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

I am exploring this game and I am  in roulette forums for 5 years now.
I have read and thought about every possible concept for winning this game...there are a lot of concepts that I have thought and explored on my own without posting them on forums but they were also losing as the ones that are posted by every member in forums.

What I see over the years is that the same LOSING concepts are being recycled over and over in those forums....and unfortunately if something can t work ,it will never work.

So the only thing to go on in exploring this game is to come up with new approaching ideas....

VLS forum was in it s peak before 4-5 years...a lot of "hungry" for winning members a lot of system creators , testers etc. They were the golden days !

Now on every forum I see fights and the same old losing ideas....we can t proceed with this way.

I know from my 5 years of exploring in depth this game that there can t be any way (exept VB,RC,BIAS) for winning....But me and a lot of other members its our dream-hobby to search for a way.

"Nothing its impossible" is the phrase that have being told by a lot of wise people that walked on earth.
Well I also know that MATHS are absolute and can t be altered... 

I am working for making my living but I also search and think about roulette...not as "hungry" as I was in the beginning of my journey because I am a lot wisher now and I can t be exited as I used to be, but the beast of the need of exploring is still in me.

So please let s all try to think about new ways and be polite with each other.
Forums like these should be productive and not places for starting and making wars.
We are in the 2012 and most of us are educated men.

Thanks

Master, ive seen this site go worse and worse with infighting and ego bloating. Now i feel that a lot of the bickerers wont post ideas because the people they rip into will scrutinise their idea and they will look stupid. Its self destructing and i get nothing from it anymore. Go look at drazens law of the third post from months ago. Everyone pulling together as a ream. Its self destructing. JL and his clique vs. The angry young men. Boring as hell

Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Jun 10, 09:45 AM 2012
I am exploring this game and I am  in roulette forums for 5 years now.
I have read and thought about every possible concept for winning this game...there are a lot of concepts that I have thought and explored on my own without posting them on forums but they were also losing as the ones that are posted by every member in forums.

What I see over the years is that the same LOSING concepts are being recycled over and over in those forums....and unfortunately if something can t work ,it will never work.

So the only thing to go on in exploring this game is to come up with new approaching ideas....

VLS forum was in it s peak before 4-5 years...a lot of "hungry" for winning members a lot of system creators , testers etc. They were the golden days !

Now on every forum I see fights and the same old losing ideas....we can t proceed with this way.

I know from my 5 years of exploring in depth this game that there can t be any way (exept VB,RC,BIAS) for winning....But me and a lot of other members its our dream-hobby to search for a way.

"Nothing its impossible" is the phrase that have being told by a lot of wise people that walked on earth.
Well I also know that MATHS are absolute and can t be altered... 

I am working for making my living but I also search and think about roulette...not as "hungry" as I was in the beginning of my journey because I am a lot wisher now and I can t be exited as I used to be, but the beast of the need of exploring is still in me.

So please let s all try to think about new ways and be polite with each other.
Forums like these should be productive and not places for starting and making wars.
We are in the 2012 and most of us are educated men.

Thanks

Pockets what is your definition of WORK?? I will tell you why I ask. It seems to me that the problem with these forums ALL OF THEM. Is they are largely made up of Jaded oldies who have no passion left for the game. Just sour heads because they haven't bested the game so no one else surely can.

And also casual players. What I call here today gone tomorrows. who drop in and expect someone to land a HOLY GRAIL in their laps. At the same time they have no work ethic. No real intention of putting in to get out. So they just sit there and wait for someone to say it LOST. Then they are gone. I will tell you straight. There are half a dozen methods on this forum. (The ones I know of) That if played consistently. And money managed properly. Will result in profit.


Until you have been through all of them. And tested them as thoroughly as the likes of Chauncy47. Myself and a few others like Warrior. Who has played HYBRID DC4 for a whole year before he even gave it to us. You have no business making such statements.

I know turnerfeck.
Its the negative members that makes anyone look silly when they are posting their ideas...so now everyone is quiet.
But even the negative members when they see something new , they are testing it silently because they don t want to lose their negative character by posting something nice and polite like "nice approach I will test it and give feedback"

We are all disappointed and tired of trying to do the impossible and instead of having an encouragement state and environment in here ,we are having the opposite.....

Well guess what ? If the negative members didn t have the ambition and dream to make money from this game ,they wouldn t be here....except if they have no real life and all they want is arguing in an internet space and they are finding life by doing it.

He he turnerfeck if there was a real winning method in here or anywere else the forums would be out of work.
  And if you were happy and full with the methods you mentioned you would nt be here also...you would be in the casino and play all day long and you would have abandoned your day job.

As for what is my work in exploring roulette this leave it for me to know...

Most of us in here have done our research and we know what doesn't work.

But as I can see you are like the rest ....now you are trying to start a fight from nowere.

Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Jun 10, 11:40 AM 2012
He he turnerfeck if there was a real winning method in here or anywere else the forums would be out of work.
  And if you were happy and full with the methods you mentioned you would nt be here also...you would be in the casino and play all day long and you would have abandoned your day job.

As for what is my work in exploring roulette this leave it for me to know...

Most of us in here have done our research and we know what doesn't work.

But as I can see you are like the rest ....now you are trying to start a fight from nowere.

Then you never tested HYBRID DC4. PATTERN BREAKER, PHASE 3. Or MATRIX VERTICAL 5?????? They will work. If you can stay with them.
If I told you that you would virtually always win an absolute minumum of 8 out of every 19 bets. You placed in a row. Would you be interested? Or would you make the usual excuses. Winning is here for those who want it. For those who dont. Excuses will always be what they have.

Quote from: Johnlegend on Jun 10, 11:24 AM 2012
Pockets what is your definition of WORK?? I will tell you why I ask. It seems to me that the problem with these forums ALL OF THEM. Is they are largely made up of Jaded oldies who have no passion left for the game. Just sour heads because they haven't bested the game so no one else surely can.

And also casual players. What I call here today gone tomorrows. who drop in and expect someone to land a HOLY GRAIL in their laps. At the same time they have no work ethic. No real intention of putting in to get out. So they just sit there and wait for someone to say it LOST. Then they are gone. I will tell you straight. There are half a dozen methods on this forum. (The ones I know of) That if played consistently. And money managed properly. Will result in profit.


Until you have been through all of them. And tested them as thoroughly as the likes of Chauncy47. Myself and a few others like Warrior. Who has played HYBRID DC4 for a whole year before he even gave it to us. You have no business making such statements.

Yeah John

Everybody who disagrees with u is just pegged as a jaded oldie who has no passion left 4 a game n so sick of losing that he vents his frustration by attacking anybody with positive attitude here. So basically u became now sort of martyr here ;D fighting 4 a right cause.
There is just no arguing with u. U dont accept independent testing as not confirming 2 yr rules n all u do is just pushing yr systems based on limited testing n hiding behind yr repetitive n tiring rhetoric stressing some basically obvious factors like patience n discipline.
So lets d bare facts speak. Just let us test your new Code 20 - in yr claim yr ultimate method n find out who is right.  DO U HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT? 
If u dont agree then u will always be treated as another wannabee roulette guru.
Just say yes or no  and please no more of your rhetoric.

Regards

Johnlegend I like you no matter who you really are... and you know why? because when the rest of us are left short of ideas , YOU are the one that is still making new approaches with your nice imagination.

I will not say if i like your new approaches or not....I will not say if I belieave they can win or not ....because this isn t what I like doing....I am just happy that you are still finding new ideas.

For a system to be considered as a winner it must be tested in at least 1.000.000 spins whether they are consecutive or session spins ... its the same as long as they are 1.000.000 .

Well if those systems you mentioned have passed this test ... then well done ! You are a millioner.

Why don't you go make some millions and you are still here?

And for the 1st time I agree with Robeenhuut

Quote from: Robeenhuut on Jun 10, 11:52 AM 2012
Yeah John

Everybody who disagrees with u is just pegged as a jaded oldie who has no passion left 4 a game n so sick of losing that he vents his frustration by attacking anybody with positive attitude here. So basically u became now sort of martyr here ;D fighting 4 a right cause.
There is just no arguing with u. U don't accept independent testing as not confirming 2 yr rules n all u do is just pushing yr systems based on limited testing n hiding behind yr repetitive n tiring rhetoric stressing some basically obvious factors like patience n discipline.
So lets d bare facts speak. Just let us test your new Code 20 - in yr claim yr ultimate method n find out who is right.  DO You have ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT? 
If u don't agree then u will always be treated as another wannabee roulette guru.
Just say yes or no  and please no more of your rhetoric.

