentioned in previous post, where motivated people find a reason to work together as a team.  Sort of a new twist on card-counting teams. 

a dongle............ :xd:

Best laugh I've had in days!!!

Well not really.  They guy on Leno last night who fired a bottle rocket from his arse:  That rolled me off the bed.  Nearly died of asthma attack!!

Sam

Still

You have a great idea and I'd love for you to open the account, but you can't.

As to taxes, I've been told UK residents do not pay taxes on on-line gambling profits unless they are professionals.  Don't know if it's true, but if it is, we would sure want a UK bloke as the account holder.

Now, to answer your question about the fun account at Dublin.  Yes, I have mostly used the G.U.T. to play there.  I've spent a lot of time learning to ride the trends, so to speak.  When crossings are hitting, they hit like wild fire.  When they go cold, they can ruin you if you don't quit.  Sometimes you log on and they're cold and you just have to eat about 50Euro and move on.  A few hours later the wheel will change.

Caveat:  This is not Jump-in;Jump-out.  This is following what the wheel is doing. 

I'd sure kick in 100E to a kitty if we had some person we trust who could set up an account.  They we either have to select a player or select a rotation pattern for each player to have his/her time.

The person depositing must never let the casino or the money transfer service, if one is used, know that this is a group effort.  This will cause all kinds of problems.  Probably the best way to deposit and withdraw is with a credit card.

Can we PayPal each other money.  I mean from the U.S. to a person in Canada or Australia? 

Someone PayPal me $500.00 and let's test it!!   :thumbsup:

Still, this was done once with rather bad results.  Also, guys have collaborated and gotten real angry with each other.  There's no guarantee of winning.  Real money vs play money is a very different game.

Dang, I talk too much.

Sam

I"m based in uk, i have got 2 big ish casinos only a 45 minuite walk from home + another 10 within 60 mile round trip + another 23!! in london only 100 miles away.
Have been working out a team idea to pool resources and journey-plan around all these casinos playing hit-run only.
I managed to join 7 london casinos in one evening/night nearest the tube stations AND came back with a profit.
Good Luck with your concept.

Cheers,
Dino.

Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 24, 11:15 AM 2012
Still

You have a great idea and I'd love for you to open the account, but you can't.

As to taxes, I've been told UK residents do not pay taxes on on-line gambling profits unless they are professionals.  Don't know if it's true, but if it is, we would sure want a UK bloke as the account holder.

Yes i've resigned myself from the idea that i, as a U.S. citizen (still residing State-side), could, or would want to try and open an account given all the trouble of doing so. 

Great idea about finding a treasurer from a tax-free haven. 

Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 24, 11:15 AM 2012
Now, to answer your question about the fun account at Dublin.  Yes, I have mostly used the G.U.T. to play there.  I've spent a lot of time learning to ride the trends, so to speak.  When crossings are hitting, they hit like wild fire.  When they go cold, they can ruin you if you don't quit.  Sometimes you log on and they're cold and you just have to eat about 50Euro and move on.  A few hours later the wheel will change.

Caveat:  This is not Jump-in;Jump-out.  This is following what the wheel is doing. 

Thanks again for this info.  In club environment, this kind of info could translate directly to your benefit since anything that helps anyone in the club helps the others.  So there is incentive to share and stay a part of the group.  People are generally generous regardless. This forum is a good example.  But with a little trust their good karma could come back sooner than later. 

Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 24, 11:15 AM 2012
I'd sure kick in 100E to a kitty if we had some person we trust who could set up an account.  They we either have to select a player or select a rotation pattern for each player to have his/her time.

The person depositing must never let the casino or the money transfer service, if one is used, know that this is a group effort.  This will cause all kinds of problems.  Probably the best way to deposit and withdraw is with a credit card.

Can we PayPal each other money.  I mean from the U.S. to a person in Canada or Australia?

I would too.  That's not too much, not too little.  I'm not too worried about the treasurer running off with deposits or profits because if the group is successful, there's little reason to take the money and run for the same reason there's little reason to walk away from a mutual fund that consistently generate passive income every year, or every month.  The knowledge shared in the group is the number one asset of the group.  Only if the treasurer could run off with both might there be some motivation to do so, but i still doubt that's enough incentive.  Because now, the treasurer must apply all that knowledge alone, to a lone account, to generate income.  No more passive income.   

Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 24, 11:15 AM 2012
Someone PayPal me $500.00 and let's test it!!   :thumbsup:

Still, this was done once with rather bad results.  Also, guys have collaborated and gotten real angry with each other.  There's no guarantee of winning.  Real money vs play money is a very different game.

Dang, I talk too much.

Sam

I can see how that might go south.  On the other hand, even folks with no scruples could manage to work together if it was obvious they were better off doing so.  In the old days they called them "pirates".  Nowadays they call them a "corporation".  In this case, it would be a multinational corporation, loosely affiliated, leveraging trust to overcome the burdens of the law (taxes etc)...not unlike the Federal Reserve...oops, i talk too much. 

Yes, anger could arise when there is more risk (or lost opportunity) involved than people are comfortable with.  And with casino games where people really aren't sure of what the outcome ought to be, i sure wouldn't want to be the guy on rotation when the hammer of doom  fell.  Also there could be anger whenever compliance with group rules is not easily tracked, and so, blame is more easily passed. 

One way to work is just have each executive (player) prove something on a fun account before getting a license to "drive" the group funds.  And, as the funds grow, it will automatically attract as much capital as needed/wanted.  If the fund grows fast enough, the need to deposit more funds becomes kind of moot.  So i see reasonable risks all around. 

Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 24, 11:04 AM 2012
a dongle............ :xd:

Best laugh I've had in days!!!

Well not really.  They guy on Leno last night who fired a bottle rocket from his arse:  That rolled me off the bed.  Nearly died of asthma attack!!

Sam

lol glad to see someone on the ball sam ...laughed my head off too when i posted it  :twisted:

Quote from: dino246 on May 24, 11:30 AM 2012
I"m based in uk, i have got 2 big ish casinos only a 45 minuite walk from home + another 10 within 60 mile round trip + another 23!! in london only 100 miles away.
Have been working out a team idea to pool resources and journey-plan around all these casinos playing hit-run only.
I managed to join 7 london casinos in one evening/night nearest the tube stations AND came back with a profit.
Good Luck with your concept.

Cheers,
Dino.

These sound like good qualifications for a treasurer of a multinational, loosely affiliated corporation.  :thumbsup:

The incentives for participating in a group is it gives the active members a larger BR to work with.  Assuming the active members get to keep 50% of the profits from the use of group funds, it's a no brainier.  The more funds in the account, the greater the profits for the active member, if and when there is a profit.  It would only work as each active member stayed within mutually agreed risk tolerance parameters. Passive profits would be proportional to a members %share of the group funds, and would grow about half as fast as the active member funds.  A treasurer would earn %fees of deposits coming in and profits/withdrawals coming out.  So there is incentive to be a "good" treasurer since the combination of these %fees and passive income could be significant.  All the more if the treasurer is active. 

  This thread is/was a good example of how a group can agree to rules and risk tolerance procedures.  When active members are going to B&M casinos, it's harder to track whether they are following the rules, so there is a greater need for trust.  Trust well placed is a good thing; a bad thing when it's not.  In this thread, JohnLegend is trusting ten players to honestly report results.  in my opinion, a club environment would be similar, with as many safeguards as possible so everyone can feel comfortable and not become angry over trivial matters. 

 

Quote from: Still on May 24, 04:08 PM 2012


One way to work is just have each executive (player) prove something on a fun account before getting a license to "drive" the group funds. 

You should be asking for real proof. Something akin to a 'credit check'

Someone could easily withdraw the funds from their online accounts and then allow an inspection from a trusted member of the group.

What could be looked for?

Monthly profits.
No flurry of deposits after a loss indicating ill discipline.


Award points for certain criteria. You will soon whittle down the pretenders from the contenders.

The potential then is for a group to put their resources together and fight the casino on a more level playing field.

Part of me thinks what would be the point? Winners don't need any help and are more than likely very protective of their winning strategies.

Good luck with your idea. There is probably more chance of man landing on mars within the next decade than you finding the right calibre of people for your suggestion to make it work successfully. (just my honest opinion)

Quote from: flukey luke on May 24, 04:47 PM 2012

You should be asking for real proof. Something akin to a 'credit check'

Someone could easily withdraw the funds from their online accounts and then allow an inspection from a trusted member of the group.

Definitely, active members would be getting a lot of "credit" so-to-speak.  There's a way to pass inspections for sure, whatever they may be.   

