Blue Angel's HG (Fallacious)

[Blue_Angel]

The rules of my method


You've arrived at the roulette table and you are writing down the last 10 to 12 results from the matrix, from that point forth you are going to write 25 to 27 more results in order to have the last 37 spins in your scoresheet.

Check to find the EC with the least appearances within those spins and bet it as long as remains least shown.
From now on till the end of your session you have a non stop betting plan to follow.
While you flat bet 1 unit for the second 37 spins you keep writing every EC as it hits in your scoresheet.

The time to change your bet selection is whenever there is another least shown EC, in case there is a tie between 2 EC's, bet the one which has been missing more spins since it's last appearance (older).

The betting amount doesn't change when you change EC, it only changes when after 37 successive bets your total hasn't reach a new high, in such case you double the betting amount for the next 37 spins.

The point is to increase gradually the amounts like Martingale progression but in 37 spins cycle scale till your bankroll reaches a new high, WHENEVER you reach a new high balance you are resetting the bet amount to 1 unit or end the session.

By resetting the bet amount it doesn't mean that you have to change the EC you are betting, bet selection and progression are changing NOT necessarily the same time.


I hope everything was clear but if you have questions I'll be at your disposal.

[Blue_Angel]

Why dont we just test the working principle for bet selection. And ask the question: does the method of backing sleepers change the odds that the sleepers will somehow come back and become hot numbers?

NOOOOO. And thats my point.

So if the odds of winning havent changed, what's left? A martingale.

It's worse than reinventing a broken wheel. You just need to see it for what it is.

RX testing will show the same thing. I'd love for someone to code this in RX and publish the file.

First, a cold EC doesn't include only cold numbers.

Second, I'm speaking with hard facts, evidence, not assumptions.

Third, I've requested twice from Les Howell of RX to code it but didn't got any reply so far.

[thelaw]

First, a cold EC doesn't include only cold numbers.

Second, I'm speaking with hard facts, evidence, not assumptions.

Third, I've requested twice from Les Howell of RX to code it but didn't got any reply so far.

Hey BA,

Welcome to the forum!

If you get a chance to read through the entire thread, it will save a bunch of confusion.

I've tried to clarify your method when it was misrepresented, but feel free to add any pertinent info.

Looking forward to seeing more testing of this method!!!

[Blue_Angel]

Why would Kav defend Reyth? I read that Reyth tested Kav's system and found it failed. And once this was published, Kav quickly made Reyth a mod to keep him happy. Whether or not its true, I dont know.

I can engineer a system to win against 1m spins. But try it on another set. But anyway if you have a strong progression like the martingale, you can either go broke in spectacular fashion or get lucky. I have no doubt that proper testing will show the system loses. But I would love to eat my words really.

You got it wrong, I've never seen Reyth admitting that Kav bet fails, quite the opposite...

Reyth became moderator and after start testing or should I say promoting Kav bet.

Simply making Reyth moderator was part of their deal, also Kavouras enticed him by promising Reyth a slice from each sale.

You cannot say lucky when we are talking about millions of results, it's absurd.

[Blue_Angel]

Hey BA,

Welcome to the forum!

If you get a chance to read through the entire thread, it will save a bunch of confusion.

I've tried to clarify your method when it was misrepresented, but feel free to add any pertinent info.

Looking forward to seeing more testing of this method!!!

Thanks, I'm already feeling welcomed.

Sometimes I'm explaining something in plain English and after a few posts I surprisingly see that some keep on confusing what I've already explained.
If some cannot or don't want to understand that's their problem, not mine.

So in order to avoid unnecessary repeticion we should pay attention when someone like me, without being obliged, gets in the trouble to share and explain a method without requesting anything in return.

[Blue_Angel]

If the system is legitimately beating 1M rng spins, and you can repeat that with other spins that are proper random, then yes I'll pay for that.

My understanding is:

* The system is betting on cold numbers

* The martingale is applied over 37 spin cycles.

This wont work because:

1. Any sequence of cold numbers wont change the odds of other numbers spinning next. Need proof? See the free software at link:://:.roulettephysics.com/roulette-pattern-detector/ and test millions of spins, or even billions. Betting on cold or hot numbers, especially with rng, doesnt at all change the odds of winning. And if you havent changed the odds, and the payouts are the same, then your bet selection method changed nothing.

2. Martingale is martingale, whether it's after 1 loss or 37 losses.

If it has won over 1m spins, maybe the spins arent properly random. Or maybe it was extremely lucky over 1M spins, but further testing wont have the same results. Or maybe it was tested with some parameter that wasnt set correctly, like the house edge.

Can anyone post the roulette xtreme file? I can test this for myself. If it really works, I would pay the $100k anyway. Even though the system is free. But consider the points above, and if you understand them, you'll understand the system is no different to any other martingale system.

So if you really believe so you don't have to afraid of losing hundred k by testing it for 1 more million spins, right??

[thelaw]

This is all that I've ever asked..........just transparency for any method.

In terms of results..........well.......now that 1 Million spins is not enough proof............i guess the only thing left is money.

So if someone can turn $600 into $60,000, then that should get some attention..............or would it?

[Blue_Angel]

So far who has actually tested the system over 1M spins? Is it just BA himself? If thats the case, then why would be publish a fantastic chart and not let anyone test it?

Isnt it a bit suspicious, like saying "Here's my system and I'll make millions. But you cant have it. You cant even have the spins I tested with" Its the kind of thing CEH did.