Regards

What on earth are you talking about Robeenhuut. Chauncy47 is playing several of the methods I play and winning. Thats independant of me. When I drop CODE 20. Will you test it exactly as I outline?? Will you aim for the suggested 2.5 increase a day on your BR and not the suicidal 30/%. Will you test it true for at least 500 games??. If you can anwser yes to all of those questions. You will absolutely win with this method. I garauntee you.

The title of this topic should be changed to "The most unproductive topic that will help us to get nowhere".
A.

Quote from: atlantis on Jun 10, 12:10 PM 2012
The title of this topic should be changed to "The most unproductive topic that will help us to get nowhere".
A.

Yes Atlantis, but I am trying to remain cool here. Some people want you to hand them the world. While they have nothing.

Quote from: Johnlegend on Jun 10, 12:10 PM 2012
What on earth are you talking about Robeenhuut. Chauncy47 is playing several of the methods I play and winning. that's independant of me. When I drop CODE 20. Will you test it exactly as I outline?? Will you aim for the suggested 2.5 increase a day on your BR and not the suicidal 30/%. Will you test it true for at least 500 games??. If you can anwser yes to all of those questions. You will absolutely win with this method. I garauntee you.

Yeah John

Plz don't take my words out of context. 30% is what i do when i play outside bets. And I'm willing 2 test yr method 4 500 games. And what Chauncy does is irrelevant here.  Your Code 20 is not hit n run n each game is based on set number of spins right?
So it should be fairly easy 2 test.  There is lots of spin data here posted on this forum.
And yr claim of winning.... ;D   
Plz lets d numbers do d talking.

Regards

"""""""The title of this topic should be changed to "The most unproductive topic that will help us to get nowhere"."""""""""

Of course because the d...ck measurements are on ALL the topics.

LOL....another fantastic post from the virus attacking this forum.

You will all kill this site dead because every topic now will be bickering.

The Mods need to step in in my opinion.

Just my view....what do I know  :thumbsup:

Quote from: turnerfeck on Jun 10, 01:05 PM 2012
LoL....another fantastic post from the virus attacking this forum.

You will all kill this site dead because every topic now will be bickering.

The Mods need to step in in my opinion.

Just my view....what do I know  :thumbsup:

So Turner what do u suggest exactly we do here?  Just have endless  non confrontational debates that dont accomplish anything. U should differentiate between personal attacks here and
arguing just 4 d sake of arguing as opposed 2 producing some tangible results.
And 4 some reason some people trying 2 get 2 bottom of things here r treated as a threat 2 this forum n branded as having always bad attitude.

Regards

mods?????
one is over on Gambler Glen everybody calling c...nts and every second
of his word is F....ck,as its boring for him here,and other mod is busy with
Euro soccer championschip.
How it wouldn't be boring listening to this over and over,
how something works and it doesn't work.
If it did JOHNLEGENDwouldn't be preaching now here
but would be in Macao making money.
Wake up ppl.

Robeen....well heres a start you can make. Stop taking part in Johnlegends posts. ,he just seems to wind you up.

Quote from: vile on Jun 10, 01:23 PM 2012
mods?????
one is over on Gambler Glen everybody calling c...nts and every second
of his word is F....ck,as its boring for him here,and other mod is busy with
Euro soccer championschip.
How it wouldn't be boring listening to this over and over,
how something works and it doesn't work.
If it did JOHNLEGENDwouldn't be preaching now here
but would be in Macao making money.
Wake up people.

Come on Vile...Im sure Thomas Grant will be here within the hour to battle this one out for us...lol

It's 5 am where TG is now

Quote from: vile on Jun 10, 01:51 PM 2012
It's 5 am where TG is now

But wont his "bat-phone" be flashing?

Quote from: turnerfeck on Jun 10, 01:36 PM 2012
Robeen....well heres a start you can make. Stop taking part in Johnlegends posts. ,he just seems to wind you up.

Thanks 4 yr advice Turner.  I guess he does not wind u up?   ;D   What i know is that d likes of math boys like he branded his opponents stopped paying any attention 2 him n it was probably a wise decision.
Gradually all his system will end up in dust bin where they belong. We just tested recently his Reverse Code 4 Attack n everybody just gave up on it rather quickly. JL sort of admitted that he was wrong but pointed out that he had something better 2 hit this forum. In d meantime his Trilogy underwent lots of tweaks but i guess d strike rate is just not there.
These r bare facts n there is no sugarcoating them.  I dont have any personal vendetta against him but it just pisses me off when somebody insults my intelligence n claims 2 poses an ultimate knowledge of d game.

Regards

These r bare facts n there is no sugarcoating them.  I don't have any personal vendetta against him but it just pisses me off when somebody insults my intelligence n claims 2 poses an ultimate knowledge of d game.

Regards
[/quote]

Same here.Vain is his problem.

Quote from: Robeenhuut on Jun 10, 02:08 PM 2012
Thanks 4 yr advice Turner.  I guess he does not wind u up?   ;D   What i know is that d likes of math boys like he branded his opponents stopped paying any attention 2 him n it was probably a wise decision.
Gradually all his system will end up in dust bin where they belong. We just tested recently his Reverse Code 4 Attack n everybody just gave up on it rather quickly. JL sort of admitted that he was wrong but pointed out that he had something better 2 hit this forum. In d meantime his Trilogy underwent lots of tweaks but i guess d strike rate is just not there.
These r bare facts n there is no sugarcoating them.  I don't have any personal vendetta against him but it just pisses me off when somebody insults my intelligence n claims 2 poses an ultimate knowledge of d game.

Regards

Robeen....Ive worked out you are a clever guy for my self, not because you keep telling me you are like some in here :thumbsup:

I just think that while you are arguing with JL, you could be putting together something from your camp. If I placed an idea here (I just have in notepad) I would welcome criticism, so I would enjoy the post and so would you. You dont seem to be enjoying commenting on JL's posts because its not getting you anywhere. I personally wouldnt bother. If it turns out to be the holy grail, then you didnt embarrass yourself saying how rubbish it was because you didnt comment.
If it crashes and burns....have a chuckle to yourself.
I just think its distracting you being creative. This site is dying. it needs people like you and GLC and TwoCAtSam to get stuff up here. Look at all the stuff Proof puts up in notepad. I dont think he sleeps...lol

I dont like Matix bets. I have better things to do than sit in a casino for 7 hours to make less than if I worked in McDonalds, but JL and his apostles love them. Good luck to them. Lets move on.

Oh, Geez......I can join!!

Hey, remember the statement by John that he could beat RNG play money all night and day?  Yep, he said that.

EDIT:  The rest of my post was harsh.  Best kill it..........

Sam

turnerfeck wrote:

Quote
Look at all the stuff Proof puts up in notepad

Yes Proofreader has given us some good food for thought, I agree...
In fact, I'd forgotten that he gave me a tweak/mod for one of my posted systems that I haven't tried out yet!  Tx for the reminder :)
A.

QuoteHey, remember the statement by John that he could beat RNG play money all night and day?  Yep, he said that

Yup seem to remember that, sad really, I would actually pay to see that performance.

Anyway making money on roulette is reduced to get everything average, on the mean, inside the curve.
And that is what Marigny said.


So Marigny is best you can have. Actualy he can beat the edge on la partage, with right MM.


But when you put Marigny in reality in B&M... I realy don't know how many of us here could be so patient and disciplined. It requires real spartan discipline and incredible patience. For one man, hm. very very hard. So in the past there were so called Marigny teams, who were playing this, all day tracking tables and opportunities in casinos.


One of members here played it some time ago, he waited almost 3 days to get a trigerr for +1 unit. In average you can expect 1-2 trigger every 300 spins... But you can track many things with it, so it depends on you in the end or your team. Of course you play with reasonable chip size and bank, to reward such skills.


Regards


Drazen

Quote from: vile on Jun 10, 01:23 PM 2012
mods? ??? ?
one is over on Gambler Glen everybody calling c...nts and every second
of his word is F....ck

Ha!
I thought I was the only one who noticed that.

This mod even showed up on the old VLS the other day and told some arguing posters over there to, << cool it with the language >>  :twisted:

This mod also used to go on about being consistant across the different forum boards.  :twisted:

Quote from: turnerfeck on Jun 10, 02:28 PM 2012
I don't like Matix bets. I have better things to do than sit in a casino for 7 hours to make less than if I worked in McDonalds, but JL and his apostles love them. Good luck to them. Lets move on.

Feel free to move on and/or offer us other ideas.  Meanwhile,  you're statement here is misleading.  How much you make per hour is dependent on the size of your basic unit of risk (assuming the system is a long-term winner). Matrix bets don't dictate what is your bankroll, which is what determines the basic unit best for the system you are playing.  Yes, some systems require a larger bankroll.  Are you saying matrix systems require especially large bankrolls?  Research is suggesting otherwise. 