Quote from: flukey luke on May 24, 04:47 PM 2012
What could be looked for?

Monthly profits.
No flurry of deposits after a loss indicating ill discipline.

One of the reasons for grouping is because some of us can't open accounts in our home country.  So, for example, i would not be able to post real results from any online account...unless it was a group account.   To handle this, the group treasurer could maintain multiple designated accounts, where an account(s) can be assigned to new active members to prove something.  Those accounts could start unfunded, and become funded with a certain amount of "credit" so-to-speak. That credit could be the active members own money, for example.   As an executive is proven (by whatever minimum standard could be agreed upon), more and more credit can be allowed up to a mutually agreed maximum of group funds.   

Quote from: flukey luke on May 24, 04:47 PM 2012
Award points for certain criteria. You will soon whittle down the pretenders from the contenders.

Yes, there must be a way to do this. 

Quote from: flukey luke on May 24, 04:47 PM 2012
The potential then is for a group to put their resources together and fight the casino on a more level playing field.

Either that or fight national laws on a more level playing field.  A bigger BR does tend to help against the casinos big BR, and the knowledge within the group would tend toward that even more.  This forum is an example of an attempt to do just that.  Within a group, however, i believe there would be even more incentive to share good information, since it affects everyone's bottom line.  Active members would either be leveraging private information or group information.  If private, the dynamics change considerably.  In that situation, the privateer would need more trust and proof to use group funds.  And when dealing with casino games, i don't know that i (or many others) would  be comfortable with a privateer who manages money like a mutual fund manager on Wall Street.  But it's possible. 

I am something of a privateer in terms of the one forex account i am managing for one client/friend.  There's a hundred dollars in that account, which he holds, where i have full access to run a robot.  My friend doesn't want to or need to know anything about the robots, which is a whole other learning curve that i am not motivated to teach.  If i did teach it, i'd teach only to potentially active group members, so i could benefit from what i impart.   But because the learning curve for that is so steep, and because it's mostly agreed that there are non-random patterns that can be exploited in the stock-commodities-futures-forex markets, a privateer solution can work. 

But with casinos, i don't know about you, but i want to know what's under the hood...how it is supposed to work...what to expect.   

Quote from: flukey luke on May 24, 04:47 PM 2012
Part of me thinks what would be the point? Winners don't need any help and are more than likely very protective of their winning strategies.

There's some logic to that.  The strategies of a group like this would likely be based on anything/everything that is already open source, such as the information in this forum.  And it would appeal to anyone whose profits are not fully automated (passive), which is almost anyone, winner or not.  If you are a B&M player, for example, your profits stop as soon as you walk away from the table, walk out of the casino, and go to bed.   The benefits of a group is that, in theory, while you sleep, your money can still be working, growing about half as fast as it grows for the active member, during the session that active member is using group funds.  And while you are a winner, and actively awake and playing, you make more than you normally would, if the group BR is bigger than your normal, personal, private BR. 

This principle is used by multinational banks all day, every day.  They hire traders to speculate and/or hedge the banks funds.  Sometimes the trader comes with his/her own private knowledge that the bank leverages.  Other times, traders within the bank share knowledge for the benefit of all.  Traders are expected to stay within risk limits, and their activity is monitored.  They are sometimes given long leashes, and sometimes that backfires like it did recently with JP Morgan.  But that won't change too much the basic formula.  Banks bank on the trust they give to their traders, and in turn, the traders make more than if they were trading their own account.

And once again, you might have winners from the U.S., but wouldn't know it otherwise.   

Quote from: flukey luke on May 24, 04:47 PM 2012
Good luck with your idea. There is probably more chance of man landing on mars within the next decade than you finding the right calibre of people for your suggestion to make it work successfully. (just my honest opinion)

Thanks very much. 

This is something i am organizing locally and thought i would see if it could also fly amongst online personalities as well.  It seems to me that if a group like Anonymous (pretty high caliber hackers) can find each other and organize some concerted resistance, the idea i'm proposing here ought also to be doable in due time. 

Still

You're talking way over my head.  I'm in, but why not have ten players put in 100E and when a withdrawal is made, each gets 10%?

Gotta run.....

Sam

Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 24, 08:20 PM 2012
Still

You're talking way over my head.  I'm in, but why not have ten players put in 100E and when a withdrawal is made, each gets 10%?

Gotta run.....