Anyway refer back to my points that indicate it is just a martingale. Nobody should take my word for it. Just test the free software I provided and see for yourself his approach wont work.

I dont know the guy but if I'm right about the above, then shouldnt it all be obvious?

Let me clarify what I said, many users have tried to find a worse sequence than the one of the example I've posted on this topic but they didn't find anything worse among LITERALLY millions of results.

So instead of making vague assumptions like: ''I don't think so...'' better to speak in terms of results and I'm talking about millions of simulated results, including also the WHOLE archive of Wiesbaden casino.

All these people just confirmed that there was not worst 200 spins sequence, they were not trying my method.
Therefore it was like an open challenge for anyone who can come out alive after such session from hell.

What I did was to try several ways and first I've concluded to another one which needed roughly 1000 units and the max bet was about 350 units.
I was not completely satisfied with my findings, mostly because of the huge max bet (350 units), then it hit me suddenly to use a very old and well known progression in a different way, in different scale actually!:-)

That's how the whole concept came into existence and Fallacious Holy Grail was born.

[The General]

The Martingale is a poor system.

You can only win puny amounts of money with it if you're lucky, yet you have to risk your entire bankroll. 

I can't see why you feel that your delayed version of it works any better than the regular version. 

[Blue_Angel]

i have been using this on 00 wheel using splits where each cycle is 19 spins always betting on a rolling basis the least 9 splits that have hit........and rg is right very playable on airball......just make sure your splits are even by that i mean all 19 splits should be made up of one red and black # so it is balanced except of course 0/00...............have fun

Yes, you may use 3 lines or 6 streets or 9 splits or 18 numbers instead of 1 EC, but you have to track down the coldest and in case of splits were a number can be splitted in more than one way it's getting complicated, unless you have a software.
Besides if you would use 3 lines, you would need threefold the equivalent bankroll required for 1 EC, if you would use 6 streets you would need sixfold the equivalent bankroll required for 1 EC, if you would use 9 splits you would need ninefold the equivalent bankroll required for 1 EC, if you would use 18 numbers you would need eighteenfold the equivalent bankroll required for 1 EC, just the facts.

[denzie]

The Martingale is a poor system.

You can only win puny amounts of money with it if you're lucky, yet you have to risk your entire bankroll. 

I can't see why you feel that your delayed version of it works any better than the regular version.

I've done 2 sessions on fast rng spins...+75
Not saying this is it but hey....isn't everyone happy to see this win millions of spins ? I sure am 

[denzie]

@ Blue_Angel. ... pls keep your cool mate.  They gonna come at ya....no doubt.
Ignore haters and let the ones who are interested follow this and test.

Thx for the input... 

[Blue_Angel]

The Martingale is a poor system.

You can only win puny amounts of money with it if you're lucky, yet you have to risk your entire bankroll. 

I can't see why you feel that your delayed version of it works any better than the regular version.

I see you've just registered here in order to post your useless comments.

Something stinks here and this is not me...!

[MrG]

The rules of my method


You've arrived at the roulette table and you are writing down the last 10 to 12 results from the matrix, from that point forth you are going to write 25 to 27 more results in order to have the last 37 spins in your scoresheet.

Check to find the EC with the least appearances within those spins and bet it as long as remains least shown.
From now on till the end of your session you have a non stop betting plan to follow.
While you flat bet 1 unit for the second 37 spins you keep writing every EC as it hits in your scoresheet.

The time to change your bet selection is whenever there is another least shown EC, in case there is a tie between 2 EC's, bet the one which has been missing more spins since it's last appearance (older).

The betting amount doesn't change when you change EC, it only changes when after 37 successive bets your total hasn't reach a new high, in such case you double the betting amount for the next 37 spins.

The point is to increase gradually the amounts like Martingale progression but in 37 spins cycle scale till your bankroll reaches a new high, WHENEVER you reach a new high balance you are resetting the bet amount to 1 unit or end the session.

By resetting the bet amount it doesn't mean that you have to change the EC you are betting, bet selection and progression are changing NOT necessarily the same time.


I hope everything was clear but if you have questions I'll be at your disposal.

Hi,

I think I could code this, but not in RX, but in VBA.
What I want to ask is, do we always bet just one EC?
You mentioned the EC that is least shown should be bet. How can I find out which EC is least shown? I mean is it needed to track EC from the very first spin and in all the spins from the first one to current spin check which EC is least shown, or only 37 last spins shall be checked?
Regarding the tie. Did I get it right that in such a case if the last 4 spins are for example RBBB to bet R?

Thank you for replying.

[Blue_Angel]

Hi,

I think I could code this, but not in RX, but in VBA.
What I want to ask is, do we always bet just one EC?
You mentioned the EC that is least shown should be bet. How can I find out which EC is least shown? I mean is it needed to track EC from the very first spin and in all the spins from the first one to current spin check which EC is least shown, or only 37 last spins shall be checked?
Regarding the tie. Did I get it right that in such a case if the last 4 spins are for example RBBB to bet R?

Thank you for replying.

Each session has its unique record, this means that from the beginning of every session till its end you keep on writing the total appearances for each and every EC, not only per 37 cycle but for the whole duration of every session.

Since you want to test for a large number of outcomes you should maintain a continuous count of all 6 EC's on your record which should be updated after each spin/decision.
The proper way to see it is as a constant work in progress which the selection adjusts according to the ever changing results.

There are some cases where you have a tie between 2 EC's and also both of them have appeared on the last spin/result, in this case bet the opposite EC from the one which have more hits and its last appearance was more recent.