Liking a certain kind of bet should come down to whether you've got a way to win long-term, for as many spins as you like, for as many sessions as you like, for as many weeks, months, or years as you like.  After that, what does it matter if you wait one hour to make one bet?  If that's what it takes to make the bet more sure than any other kind of bet you can think of, then all you have to do is bring the bankroll that lets you earn as much as the owner of a McDonald's franchise.  If you don't have that kind of bank, why dislike a system that is sure to pay you well otherwise?  If it's not sure to pay you, then say so.  That's a good reason for not liking it.  But until you have proved that the hit-rate can't stay ahead of the losses when they come, then you can't say it's not sure to pay you.  If it is sure to pay you, then it's only a matter of efficiency. 

Units-per-hour is a measure of efficient use of time.  If you're complaint about matrix systems came down to this, i would be interested in what you have to say.   Please name the system or systems that have a more efficient use of time at the same time you are telling us you dislike other systems (ie. matrix systems).  Otherwise, how are you helping?  And how is it helping us for you to paint all matrix systems with the same color?

If croco's posts are authentic, you've misled us regarding the efficiency of matrix systems.  See:

link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=7754.msg70471#msg70471 (link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=7754.msg70471#msg70471)








 

Quote from: TwoCatSam on Jun 10, 03:26 PM 2012
Hey, remember the statement by John that he could beat RNG play money all night and day?  Yep, he said that.

Quote from: superman on Jun 10, 04:06 PM 2012
Yup seem to remember that, sad really, I would actually pay to see that performance.

You guys, this is quibbling. 

The statement was based on the belief that RNG in play mode is a fair - random - game.   It was based on the belief that RNG in real money mode is more often than not rigged.  That belief may or may not include BetVoyager as the policies of one casino owner may differ from the policies of another.

Legend believes he can beat a fair game where the wheel is truly random.  He hasn't made any additional claims regarding RNG in play mode that he already hasn't made about a live wheel. 

He has not made a video of an RNG test in play mode.  So what?  To my knowledge, he hasn't made any videos of anything. He appears to be too busy actually making money on live wheels to be in a hurry to prove anything about RNGs.  That would be just another series of tests in addition to the one's he's already running.  He might have the time, he might not.  How important is it to him to prove something about that to anyone?  And what would a video prove? 

If someone has done tests on RNG play-mode, and, exactly following Legend's instructions, showed evidence that it won't work, then say so.  Otherwise, if you haven't, also say so.  Say, 'I have not tested anything of Legend's on RNG play-mode, but i am willing to make authoritative comments on what are the possibilities anyway'.   

Can someone show me a link for this Marigny system or post here what is all about?
thank you

Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Jun 10, 08:29 PM 2012
Can someone show me a link for this Marigny system or post here what is all about?
thank you

On this forum, ego is perhaps the most interesting researcher who credits Marigny for certain of his concepts.  You can start here:

link:://rouletteforum.cc/main-roulette-board/4/marigny-de-grilleau/9481/ (link:://rouletteforum.cc/main-roulette-board/4/marigny-de-grilleau/9481/)

And/or google 'Marigny roulette'

thanks

Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Jun 10, 08:44 PM 2012
thanks

In addition, you should pay attention to member albertojonas (see thread: "EC,no trolling"), who may be using a derivative of one of ego/Marigny's concepts to compete in a betting contest over at VLS.  Dunno if he's still the leader but was doing quite well at one point. 

Quote from: turnerfeck on Jun 10, 02:28 PM 2012
Robeen....I've worked out you are a clever guy for my self, not because you keep telling me you are like some in here :thumbsup:

I just think that while you are arguing with JL, you could be putting together something from your camp. If I placed an idea here (I just have in notepad) I would welcome criticism, so I would enjoy the post and so would you. You don't seem to be enjoying commenting on JL's posts because its not getting you anywhere. I personally wouldnt bother. If it turns out to be the holy grail, then you didn't embarrass yourself saying how nonsense it was because you didn't comment.
If it crashes and burns....have a chuckle to yourself.
I just think its distracting you being creative. This site is dying. it needs people like you and GLC and TwoCAtSam to get stuff up here. Look at all the stuff Proof puts up in notepad. I don't think he sleeps...LoL

I don't like Matix bets. I have better things to do than sit in a casino for 7 hours to make less than if I worked in McDonalds, but JL and his apostles love them. Good luck to them. Lets move on.

Hello Turner

Thanks 4 d compliment  :D But argument can be made that we r all silly here thinking that we can constantly beat roulette.  About getting stuff up here.  What works in my opinion is 4 example  Mr J street system. Flat betting 12 times number that did not hit in any street  after the 2 other numbers hit in d last 12-15 spins.  10 n 12 hit then flat bet 11 and so on.  It can be played  in different ways. I bet on all numbers that qualify. Sometimes 5 at one time.  You could also bet just one number and if other qualifies then switch 2 d other one. Its deceptively fast.
I average 1 game every 7 or 8 spins playing all qualifiers. In 2-3 hours playing session you can make 300u or more. If it hits it hits  ;D Sometimes you will get 3 or 4 wins in a row at d start n scratch yr head what to do next. I always try 2 ride hot streak bit more. But its up 2 yr playing style. I will gladly accept any criticism here.  :D

Regards

"Look at all the stuff Proof puts up in notepad. I don't think he sleeps...LoL"--Turnerfeck

"Yes Proofreader has given us some good food for thought, I agree...
In fact, I'd forgotten that he gave me a tweak/mod for one of my posted systems that I haven't tried out yet!  Tx for the reminder (link:://rouletteforum.cc/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
A."--Atlantis

Thanks for the compliments, but now the U.S. government is keeping my winnings from online gambling.  (I dodged two Department of Justice raids with eWalletXpress & Quicktender).  Now Bank of America has confiscated $1500 from a tournament. 

It's time to say goodbye for good.  Be careful out there guys.

Quote from: Proofreaders2000 on Jun 10, 10:12 PM 2012

Thanks for the compliments, but now the U.S. government is keeping my winnings from online gambling.  (I dodged two Department of Justice raids with eWalletXpress & Quicktender).  Now Bank of America has confiscated $1500 from a tournament. 

It's time to say goodbye for good.  Be careful out there guys.

What!!!

Proof, what if you were to take some kind of stand and defy those odds.  If you said, 'There must be a way', what are the chances you'd find it? 

Meanwhile, what direction do you plan to go?  It appears to me that 'binary options' are legal...as well as 'forex' trading.  Do you plan to go in either of these directions?

Otherwise, if it's profitable for you to stick with roulette or whatever, don't you suppose that a collaboration could solve that problem, at least temporarily?  And what about what we have learned from the sovereignty movement?  Is there a tactic there that might get you your money from B of A?

QuoteIf someone has done tests on RNG play-mode, and, exactly following Legend's instructions, showed evidence that it won't work, then say so.  Otherwise, if you haven't, also say so.  Say, 'I have not tested anything of Legend's on RNG play-mode, but i am willing to make authoritative comments on what are the possibilities anyway'.

Been there and done that, (that's why he doesn't like me sticking my nose in) you haven't looked deep enough into the archives here mate, since THE ZONE all his systems have been coded and tested against RNG play mode, pure coding random, random.org, RNG real money mode, PHP random and dublinbet live tables, and guess what, they all fail, and not just for me, others have tested too, BUT as I used a bot, which he hates as they prove a point, it was continual play, which he hates too but hit n run has also been tested, there is no difference between RNG play mode or real mode, play mode may be "softer" but you wont beat it like he claims.

You have to remember, he has produced probably 6 or 7 methods over his stay here, all of them are supposedly the dogs dangly bits, but he keeps producing new ones, why is that?

Quote
Main Roulette Board (link:://rouletteforum.cc/main-roulette-board/4/) / Re: ***C0DE 20*** (link:://rouletteforum.cc/main-roulette-board/4/c0de-20/9610/msg81285#msg81285)[size=0.85em]« on: June 08, 2012, 11:49:50 AM »[/size]


Quote from: Maui13 on June 08, 2012, 11:34:19 AM (link:://rouletteforum.cc/main-roulette-board/4/c0de-20/9610/msg81283#msg81283)
Drazen, I've said it before... don't be negative on topics you don't agree with. If you don't like any of the matrix methods, why do you post here? Ignore them and spend your time else where.

You are also one of the guys who continually bring the term "math" into you posts. Einstein said that nothing travels faster than the speed of light! GUESS WHAT - he was wrong! So don't tell people here stuff can't work, if you can't prove it!