Sam

The spreadsheet sample i linked earlier shows how it's possible for anyone to deposit or withdraw any amount any time...and be compensated accordingly.  That way it's more flexible like a mutual fund.  If Bob puts in 100 and Jim puts in 200 and the fund grows 10% after that, then Bob could withdraw 10 and Jim could withdraw 20...if they want.  If they don't, then their profits get automatically internally redeposited so that compounding can kick in.  If Jim withdraws 20 and Bob recycles his 10, its ok.  The spreadsheet keeps track of what %share of profits anyone is owed, relative to all others.  There would never need to be a reason to do anything as a group, except to all agree on the same rules and abide by them.   I feel this is most attractive to whatever contribution/capital anyone is willing to invest at any time.  If capital is allowed to leave freely, it will also arrive freely.  Six months down the road, the group could discover a great player/asset and have an easy mechanism to include latecomers.  How often anyone can deposit or withdraw would need to be decided in conjunction with common sense as well as the actual treasurer who would be doing that.  Typically, a mutual fund allows deposits or withdrawals once a day.  But the more work it requires of the treasurer, the less frequent that might be.  In the old days of investment clubs, a once-a-month opportunity to either get in or get out was typical.   The treasurer will have incentive %fees to do the work, but at first those fees are going to be small and so that kind of work might better be grouped/done on a weekly basis. 

The spreadsheet can be accessible to all members of the group at all times via Google Documents.  Certain pages, or even certain cells of the online spreadsheet can be locked so that it can be viewed by all, but edited by the authorized member for that area/cell.   This way, the formulas in the spreadsheet can't be messed with or vandalized, nor would there be any confusion about who is editing what.  Each member, for example, would have their own page where they, and only they enter their results per session.   They would include what their base unit of risk was, for example, and their results per game.    Might even include links to before and after screenshots.  Then, the spreadsheet can calculate how much of their profit, if any, is owed to them, and how much is owed to the group.  To be eligible for profit incentives, however, a player would need to be in the black (positive) over the whole history of their results...not just the one session. 

A fully editable copy of the spreadsheet could be reserved for download by anyone in the group so they can inspect the formulas, and play with it to see how it all works.  This is for transparency. 

Still

I will make and post a play money video of my play at Bet Voyager, if you want me to.  Unless the devil is after me, I think you will be impressed.  I just uped my account by 800+ in 20 minutes.  I would not play that way for real.

If I were selected as a player or the player, I would be willing to divulge this system as it is on loan to me and I could be sued or shot for doing so.

Sam

What about sued then shot!  ;D

Oh, sorry, am I off topic?  :xd:   :twisted:   :xd:

I could be sued, screwed and rookey-dooed!

Seriously, I would never break a trust.  I am merely saying that if one must disclose how one is playing, count me out.

Sam

Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 25, 12:58 AM 2012
Still

I will make and post a play money video of my play at Bet Voyager, if you want me to.  Unless the devil is after me, I think you will be impressed.  I just uped my account by 800+ in 20 minutes.  I would not play that way for real.

If I were selected as a player or the player, I would be willing to divulge this system as it is on loan to me and I could be sued or shot for doing so.

Sam

Yes i'd be interested in a video of play at BV.   Without knowing how the system works, it's normal to want to at least know how it performs.  Can it beat the S & P 500 index for example?  Just kidding.  I'm guessing club members would be interested in doubling a BR every _______ (fill in the blank)...once a month?  But this system, you would not play it for real?

Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 25, 07:01 AM 2012
I could be sued, screwed and rookey-dooed!

Seriously, I would never break a trust.  I am merely saying that if one must disclose how one is playing, count me out.

Sam

Well i guess it would fall to a vote whether club members are comfortable with a private system.  I think that's possible.  It could scare some members/capital out of the account...it could attract some in.  Hard to say.  How to verify performance is key.   I would keep my money in the club if i thought a system was worthy. 

For bookkeeping though, its important that members at least mark down what system they used in any particular session.  That way the spreadsheet can make comparative calculations. 

Still

I forgot to use the word "not" in my post! 

If I were playing, either by taking a turn or playing continuously, I would use the same system session after session.  It has natural breaks in it that could be said to create "Hit and Run".

Since I've been around a few years, people just send me systems via my e-mail and ask me to test them or ask me for my opinion.  Invariably, they tell me to keep everything to myself, which I do.  Most systems I can just look at and tell they will not work as there is no logic behind them.  Others I find very interesting as there will be a logic, although sometimes a convoluted one!

