*PATTERN 4*

[ZigZag]

They spin between 2 and 3 mins. unless its turbo hour which is every 1 min

You got TV presenters chatting and reading out emails in between

[Twisteruk]

They spin between 2 and 3 mins. unless its turbo hour which is every 1 min

You got TV presenters chatting and reading out emails in between

Urrgghhhhh i remember that channel

I used to stop playin when those live dealers came on and chat shite 

[jon86]

They spin between 2 and 3 mins. unless its turbo hour which is every 1 min

You got TV presenters chatting and reading out emails in between

LOL. Maiby you can be a celeberty on tv 

Sorry bad english

Jon

[ZigZag]

LoL. Maiby you can be a celeberty on tv 

Sorry bad English

Jon

It was embarrassing because they call out the winners on national TV after every spin. 

It was like BobTheBuilder wins ÂÃ,£4080

next we have ZigZag

he wins ÂÃ,£1   

AGAIN!   

[jon86]

It was embarrassing because they call out the winners on national TV after every spin. 

It was like BobTheBuilder wins ÂÃ,£4080

next we have ZigZag

he wins ÂÃ,£1   

AGAIN!   

LOOOOOOL 

[GLC]

Mmm, GLC I realize your thinking is oldschool. ......
You will always be a sceptic who thinks this game can't be beaten longterm.

I think you may be right about me being old school.  I just can't get my head around why noting 3 results, then skipping 6 spins, then bet against the original 3 results repeating beats random.

If it does, we should be able to pick say 6 results like HLHHLH then wait 12 spins and bet that HLHHLH won't repeat.  Or any other size patterns like 4, 5, 7, 10. 

As a matter of fact, we should be able to play for your 3's pattern in 12 spins, then immediately go to a 4's pattern for 16 spins, then go for a 5's pattern for 20 spins etc...  Probably get a 3's pattern inside the 5's pattern since it will have been at least 20 spins.  Then we don't have to wait so long for betting opportunities.

I've been testing the 6's with a 6 step martingale and have never had to go beyond the 4th step (1-2-4-8) before a win.  Heck, I'm up 120 flippin units.  It's all I can do to keep from crossing the river of logic to your side.  Since I'm not a 100% math guy or I wouldn't post any of the my posts.

Believe me.  If you guys continue to win with these systems, I will be happy to help lighten the pockets of our local casinos.

Good Luck to all of us,

G

[vundarosa]

that's not correct mate.

Each new game has a different Checksum. So different numbers.


If that were not the case you would be right, and it wouldn't work. But it isnt so it does  :LoL:

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

I wonder if the same is true for other RNGs....... if not, not too sure it will work somewhere else (other RNGs).....


vundarosa

[Gordonline]

Here is an update from my play today........unfortunately I was called out to 2 fires during gameplay at 16.30 hours and only just got home  

6th Session +8 Units
7th Session +5 Units

Balance now -17 Units which is better than the -30 after 5 sessions  

I'm also thinking that if I'm up at either stage I'll rinse and repeat or maybe just bet H/L as that seems to win mostly at 1st bet

Will see tomorrow

Time for something to eat and a shower  

Gordon

[vundarosa]

I personally have not noticed any difference between the 3

But it is still early days 

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

Twist, do you remember which EC you had your 4 losses?

vundarosa

[XXVV]

I have completed what I consider to be a statistically sound spread sample   (over 3000 spins) of results using Pattern4 criteria as definitively set out by JL.  I also checked a few optional plays but still the traps were there.

Rules were carefully followed and all games suitably spaced or taken from different days data at Wiesbaden. There were so many losses within small groups of numbers that provided 'alarm bells' as to the ability of this method to provide consistent long winning streaks, although short winning streaks were common, but never enough to counter the loss of a bank.

Trying to dig out of such bad runs would have been fatal as there were triple loss situations no matter what strategy or EC you used.