Regards
M




Dear Maui, it is not my personal unfavavouring here. I just said that all is based on wrong facts. That is all. JL says it is percentage method. Well that percentages are wrong calculated, that is what i am saying. And that is a mathematical fact. So how can something work if it is based on non workable facts?


And about speed of light and Einstein, you are the one who is wrong my friend. I know what you are reffering to.
That was mistake. Wrong calculations due to mechanical malfunction of some measuring devices in CERN-s Large hadron collider.


They announced that as a fallacy of a century, but when they noticed malfunction, and did re-tests guess what, einstein was right again


Over and out for me


Cheers


[size=78%]Drazen[/size]

The other topic is locked so i dare to put this here. I apologize because its a bit off of this topic. I just read this this morning.

link:://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html (link:://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html)

Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Jun 10, 08:29 PM 2012
Can someone show me a link for this Marigny system or post here what is all about?
thank you

My friend Marigny is not a "system". It is more mathematical/statistical obsevation and finding strong enough ecart.


Ego on this forum has wrote a lot about Marigny and he knows about that theme very much.


He also has written on other forums.


This is maybe best and most detailed explanation, on gamblers glen forum. Read it, test it and enjoy!


link:://:.gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi? (link:://:.gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=8311&forum=Roulette_Message_Board)
board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=8311&forum=Roulette_Message_Board (link:://:.gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=8311&forum=Roulette_Message_Board)


Regards


Drazen

Quote from: superman on Jun 11, 03:05 AM 2012

Been there and done that, (that's why he doesn't like me sticking my nose in) you haven't looked deep enough into the archives here mate, since THE ZONE all his systems have been coded and tested against RNG play mode, pure coding random, random.org, RNG real money mode, PHP random and dublinbet live tables, and guess what, they all fail, and not just for me, others have tested too, BUT as I used a bot, which he hates as they prove a point, it was continual play, which he hates too but hit n run has also been tested, there is no difference between RNG play mode or real mode, play mode may be "softer" but you won't beat it like he claims.

You have to remember, he has produced probably 6 or 7 methods over his stay here, all of them are supposedly the dogs dangly bits, but he keeps producing new ones, why is that?

I think that John craves attention, who does not?  ;D n he has masochistic side. He actually   enjoys being abused by "math boys" or "haters"  coz he thinks that he is on some crusade.
He will go away once forum members will start ignoring him.  Its no more now about being right or wrong but about just being here  ;D

QuoteI think that John craves attention

Spot on mate, I've said that a few times before, he is relying on the members that are wanting to believe in his methods.

In the land of the blind, the one eyed monster is king

Quote from: superman on Jun 11, 03:05 AM 2012

Been there and done that, (that's why he doesn't like me sticking my nose in) you haven't looked deep enough into the archives here mate, since THE ZONE all his systems have been coded and tested against RNG play mode, pure coding random, random.org, RNG real money mode, PHP random and dublinbet live tables, and guess what, they all fail, and not just for me, others have tested too, BUT as I used a bot, which he hates as they prove a point, it was continual play, which he hates too but hit n run has also been tested, there is no difference between RNG play mode or real mode, play mode may be "softer" but you won't beat it like he claims.

You have to remember, he has produced probably 6 or 7 methods over his stay here, all of them are supposedly the dogs dangly bits, but he keeps producing new ones, why is that?

I checked the archives and found this:

"JohnLegend's The Zone in my opinion is a great method, particularly for a newbie."
                                                                                          ~ Proofreaders2000

"It fails, sadly,..." ~ superman

link:://rouletteforum.cc/main-roulette-board/4/enter-the-zone/172/ (link:://rouletteforum.cc/main-roulette-board/4/enter-the-zone/172/)

I didn't see the basis for your comment.  It could very well be that you're programming skills are flawless and you are able to model any set of instructions.  How can i or anyone be certain of this?

Have you ever come across any  system that holds up under your type of testing?  (Probably an irrelevant question).

And, if you are consistently getting failures (whatever that means) while the hit-and-run people are winning (whatever that means), maybe it's time to rethink what is happening.  Either somebody is lying, or are short-term self-decieved (the hammer has not yet dropped)...or algorithmic modelers are prone to make mistakes...are misunderstanding...are not making themselves clear...or there is something else going on when anyone takes a break from the table. 

Rolletti posted a rather positive result with Trilogy recently. Can you really make such broad statements...tested all methods in so many ways...all failed?   I don't know of too many others who are actually writing algorithms to test this stuff.  Hasn't Ophis put something together?  What have we learned from him in regards any of Legends ideas?

My recommendation is to post whether JohnLegend likes it or not.  But it's not enough to say "It fails".  I think you need to clarify your methods of testing, and if you really feel the system fails, perhaps you would be so kind as to show your code so that some of us can verify that you indeed put together an exact model. 

Maybe what i need to ask here is, who, in this forum are the premier algorithmic modelers who can speak with authority regarding any particular method put under the microscope?  If you are among them, can you point me to some of your research so i can be as confident about your results as you are?

"I checked the archives and found this:

"JohnLegend's The Zone in my opinion is a great method, particularly for a newbie." ~ Proofreaders2000

"It fails, sadly,..." ~ Superman"--Still

I grew.  The Zone was a miserable failure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What!!!

Proof, what if you were to take some kind of stand and defy those odds.  If you said, 'There must be a way', what are the chances you'd find it? 

Meanwhile, what direction do you plan to go?  It appears to me that 'binary options' are legal...as well as 'forex' trading.  Do you plan to go in either of these directions?"--Still

Stock market is an option---right now it is time to keep a very low profile, especially from forums untill things get better (from the looks it's going to take a long while.)

Quote from: Still on Jun 11, 04:07 AM 2012
I checked the archives and found this:

"JohnLegend's The Zone in my opinion is a great method, particularly for a newbie." ~ Proofreaders2000

"It fails, sadly,..." ~ Superman

link:://rouletteforum.cc/main-roulette-board/4/enter-the-zone/172/ (link:://rouletteforum.cc/main-roulette-board/4/enter-the-zone/172/)

I didn't see the basis for your comment.  It could very well be that you're programming skills are flawless and you are able to model any set of instructions.  How can i or anyone be certain of this?

Have you ever come across any  system that holds up under your type of testing?  (Probably an irrelevant question).

And, if you are consistently getting failures while the hit-and-run people are winning, maybe it's time to rethink what is happening.  Either somebody is lying, or are short-term self-decieved (the hammer has not yet dropped)...or algorithmic modelers are prone to make mistakes...are misunderstanding...are not making themselves clear...or there is something else going on when anyone takes a break from the table. 

Rolletti posted a rather positive result with Trilogy recently. Can you really make such broad statements...tested all methods in so many ways...all failed?   I don't know of too many others who are actually writing algorithms to test this stuff.  Hasn't Ophis put something together?  What have we learned from him in regards any of Legends ideas?

My recommendation is to post whether JohnLegend likes it or not.  But it's not enough to say "It fails".  I think you need to clarify your methods of testing, and if you really feel the system fails, perhaps you would be so kind as to show your code so that some of us can verify that you indeed put together an exact model. 

Maybe what i need to ask here is, who, in this forum are the premier algorithmic modelers who can speak with authority regarding any particular method put under the microscope?  If you are among them, can you point me to some of your research so i can be as confident about your results as you are?

Hello Still

Its not about algorithms n bots. Get paper n pen n test Trilogy and report results.  We tested other method Reversed Code 4 Attack. Check d results. All others including Code 20 r based on d same flawed concept.

Regards

Quote from: superman on Jun 11, 03:52 AM 2012

Spot on mate, I've said that a few times before, he is relying on the members that are wanting to believe in his methods.

In the land of the blind, the one eyed monster is king

Why should the freak be the King??  :xd:
I see the blind leading the blonde...

Quote from: Still on Jun 11, 04:07 AM 2012
Maybe what i need to ask here is, who, in this forum are the premier algorithmic modelers who can speak with authority regarding any particular method put under the microscope?  If you are among them, can you point me to some of your research so i can be as confident about your results as you are?

There are a few coders here, myself among them. Coding a system is really the only reliable way to find out whether it works long-term, but there are a number of issues which make it problematic. Firstly, as you point out, coders can make mistakes. Most mistakes are likely to occur in the interpretation of the system - maybe the rules are ambiguous, or the coder hasn't bothered to check the output against some known results. The latter check will expose any errors, and should always be done, but in practice it hardly ever is. Usually the coder just posts the results in the form of a graph, and that's the end of it.