I have said on this forum if I had a system that worked, I would post it.  Let me emphasize:  These systems are NOT mine and I have no right to post them.  If I develop a working system, which I have and have posted, that's a different thing.

I will give you all three Memorial Day clues.  Most of you know them by heart, but a few new folks may not.

1.  Never go against the wheel  The wheel can remain erratic long after you are bankrupt.
2.  The only thing I know for certain is the wheel/RNG produces chops and streaks.  Systems which work---gasp!  There are some!!---work on this principle.
3.  The wheel only selects numbers.  That number is associated with a certain column or dozen or color, but is actually much different.  Ever heard of the Snake?  We have that on the carpet at one of our Indian casinos..  It starts at 1 goes up and down and up and ends on 36. 

Again, I've said too much.

The above are my opinions only; I have not been up the mountain!

Sam

Again, I've said too much.

TwoCatSam

[/quote]

You had too as it would be all for next few days.
                   Couse you mustn't read or write after operation.
                 

vile

You are not "vile" at all!  Thank you for that advice.  I will adhere to it. 

Sam

Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 28, 03:32 PM 2012
vile

You are not "vile" at all!  Thank you for that advice.  I will adhere to it. 

Sam

Should be Ville/typo/but let it stay.
btw-today I played 3L and 3 st.very succ.for 5 h.

Quote from: Johnlegend on May 21, 02:15 PM 2012
GARNabby do you actually do anything aside from attack anyone showing any positive attitude on this forum??? I mean what do you do? Why so down on everything MR NEGATIVE. So you couldnt beat this game or don't have the right stuff to stick with it?? So now you dedicate your existence to spreading doom and gloom on everyone else. Or so it seems. Can anyone tell GARNabby's story. Where did this super negative being spring from? ???

That's the difference between: objective negativity, or even personal, subjective pessimism; and simple realism/complex idealism, or even hopeful optimism.  Just another trite, bitter personal attack.

Your "pure genius" stuff didn't last even one month here.  No one turned a $100 into even a $1000.

Same as all the other ("grail") nonsense which comes like :l:wwll:wlwl:::lwl:wl... .

And this, my friends, is a fact of which the seemingly-deluded tricksters ought to be constantly reminded.

Quote from: GARNabby on Jun 08, 11:15 AM 2012
That's the difference between: objective negativity, or even personal, subjective pessimism; and simple realism/complex idealism, or even hopeful optimism.  Just another trite, bitter personal attack.

Your "pure genius" stuff didn't last even one month here.  No one turned a $100 into even a $1000.

Same as all the other ("grail") nonsense which comes like :l:wwll:wlwl:::lwl:wl... .

And this, my friends, is a fact of which the seemingly-deluded tricksters ought to be constantly reminded.

Question do you play roulette.

May I post on this thread??   ::)

While I err on the side of reality, I'm open to darn near anything.  I'd love to see warrior's ":l:wwll:wlwl:::lwl:wl" if he's willing to post it.

TwoCatSam

Quote from: TwoCatSam on Jun 08, 02:10 PM 2012
May I post on this thread??   ::)

While I err on the side of reality, I'm open to darn near anything.  I'd love to see warrior's ":l:wwll:wlwl:::lwl:wl" if he's willing to post it.

TwoCatSam

Sam to many systems on this forum at the moment,i can't see how people can do well i only use 3 at the moment,really how many do you need its all the same in the end,this one i will keep to my self and maybe when things here get stale i will post ,in the end its all about sharing i could care less about the casinos.

Quote from: GARNabby on Jun 08, 11:15 AM 2012
That's the difference between: objective negativity, or even personal, subjective pessimism; and simple realism/complex idealism, or even hopeful optimism.  Just another trite, bitter personal attack.

Your "pure genius" stuff didn't last even one month here.  No one turned a $100 into even a $1000.

Same as all the other ("grail") nonsense which comes like :l:wwll:wlwl:::lwl:wl... .

And this, my friends, is a fact of which the seemingly-deluded tricksters ought to be constantly reminded.

My guess you dont play. >:D

@Warrior

If you want to wheel out this system, i can ride shotgun, protecting the rear from casino shills, mad maths , generic doubters, common nay-sayers, and sundry ne're-do-wells who don't actually play roulette, and who probably don't even know where Nice, France is on a map. 