Also, some members dismiss coding because either they think it doesn't mirror "real" casino conditions (whatever that means) or they think it's a waste of time anyway because "no-one will ever play 1 million spins". Both of these objections are flawed. ANY system can be simulated, no matter how complex, and that includes "hit & run" rules. Obviously you can't take into account things like patience and discipline, but these factors should count in favour of simulation not against them - a computer has infinite patience and iron discipline - it does exactly what it's told, no more and no less.  JL is always banging on about the "human factor" as being an essential ingredient for success, but he dismisses simulations as worthless, go figure.

And as to "never playing a million spins", the objection misses the point. A new model of car is tested in the factory to destruction - corresponding to 100s of thousands or millions of miles of use. Would you object that such testing is a waste of time because "no-one will ever drive a million miles"? The point is to put the system (car) under extended pressure in as many conditions as possible to identify any weaknesses.

In any case it's irrelevant as a criticism of coding because you can simulate over as many spins as you want; once the program is written it's no more work to run it over 10 million spins than it is to run it over 1000.

Or they say "nothing will hold up over a billion spins", therefore coding is a waste of time.

Yeah, let's bury our heads in the sand and just test enough so that it wins but not so much that it loses.  ;D

If someone has done tests on RNG play-mode, and, exactly following Legend's instructions, showed evidence that it won't work, then say so.

OK, I'll say so.

I made a movie of some CODE something, playing just the way Atlantis said I should.  My first attempt was wrong.  It lost 80 units on the 13th game.  (I made and posted a screen-shot movie of this.)  If it lost that quickly, how can you ever hope to recover 80 units without losing again?  That is my question.

Notice that none of the promoters of JL came forward to say a word.  Not, "Sam, you did that wrong." or "Sam, you photo shopped that movie". 

John had said he could beat RNG with any CODE system day and night.  His only comment was something like I should pat myself for proving the system did not work.  Yes, I should!!  PAT PAT PAT

It amazes me how people will just eat up graphs and stats without a shred of proof of their validity, but when I post an undeniable truth that goes against JL, the crowd falls mute.

Sam



By the way, this is not "hate" any more than Bayes or Superman's or turner's or rob's or anyone else's post.  It's just me stating my truth.

Where is u know "who"?  We need more contributors 2 this very valuable thread  ;D

Quote from: superman on Jun 11, 03:05 AM 2012

Been there and done that, (that's why he doesn't like me sticking my nose in) you haven't looked deep enough into the archives here mate, since THE ZONE all his systems have been coded and tested against RNG play mode, pure coding random, random.org, RNG real money mode, PHP random and dublinbet live tables, and guess what, they all fail, and not just for me, others have tested too, BUT as I used a bot, which he hates as they prove a point, it was continual play, which he hates too but hit n run has also been tested, there is no difference between RNG play mode or real mode, play mode may be "softer" but you won't beat it like he claims.

You have to remember, he has produced probably 6 or 7 methods over his stay here, all of them are supposedly the dogs dangly bits, but he keeps producing new ones, why is that?

Superman I made a claim I can beat an RNG in PLAY MODE day in and day out. And I am willing to prove it. Under one condition.

You have made it your mission along with a  few others to nonsense my name and methods on this forum at every turn. You acuse me of only coming here because I crave attention. COME ON get real. A roulette forum for ATTENTION? ???

This is what I propose to prove once and for all not only can I beat an RNG day in day out in play mode (which is the reason I know real money mode cheats) But that in fact the methods I push on this forum do indeed work

I already use a Ladbrokes RNG to help me test my methods and those of other members I see as promising. It has a starting bank of just 200 units. Which is what I always suggest the best Bankroll to start off with. I will take daily pictures of the days newspaper and the current balance on the RNG. I will do this until the balance rises from 200 units to over 600. And if you and any other negatives want to see them you supply me an email. I will do this over and over resetting the RNG back to 200 units. And winning over 600 for as long as you deem necessary.

So you cannot say I just got lucky. YOUR SIDE OF THE BARGAIN. You will then have the decency to come back on this forum and appologize to me in front of all the other members. For your constant doubting and slanderous comments. If you agree to this. We will proceed.

Its time for you and all the other negatives on this forum to see when I state something I mean it.

"Under one condition.", said John.

What might that condition be?

TwoCat

JL,
If you are serious about this demonstration, I would only suggest using video instead of pictures, as people will just claim you photoshopped them... its been done before.
MM

Quote from: mattymattz on Jun 11, 12:37 PM 2012
JL,
If you are serious about this demonstration, I would only suggest using video instead of pictures, as people will just claim you photoshopped them... its been done before.
MM

I'm not a technical person MM. I wouldnt know how to doctor anything. Just win at roulette that's my game. Besides I cannot see how you can doctor the screen of a cell phone like that. This is the reason PLAY RNG is the best way to prove this whole thing. You start off with a set Balance. And you cannot add funds like on a real wheel. Your method will either sink or swim. And with only a 200 unit balance I don't have much room for failure. That's the whole point of that small balance. This is the best I can do. Its up to superman. Is he indeed man enough to take the challenge.

Quote from: Johnlegend on Jun 11, 12:45 PM 2012
I'm not a technical person MM. I wouldnt know how to doctor anything. Just win at roulette that's my game. Besides I cannot see how you can doctor the screen of a cell phone like that. This is the reason PLAY RNG is the best way to prove this whole thing. You start off with a set Balance. And you cannot add funds like on a real wheel. Your method will either sink or swim. And with only a 200 unit balance I don't have much room for failure. That's the whole point of that small balance. This is the best I can do. Its up to superman. Is he is indeed man enough to take the challenge.

Hello John

D point here is not 2 beat RNG but regular wheel or air ball. We can get real spins data from this forum n do an old fashioned pen a paper testing.  100 games 2 start with n then progress f necessary. It could be done very quickly.

Regards

John, John, John........

To quote Ronald Reagan:  There you go again!

What conditions?

You made the statement you could beat RNG day and night with any CODE system.  When I proved you wrong, you say you can do it with "conditions".  What conditions?  And why?  What changed, other than I proved you wrong?

MM is right.  WMCapture sells a very easy to use software for less than $40 American.  You can make videos and speak to us directly!

Come on, John!  Show ol' Superman up!  Show us all up!  Win and we will all make money and hail you the "Roulette King".

Geez, I'd love to!!

Sam

Quote from: Robeenhuut on Jun 11, 12:57 PM 2012
Hello John

D point here is not 2 beat RNG but regular wheel or air ball. We can get real spins data from this forum n do an old fashioned pen a paper testing.  100 games 2 start with n then progress f necessary. It could be done very quickly.

Regards

I posted "The TwoCat 5,000" a couple of years ago.  It was a real wheel meticulously recorded for 5,000 spins.  One hundred per day for fifty days.

If you can beat "The TwoCat 5,000", you have something!!

Sam

Quote from: Robeenhuut on Jun 11, 12:57 PM 2012
Hello John

D point here is not 2 beat RNG but regular wheel or air ball. We can get real spins data from this forum n do an old fashioned pen a paper testing.  100 games 2 start with n then progress f necessary. It could be done very quickly.

Regards

Robeenhuut. That comes next. You are missing the point. Superman has called me a liar. Along with some others. A fraudster only here for attention. He and Bayes both hold this ridiculous belief that if a method can't survive a bot test. Its of no worth. I then made the statement that all my methods thrive on a play mode RNG. And I can beat it at will. He says that's nonsense. Its time to throw down. And once and for all show the newbies and the oldies. That I don't come here to stroke my ego and get attention. I come here to show this game is for the taking. When you play it the right way.

Quote from: TwoCatSam on Jun 11, 12:59 PM 2012
John, John, John........

To quote Ronald Reagan:  There you go again!

What conditions?

You made the statement you could beat RNG day and night with any CODE system.  When I proved you wrong, you say you can do it with "conditions".  What conditions?  And why?  What changed, other than I proved you wrong?

MM is right.  WMCapture sells a very easy to use software for less than $40 American.  You can make videos and speak to us directly!

Come on, John!  Show ol' Superman up!  Show us all up!  Win and we will all make money and hail you the "Roulette King".

Geez, I'd love to!!

Sam

I'm a private person. I don't do public videos for anyone. You are lucky I am offering this. I  don't want to be the roulette anything. I simply show what I use to win. The point is. Superman claims an RNG can't be beaten consistently. Now I say it can. And I have done it for years. that's why I jump on anyone who says a real money RNG is fair. Because its NOT.

Superman has to decide what comes first. His ego or the truth. Because he has alot to lose here and he knows it. Im going to blow this maths rubbish out of the water before im done on here. Then I wont have to ever post another thing. The whole maths related to roulette thing will be debunked. Once and for all. Einstein was wrong. theyre all wrong. Ive known it for years.

Random has a saturation point. A level it can so rarely fall below. It can be read like a book and exploited. One of the members on this forum I have TRUE respect for. Is XXVV. He talked pure sense about the game. His posts inspired the hell out of me. And made me a better player than I was before I read them. He talked of the forces of random closing the net on a pattern. GOD WAS HE RIGHT. And I have findings I havent even imparted on here and neverwill. I will put them into real action. And let any interested ask to know. This game is so beatable its ridiculous.

But NOT while your head is sunk in old flawed maths teachings. Be sure of that.

John, John, John.............

How soon you forget your own words when it serves your purpose.  Are you a politician?  Will Rogers once said, "Did you notice when they're talking, they're not saying anything?".  You talk; you say nothing.

What about your statement you could beat fun RNG all day and night?  What about my video?

You are a private person?  John, you could sell sheep sh*t to a shepherd, but even you can't see that one!!

John, say something and nail it down. 

TCS

OK GANG

There is was!!  The old...I know something but I won't tell!!

What comes next???

I know something and I'll sell it to a very selected few.

Very selected few=those who will buy it.

Don't know Charles Scammer, but youse guys may be right!!!!!

I LOVE IT......

Sam

Quote from: TwoCatSam on Jun 11, 01:24 PM 2012
John, John, John.............

How soon you forget your own words when it serves your purpose.  Are you a politician?  Will Rogers once said, "Did you notice when they're talking, they're not saying anything?".  You talk; you say nothing.

What about your statement you could beat fun RNG all day and night?  What about my video?

You are a private person?  John, you could sell sheep sh*t to a shepherd, but even you can't see that one!!

John, say something and nail it down. 

TCS

I've said my bit. Its up to you. You can go on believing the lies of math. Or you can see the truth laid bare.

Lay it bare, John, lay it bare.

All you've done is preach. 

Where I come from, after you bragged about walking on water for so long, we'd tote your arse down to the pond.

You've talked your talk; now walk your walk!

You are making an absolute fool of yourself!  Have you no pride?  Have you no shame?

Would you cut your own throat if you had a big enough audience cheering you on?  Lord, I think you would!!

Samster

Nou maybe,but he is CH

Quote from: TwoCatSam on Jun 11, 01:27 PM 2012
OK GANG

There is was!!  The old...I know something but I won't tell!!

What comes next???

I know something and I'll sell it to a very selected few.

Very selected few=those who will buy it.

Don't know Charles scammer, but youse guys may be right!!!!!

I LOVE IT......

Sam

Wrong again Sam. Your test proved nothing. Mine will prove everything. Because I will do it over and over and over. Until Even Bayes will concede. Well maybe not. But the vast majority will come to understand.  And no. No money has ever or will ever be asked from anyone. Dont you remember Superman saying he would pay to see me beat an RNG. I dont want his money. Just an appology will do fine.

Quote from: Johnlegend on Jun 11, 01:23 PM 2012
Superman has to decide what comes first. His ego or the truth. Because he has a lot to lose here and he knows it. I'm going to blow this maths nonsense out of the water before I'm done on here. Then I won't have to ever post another thing. The whole maths related to roulette thing will be debunked. Once and for all. Einstein was wrong. theyre all wrong. I've known it for years.

Random has a saturation point. A level it can so rarely fall below. It can be read like a book and exploited. One of the members on this forum I have TRUE respect for. Is XXVV. He talked pure sense about the game. His posts inspired the hell out of me. And made me a better player than I was before I read them. He talked of the forces of random closing the net on a pattern. God WAS HE RIGHT. And I have findings I haven't even imparted on here and neverwill. I will put them into real action. And let any interested ask to know. This game is so beatable its ridiculous.

But NOT while your head is sunk in old flawed maths teachings. Be sure of that.

We r here having this debate not 2 dispute f roulette is beatable John. And not everybody that questions yr methods thinks that roulette is not beatable.  On d contrary.  U just come off here like somebody that constantly avoids d real issue here which is f yr systems work as advertised.

Quote from: Robeenhuut on Jun 11, 01:36 PM 2012
We r here having this debate not 2 dispute f roulette is beatable John. And not everybody that questions yr methods thinks that roulette is not beatable.  On d contrary.  U just come off here like somebody that constantly avoids d real issue here which is f yr systems work as advertised.

Robeenhuut save it. I have made the offer. Now im watching the back peddaling. I expected. They know that if I do this. They have nothing left to argue about. Theyre DONE. Sam has started his usual mindless babble to sidetrack the issue.

Its there and waiting. When a certain person finds his courage. Im out of here...

John, you poor thing!

(Gawd, I'm feeling like the Villagers poking Frankenstein's Monster.)

YOU SAY......

You have all these stats.  We're supposed to take you a face value.  No, thanks.  People lie, John.  People lie all the time.  How do any of us know you're telling the truth.

You're like the guy who can do 1,000 push-ups when no one is looking!

Proof is laying out a set of ideas/data and asking others to independently verify.  Not saying.."Take my word for it!".

Mindless babble?  John, I'm just asking logical questions your followers won't ask for fear you might really have something and you withhold it.

Why do you need "conditions" on your test?  What can't your original statement suffice.  "I can beat play money RNG all day and night."  Why won't that suffice?

Sam

I say good on you John for stepping up to the plate (assuming you actually do, of course  :) )

Personally I don't think there's any kind of scam going on, JL's only "crime" is to hype his systems and make claims that seem a little (ok, a lot) dubious, but that's no big deal, plenty of others have done the same on these forums and they probably always will.

WOW what a thread, first up, I don't ever recall calling you a liar, a shrill maybe.
I have never declared myself as a maths guy either, your confusing me with Mr Bayes, he's great with stats/maths etc, there's plenty here who have asked for his help over the years, without groans.

ok, back to the thread

QuoteIt could very well be that you're programming skills are flawless and you are able to model any set of instructions.  How can i or anyone be certain of this?

Many have seen/used my bots over the years, they can vouch for me.

QuoteHave you ever come across any  system that holds up under your type of testing?  (Probably an irrelevant question).

Nope, and my type of testing has been explained here many times, if a system/method has a floor it will be found.

QuoteMy recommendation is to post whether JohnLegend likes it or not.  But it's not enough to say "It fails".

As I already said, I have posted the results but they are obviousley not what SOME people want to hear, thats the big problem here, SOME people are so gullible that they really want to believe and any bad news puts them off.

Quote"I checked the archives and found this:
"JohnLegend's The Zone in my opinion is a great method, particularly for a newbie." ~ Proofreaders2000
"It fails, sadly,..." ~ Superman"--Still

I grew.  The Zone was a miserable failure.

As the man said, a miserable failure, which when first launched JL stated he was going to pay for some members to go to Vegas with him, he also stated he would bring Vegas to its knees, now JL, tell me I am lying about that, it was on the old VLS site, theres othere here who know it was said.

QuoteIts not about algorithms n bots. Get paper n pen n test Trilogy and report results.  We tested other method Reversed Code 4 Attack. Check d results. All others including Code 20 r based on d same flawed concept

Flawed concept is very accurate, I have stated before, if you write results on paper you WILL see eye candy forming, this I think is how JL has reached his flawed methods, "turn random on its head" pure bo!!ocks.

QuoteAlso, some members dismiss coding because either they think it doesn't mirror "real" casino conditions (whatever that means) or they think it's a waste of time anyway because "no-one will ever play 1 million spins". Both of these objections are flawed. ANY system can be simulated, no matter how complex, and that includes "hit & run" rules. Obviously you can't take into account things like patience and discipline, but these factors should count in favour of simulation not against them - a computer has infinite patience and iron discipline - it does exactly what it's told, no more and no less.  JL is always banging on about the "human factor" as being an essential ingredient for success, but he dismisses simulations as worthless, go figure

The human factor, something that only JL seems to have, so far he has never disclosed this snippet of info.

QuoteAnd as to "never playing a million spins", the objection misses the point. A new model of car is tested in the factory to destruction - corresponding to 100s of thousands or millions of miles of use. Would you object that such testing is a waste of time because "no-one will ever drive a million miles"? The point is to put the system (car) under extended pressure in as many conditions as possible to identify any weaknesses.

An excellent analogy Mr Bayes, that is the exact reason I test like I do, I want to know if the sh!t is going to hit the fan, everyone should, it's money at the end of the day. If you play hit n run and are up for weeks months, you will eventually have a bad run, the bad run could be to hits or it could last for the next 2 months, do you really not want to know how bad it could be?? guess it's your cash and your choice.