Quote from: warrior on Jun 08, 11:28 AM 2012
Question do you play roulette.

Believe whichever you want.

But realize that it's a lot better to (really) be unpopular for a little while, and great for a long time; than (falsely) popular for a little while, and a "zero" in the long-run.

And that that sort of thinking isn't a zero-sum game, loosely speaking.  As many such-interesting discoveries may be made by any one, as by every one, in a population.

Quote from: GARNabby on Jun 10, 10:21 AM 2012
Believe whichever you want.

But realize that it's a lot better to (really) be unpopular for a little while, and great for a long time; than (falsely) popular for a little while, and a "zero" in the long-run.

And that that sort of thinking isn't a zero-sum game, loosely speaking.  As many such-interesting discoveries may be made by any one, as by every one, in a population.

The ? has nothing do do  with being popular,or unpopular ,its either yes or no ,if yes then why be so negative in all your answers in the game ,we all know its a negative exp. game,and if no what the hell are you wasting your time here for i just don't get it.heres on for you since your onE a philosophy mode ,in life you must flow with the go ,an go with the flow,you put water  into a cup it becomes the cup you put water into a teapot it becomes the teapot BE WATER MY FRIEND ,WE ALL KNOW THAT THE GAME IS RANDOM,BUT SO IS LIFE.

Quote from: warrior on Jun 10, 10:43 AM 2012
The ? has nothing do do  with being popular,or unpopular ,its either yes or no ,if yes then why be so negative in all your answers in the game ,we all know its a negative exp. game,and if no what the hell are you wasting your time here for i just don't get it.heres on for you since your onE a philosophy mode ,in life you must flow with the go ,an go with the flow,you put water  into a cup it becomes the cup you put water into a teapot it becomes the teapot BE WATER MY FRIEND ,WE ALL KNOW THAT THE GAME IS RANDOM,BUT SO IS LIFE.

Warrior its a complete waste of time with someone who thinks like he does. If you gave him a method like your excellent Hybrid DC4. And said go and paper test this. Prove to YOURSELF. That it can beat the game longterm. He would have all the excuses as to why he shouldnt.

Such people will never change, such is the world we live in. Some people can't change.

I'm going to classify this as 'WizardOfOdds Syndrome'. 

The WizardOfOdds is the most popular personality on his own website.   Some readers really enjoy his no-nonsense approach to numbers.  When readers agree, it makes them feel like they are grounded in reality, which is important for so many who really aren't sure what is real.  Some of us know enough math to pose as some kind of 'WizardOfOdds' on other websites, besides the one where the WizardOfOdds is popular.  Whether the result is fame or infamy, it's very tempting to get high on the endorphins that come from getting attention in the name of "reality", which is kind of like a competition amongst members of an insane asylum as to who is most sane, and therefore the most authoritative.  Posing as a kind of WizardOfOdds where such a viewpoint is not likely to be popular in the positive sense is an attention getting mechanism (AGM) that plays up to the i-am-more-grounded-in-reality-than-you-are game.  It's a holier-than-thou game of academic superiority. 

There's another word for this: troll;trolling.

If Parrondo listened to trolls, he never would have begun the research that resulted in his "Paradox", which plays randomness against a losing game to come up with a winner.  In this forum, there are researchers with similar curiosity about the here-to-for little known possibility that random can be played against random - or against some kind of symmetry - to come up with a winning game of roulette.  Some of us feel they already know the answer to this.  Others don't.  A troll does not know, but believes he knows.   Listening to trolls reminds me of what it's like to listen to someone who believes he can find answers to life's most difficult questions at the bottom of a bottle.  It's annoying unless the listener is equally as drunk.   

I would invite GARNabby to sign up at the WizardOfOdds website and be a member of good standing.  But alas, the Wizard would likely outshine him, and that would be no fun.  Here, anyone can be half the Wizard and appear to be a God of Numbers.  That's more fun, depending on how you get your jollies.   

Why would one need a wizard of odds for roulette?  The odds are fixed.  I don't get it.

CarNabby does not play in casinos or anywhere . He once lost big at baccarat. All  he  does  is open his mouth  and blabber  plagiarized  wisdom on  various  gambling websites.

His  posts are not within context of the topic. I am surprised nobody here has caught on  yet.

T.