QuoteYeah, let's bury our heads in the sand and just test enough so that it wins but not so much that it loses

Exactly what the masses seem to want there Bayes.

QuoteJohn had said he could beat RNG with any CODE system day and night.  His only comment was something like I should pat myself for proving the system did not work.  Yes, I should!!  PAT PAT PAT
It amazes me how people will just eat up graphs and stats without a shred of proof of their validity, but when I post an undeniable truth that goes against JL, the crowd falls mute

Does day and night mean continual play JL? if so I take it you have a favoured RNG for this, if you do and it wins wins wins then I would suggest trying a different RNG as the one you favour must be rigged to make you win as NONE of your methods will last on playtech or betvoyager in play mode and thats a guarentee OR even in RXTreme.

QuoteYou have made it your mission along with a  few others to nonsense my name and methods on this forum at every turn. You acuse me of only coming here because I crave attention. COME ON get real. A roulette forum for ATTENTION?

Wrong mate, I am here for the same reason as everyone else, I have no intention of making your name nonesense, your methods are nonesense IN MY OPINION, and a few others, you are actually the initiator of the conflict, think back to the zone on VLS many people on that forum tried it and gave it the thumbs down, you only had ONE person, Stackbundles, who actually sided with you there, I see he is still looking for a winning method lately, and when you found you were not getting the attention your zone, in your opinion, should have got you vanished!! now over the last year or so you appeared here with more methods, found there was more interest and so you've stuck around. The initial conflict came from you directed AT me when I posted my results, "stupid maths boyz" , "code jockies" maybe not those exact words, but you were not happy when others came to my defence with the same losing results, so you vanished.

QuoteThis is what I propose to prove once and for all not only can I beat an RNG day in day out in play mode (which is the reason I know real money mode cheats) But that in fact the methods I push on this forum do indeed work

Mate, as I said earlier, if you can sit all day and night and win, the RNG at Ladbrokes in play mode IS setup to bu!!$hit you, and now you think because of this real mode cheats, that's actually quite sad.

QuoteI already use a Ladbrokes RNG to help me test my methods and those of other members I see as promising. It has a starting bank of just 200 units. Which is what I always suggest the best Bankroll to start off with. I will take daily pictures of the days newspaper and the current balance on the RNG. I will do this until the balance rises from 200 units to over 600. And if you and any other negatives want to see them you supply me an email. I will do this over and over resetting the RNG back to 200 units. And winning over 600 for as long as you deem necessary.

So you cannot say I just got lucky. YOUR SIDE OF THE BARGAIN. You will then have the decency to come back on this forum and appologize to me in front of all the other members. For your constant doubting and slanderous comments. If you agree to this. We will proceed.

Its time for you and all the other negatives on this forum to see when I state something I mean it

Proceed as you wish, how this is going to prove anything is beyond me, it's flawed from the offset, anyone can play and top up if they lose, how you can prove it I have no idea all I can tell you is your methods fail over the long haul, as I've always said, the issue is, YOU don't want to believe it niether do a handful of others, my tests, and other members have proved the point, why can't you accept it without calling the non believers ignorant.

QuoteIts up to superman. Is he indeed man enough to take the challenge

Whats the challenge? did I miss something here

QuoteHe and Bayes both hold this ridiculous belief that if a method can't survive a bot test. Its of no worth. I then made the statement that all my methods thrive on a play mode RNG. And I can beat it at will. He says that's nonsense

Is there just the one RNG you can beat? or are you covering ALL/ANY RNG? betvoyager would be much better for your methods as there is no zero

QuoteI come here to show this game is for the taking. When you play it the right way

It's the last 7 words that do it as usual.

QuoteSuperman claims an RNG can't be beaten consistently. Now I say it can

Spot on JL, it can't, please anyone else confirm this, has anyone seen any method coded in RX or any other software win consistently with a limited progression to keep within table limts? if it was possible it would be know already and the casinos would have shut up shop.

QuoteSuperman has to decide what comes first. His ego or the truth. Because he has a lot to lose here and he knows it. I'm going to blow this maths nonsense out of the water before I'm done on here. Then I won't have to ever post another thing. The whole maths related to roulette thing will be debunked. Once and for all. Einstein was wrong. theyre all wrong. I've known it for years.

You da man JL, a few seem to believe you but many don't, lol what a statement fella.

QuoteHe talked of the forces of random closing the net on a pattern. God WAS HE RIGHT

We know this, this is probably what we are trying to say to you since the zone!!

QuoteAnd I have findings I haven't even imparted on here and neverwill. I will put them into real action. And let any interested ask to know. This game is so beatable its ridiculous.

Oh my, I can't even think of a response to this, I see Sam has though, so let's get this straight then, you have many great grail like methods already that in you opinion have random running away from you BUT you still have something else up your sleeve, unreal.

QuoteJohn, you could sell sheep sh*t to a shepherd

ROFLMAO nice one Sam

QuoteWrong again Sam. Your test proved nothing. Mine will prove everything. Because I will do it over and over and over. Until Even Bayes will concede. Well maybe not

Trust me JL, if you can prove it he will concede, we all will but I can't see how you are going to categorically prove it beyond any shadow of doubt, please advise

QuoteSuperman saying he would pay to see me beat an RNG. I don't want his money. Just an appology will do fine

Phew, as I don't have much money, thanks for the let off, as stated above, if you can prove it, many will accept your methods with open arms, but as stated earlier in the post, nobody else has managed to beat RNG play/real mode so good luck to you.

QuoteWe r here having this debate not 2 dispute f roulette is beatable John. And not everybody that questions yr methods thinks that roulette is not beatable.  On d contrary.  U just come off here like somebody that constantly avoids d real issue here which is f yr systems work as advertised

Thats correct Robeen, they do not work as advertised as nobody else has that missing factor that JL seems to have.

QuoteRobeenhuut save it. I have made the offer. Now I'm watching the back peddaling. I expected. They know that if I do this. They have nothing left to argue about. Theyre DONE. Sam has started his usual mindless babble to sidetrack the issue.

Its there and waiting. When a certain person finds his courage. I'm out of here...

Courage is not needed, why are you waiting, what are you waiting for? as I said earlier how you can prove it is unknow to me but I would like to see what you can do against RNG, no back peddaling from me JL

QuoteProof is laying out a set of ideas/data and asking others to independently verify.  Not saying.."Take my word for it!".
Mindless babble?  John, I'm just asking logical questions your followers won't ask for fear you might really have something and you withhold it

That just about sums it all up, the sheep are scared of the shepherd

It's taken me a while to type all this out as you can imagine, if I really didn't believe I wouldn't have bothered so before you do JL, don't try and turn this all around as more words against you, it is not, the replies are all my opinions and findings, FA to do with maths, pure results/findings of continual testing against many forms of RNG and dublinbet live wheel, I must admit one thing, I haven't coded your last 2 or 3 methods as they are, in my opinion, more of the same, flawed methods, as someone else stated, so I didn't bother, since then I have had a hard drive crash and lost most of my bot code, yes I had backups but they were found to be corrupt too, if and when something appears that may actually stand any chance of winning I will start coding again but now I don't have the time or inclination.
Good luck to you and I hope you can prove me and the maths guys all wrong.

What a post!!  Must have taken a couple of hours to do that.

I think the ball is in John's court.  I agree with one thing:  I never heard a challenge to superman.

Could be get clarification on that?

John?

TwoCat

Yes it took a while Sam, tried to cover everything as honest and accurate as I could to avoid the inevitable -- -- -- "Superman you are wrong" which usually follows any post from me on his threads

QuoteI agree with one thing:  I never heard a challenge to superman

I can't see how it could be a challenge as I already said it can't be done, my opinion again of course, how he's going to prove it can be done is beyond me, I look forward to being proven wrong, I know how to eat humble pie, I've been wrong before, I'm a big boy I can accept it IF it can be proven, good luck JL

Great post, superman. No-nonsense straight talking and it was nice to be reminded of some of JL's history here and at VLS.

I have a suggestion as to how we might be able set up a foolproof challenge for John, if he's willing. This is something I put forward on VLS a while ago for Gizmo, but he wasn't interested. I write some software, basically a simplified roulette game, which will allow John to play roulette and will record and save his results. The program will allow him his starting bankroll, but no more. There will be certain controls built into the software which will mean he can't cheat, but in all other respects it will like playing for real (he'll be able to skip spins etc as much as he wants). This will be much faster and easier for him than playing at one of the online RNGs. If he suspects foul play, I can pre-load the program with spins and get a hash value for them, then he can check that I haven't deliberately written in code to make him lose, just like at BV.  I could even use actual spins and not RNG, if he'd prefer.

So think about it John. Believe me when I say that I really hope you'll take up the challenge and win, just like you say you can.  :)

Great idea Bayes . . .

I think the public competition on the other forum took too long and many lost interest.

I would add that if you could make the program available to other members who want a crack at beating RNG, like myself, that would add a little spice to it all.

Even if John Legend decides not to participate, you might get a few others who would,  It would be great fun and hopefully informative as well.

I know there are members who will scoff at playing RNG but I believe you can beat both live and RNG, numbers are just numbers.

Give it some thought as it would liven up this forum with something other than the constant vitriol.

Nick

One thing that has always bothered me.  This made me lose faith in Gamlet which hurt....

If you can do it, do it with real money!  Why would any person with a winning system want to waste their time with play money?

Not to slight Bayes!  That is a great idea.

Frankly, I'd be skeered to play with it!!

Sam

Quote from: Bayes on Jun 11, 05:09 PM 2012
Great post, superman. No-nonsense straight talking and it was nice to be reminded of some of JL's history here and at VLS.

I have a suggestion as to how we might be able set up a foolproof challenge for John, if he's willing. This is something I put forward on VLS a while ago for Gizmo, but he wasn't interested. I write some software, basically a simplified roulette game, which will allow John to play roulette and will record and save his results. The program will allow him his starting bankroll, but no more. There will be certain controls built into the software which will mean he can't cheat, but in all other respects it will like playing for real (he'll be able to skip spins etc as much as he wants). This will be much faster and easier for him than playing at one of the online RNGs. If he suspects foul play, I can pre-load the program with spins and get a hash value for them, then he can check that I haven't deliberately written in code to make him lose, just like at BV.  I could even use actual spins and not RNG, if he'd prefer.

So think about it John. Believe me when I say that I really hope you'll take up the challenge and win, just like you say you can.  :)

I accept your offer Bayes. I would be able to tell you within an hour if what you design is true or close to natural random. And not predatory in nature. Like many real money RNGS. But yes I absolutely am up for it. Many thanks for the offer.

Quote from: superman on Jun 11, 04:13 PM 2012
WOW what a thread, first up, I don't ever recall calling you a liar, a shrill maybe.
I have never declared myself as a maths guy either, your confusing me with Mr Bayes, he's great with stats/maths etc, there's plenty here who have asked for his help over the years, without groans.

ok, back to the thread
Many have seen/used my bots over the years, they can vouch for me.
 
Nope, and my type of testing has been explained here many times, if a system/method has a floor it will be found.
 
As I already said, I have posted the results but they are obviousley not what SOME people want to hear, that's the big problem here, SOME people are so gullible that they really want to believe and any bad news puts them off.
 
As the man said, a miserable failure, which when first launched JL stated he was going to pay for some members to go to Vegas with him, he also stated he would bring Vegas to its knees, now JL, tell me I am lying about that, it was on the old VLS site, theres othere here who know it was said.
 
Flawed concept is very accurate, I have stated before, if you write results on paper you WILL see eye candy forming, this I think is how JL has reached his flawed methods, "turn random on its head" pure bo!!ocks.
 
The human factor, something that only JL seems to have, so far he has never disclosed this snippet of info.
 
An excellent analogy Mr Bayes, that is the exact reason I test like I do, I want to know if the sh!t is going to hit the fan, everyone should, it's money at the end of the day. If you play hit n run and are up for weeks months, you will eventually have a bad run, the bad run could be to hits or it could last for the next 2 months, do you really not want to know how bad it could be?? guess it's your cash and your choice.
 
Exactly what the masses seem to want there Bayes.
 
Does day and night mean continual play JL? if so I take it you have a favoured RNG for this, if you do and it wins wins wins then I would suggest trying a different RNG as the one you favour must be rigged to make you win as NONE of your methods will last on playtech or betvoyager in play mode and that's a guarentee OR even in RXTreme.
 
Wrong mate, I am here for the same reason as everyone else, I have no intention of making your name nonesense, your methods are nonesense IN MY OPINION, and a few others, you are actually the initiator of the conflict, think back to the zone on VLS many people on that forum tried it and gave it the thumbs down, you only had ONE person, Stackbundles, who actually sided with you there, I see he is still looking for a winning method lately, and when you found you were not getting the attention your zone, in your opinion, should have got you vanished!! now over the last year or so you appeared here with more methods, found there was more interest and so you've stuck around. The initial conflict came from you directed AT me when I posted my results, "silly maths boyz" , "code jockies" maybe not those exact words, but you were not happy when others came to my defence with the same losing results, so you vanished.
 
Mate, as I said earlier, if you can sit all day and night and win, the RNG at Ladbrokes in play mode IS setup to bu!!$hit you, and now you think because of this real mode cheats, that's actually quite sad.
 
Proceed as you wish, how this is going to prove anything is beyond me, it's flawed from the offset, anyone can play and top up if they lose, how you can prove it I have no idea all I can tell you is your methods fail over the long haul, as I've always said, the issue is, YOU don't want to believe it niether do a handful of others, my tests, and other members have proved the point, why can't you accept it without calling the non believers ignorant.
 
what's the challenge? did I miss something here
 
Is there just the one RNG you can beat? or are you covering ALL/ANY RNG? betvoyager would be much better for your methods as there is no zero
 
It's the last 7 words that do it as usual.
 
Spot on JL, it can't, please anyone else confirm this, has anyone seen any method coded in RX or any other software win consistently with a limited progression to keep within table limts? if it was possible it would be know already and the casinos would have shut up shop.
You da man JL, a few seem to believe you but many don't, LoL what a statement fella.
 
We know this, this is probably what we are trying to say to you since the zone!!
 
Oh my, I can't even think of a response to this, I see Sam has though, so let's get this straight then, you have many great grail like methods already that in you opinion have random running away from you BUT you still have something else up your sleeve, unreal.
ROFLMAO nice one Sam
Trust me JL, if you can prove it he will concede, we all will but I can't see how you are going to categorically prove it beyond any shadow of doubt, please advise
 
Phew, as I don't have much money, thanks for the let off, as stated above, if you can prove it, many will accept your methods with open arms, but as stated earlier in the post, nobody else has managed to beat RNG play/real mode so good luck to you.
 
that's correct Robeen, they do not work as advertised as nobody else has that missing factor that JL seems to have.
Courage is not needed, why are you waiting, what are you waiting for? as I said earlier how you can prove it is unknow to me but I would like to see what you can do against RNG, no back peddaling from me JL
 
That just about sums it all up, the sheep are scared of the shepherd

It's taken me a while to type all this out as you can imagine, if I really didn't believe I wouldn't have bothered so before you do JL, don't try and turn this all around as more words against you, it is not, the replies are all my opinions and findings, FA to do with maths, pure results/findings of continual testing against many forms of RNG and dublinbet live wheel, I must admit one thing, I haven't coded your last 2 or 3 methods as they are, in my opinion, more of the same, flawed methods, as someone else stated, so I didn't bother, since then I have had a hard drive crash and lost most of my bot code, yes I had backups but they were found to be corrupt too, if and when something appears that may actually stand any chance of winning I will start coding again but now I don't have the time or inclination.
Good luck to you and I hope you can prove me and the maths guys all wrong.

One hundred percent for effort Superman. I am certain. I can Superman. Ive been doing it for 8 years. I truly want you, everyone in fact to realize it really is possible.

I have accepted Bayes kind offer. So its up to him when its ready. I will be waiting.

Game on!!

Quote from: Johnlegend on Jun 11, 06:15 PM 2012
I accept your offer Bayes. I would be able to tell you within an hour if what you design is true or close to natural random. And not predatory in nature. Like many real money RNGS. But yes I absolutely am up for it. Many thanks for the offer.

Great!

It's going to take me a while to make the program because I have some learning to do first, so maybe 2-3 weeks, but I guess you're not going anywhere and we all know you have PATIENCE.  :)

I'll be in touch by pm.
cheers.

QuoteOne hundred percent for effort Superman. I am certain. I can Superman. I've been doing it for 8 years. I truly want you, everyone in fact to realize it really is possible.

I have accepted Bayes kind offer. So its up to him when its ready. I will be waiting.

Sweet, looking forward to it.

Fantastic . . . thanks Bayes for your efforts . . . Nick

Quote from: Bayes on Jun 12, 01:52 AM 2012
Great!

It's going to take me a while to make the program because I have some learning to do first, so maybe 2-3 weeks, but I guess you're not going anywhere and we all know you have PATIENCE.  :)

I'll be in touch by pm.
cheers.

Thanks Bayes, I will look out for it.