Quote from: Still on Jun 10, 05:47 PM 2012
I would invite GARNabby to sign up at the WizardOfOdds website and be a member of good standing.  But alas, the Wizard would likely outshine him, and that would be no fun.  Here, anyone can be half the Wizard and appear to be a God of Numbers.  That's more fun, depending on how you get your jollies.

Ah, the newbies to these boards.

That response in general; and this, to what in specific, i can't begin to fathom... the furthest from what actually played out at that board.

At least try to do your "homework" first, lol.

Quote from: warrior on Jun 10, 10:43 AM 2012
... then why be so negative in all your answers in the game.

That's why i let that response (of mine) up to you.

So that you could categorized "mine" (from yourself), as negative in some sort of vague manner.

If only you guys could play so-fluently as youze so-strive with your lame "comebacks" here.

Quote from: Tamino on Jun 10, 06:57 PM 2012
CarNabby does not play in casinos or anywhere . He once lost big at baccarat.

At least, i'm not a LIAR.  Say, like you, Nathan.

Quote from: Tamino on Jun 10, 06:57 PM 2012
All  he  does  is open his mouth  and blabber  plagarized  wisdom on  various  gambling websites.

I think that it's spelt, plagiarize.  Yes, that's it.

No one has "served up" more, and better, original insights into these games.  Of course, no one in his/her right mind gives up the real-money stuff.  (Always amusing to see the, "I not going to post anymore, will send it PM," bemoanings.)

You can't give away even anything, it appears.  You can "test the waters" here, and there, but the "misery loves company" stampede always seems to "rear its head".  No "skin off my back".

But that's okay, takes a lot less time to respond to the real trolls.

Quote from: TwoCatSam on Jun 10, 06:48 PM 2012
Why would one need a wizard of odds for roulette?  The odds are fixed.  I don't get it.

Like if you bring a squirt gun to a gun-fight, you would know enough to keep your mouth shut.

The easy reason that all but the desperately-poor of our societies just don't give these games a second glance.

Quote from: TwoCatSam on Jun 10, 06:48 PM 2012
Why would one need a wizard of odds for roulette?  The odds are fixed.  I don't get it.

My point was that some of us get off on pretending to be the WizardOfOdds of roulette...on being some kind of God of Numbers that waits underneath the bridge that overcomes the odds, and comes out to discourage those who would cross that bridge from crossing.  That's what trolls do. 

My other point was that even though the odds were fixed in Parrodo's research, he was able to play random against those odds and produce a winner from two losers.   The only question left is whether or not there is some similar principle that is able to overcome the fixed odds inherent to roulette.  No one will ever know if we were all to listen to trolls who are more interested in the endorphins that rush to their head whenever they can posture as superior among inferiors (ie. newbies etc) while postulating plagiarized platitudes from the patriarchs of probability poop.   

Quote from: GARNabby on Jun 10, 07:28 PM 2012
Like if you bring a squirt gun to a gun-fight, you would know enough to keep your mouth shut.

The easy reason that all but the desperately-poor of our societies just don't give these games a second glance.

GARNabby reminds me of an uncle who was a professor at a large state university who either did, or almost obtained tenure after so many years of being on top of the game of computer science specializing in database management.  Probably GARNabby never even got that far anyway.  But what happened to my uncle is he got to drinking a little too much, and got to dwelling too much on the politics of academia and it made him bitter and silly, despite his abilities with numbers.  And in his stupidity, he started to get his jollies by actually writing inflammatory letters to his sisters children, one in particular (a brother).  These letters were so obviously flames that my brother succeeded in getting a restraining order.  That uncle eventually lost his position at the university (or was in the process of losing his position) and eventually ended up checking in to a psychiatric facility.  The tone of GARNabby's letters here remind me of the tone of that uncle's letters way back when.   Pure snobbery, distilled down to 100% proof asinine.   

That made me feel better.

Thanks, Still!

Samster

i also feel some unhealthy change in Garnabby, he used to post some practical info some time ago and was  really neutral and calm on subjects, something changed since then. Pure negativity instead now. Sometimes i am lost in his negativity flow. I feel negativity but kinda lose an idea what it is all about. About roulette or society or some forum members.

Quote from: GARNabby on Jun 10, 07:08 PM 2012
That's why i let that response (of mine) up to you.

So that you could categorized "mine" (from yourself), as negative in some sort of vague manner.

If only you guys could play so-fluently as youze so-strive with your lame "comebacks" here.

L