The negative results were also largely H/L based so cannot be accounted for by mix of EC's.

How this equates with earlier reports I am not sure other than as cycles within cycles we can get unique trends and this method may produce some skewed results at times which we may be able to take advantage of, but with great care.

At this time I will continue to monitor the original Pattern Breaker/Filler ideas as well as ongoing monitoring of P4.

I have reflected also on WHY this P4 method should work and why the PB/F should work. I have some theories but prefer not to 'wish' in advance.

The results of the P4 test are not positive based on a 1,3,7 staking or 1,2,4  or flat staking. I wont publish a total till I completed a triple test (9000 spins).

P4 is a neat idea but I would exercise extreme caution and test over a wide variety of sources, always live data.

It is curious that in testing of roulette theory some early results in quite large samples can give misleading and over optimistic outcomes. It can be a cruel joke sometimes but we must always perservere and remain detached about results.

I hope others have better outcomes than mine and I remain very postive about the theory and application of Pattern Breaker/Filler.

Please accept my report as a caution, not as a red light. Cheers.

[XXVV]

I want to be fair and responsible about this, and I felt a bit guilty about being maybe over cautious on the 3000 spin sample result which showed a small loss.

Even a 3000 spin sample or a 30,000 spin sample is not definitive proof and statistics can be used to prove anything as economists readily utilise when gazing into their dark glass.

My previous post suggested caution, an orange light, and to be fair the results were disappointing and showed a net loss and dangerous clustering of losses at times.

All data there was randomly selected from Wiesbaden live.

Now I have switched to sourcing material from my notes of live play at a B+M casino and samples are from individual day sessions.

Well so far I have tested about 1000 spins of these and I have 2000 further to go.

I have played 3 EC's over 25 sessions.

There was a one EC loss on sessions 10,12,13 and 22.

So you could call those games 30,36,39 and 66.

Obviously between these were streaks of wins.

At the 1000 spin mark result stands at + 69 units with 71 wins and 4 losses.
I have been at pains to edit out zero interference ( although if playing live I would heavily hedge for zero as a game within a game).

To be specific if as in session10, zero appeared at the start of a fourth set of three outcome sequence, then I have handled like so...

0
8
9        X L L      X B R     X E O

and leave this group out and then start afresh ( writing off the zero but as I have it hedged it is a bonus win).

And if zero appeared midway through a 4th sequence then I would abandon that sequence ( if there were no results from the first spin of the sequence) and write off the earlier outcome(s) then go to a fresh sequence after the three outcomes of the sequence were satisfied, ie
23 - 0 - 32  or   23  - 32  - 0

23
0
32
14    and start the new 4th sequence with 14.

Pedantic I know but need to be clear here as to rules in these grey areas. JL has stressed keep clear of zero.

So, encouraging, and lets hope the earlier was simply a blip.  I suspect not nevertheless. Time will tell. What is shown though, and true to form, roulette can provide winning streaks which we can mop up as long as we dont get drawn into chasing a loss streak. Clearly this method is good at providing streaks of wins and it may be that a parlay approach can be a useful way to more conservatively harvest the wins should we find clustering of losses in our extended sample testing. Cheers.

[XXVV]

Ongoing testing shows more volatility, much as I anticipated.

Further 800 spins and now at +71 units having peaked at +96 and re-traced to +56 before bouncing up again. Way too long a sequence of spins to effectively stand still.

To be fair this result 129-10, in this test session, has never been negative so for the overview we could need to go a lot further but it will never be far enough. Nevertheless this is fair but short of the claimed status.

I think we can gauge the nature of this performance - it is volatile and maybe with some tweaking the volatility could be 'dampened'. More on this later.

I going back to study the PB/F which may have more reasons to be more consistent.

[ZigZag]

Hi XXVV

Really interesting to read your extensive testing. Very much appreciate it 

Did you come across any 2 losses in a row on one of the same EC's?

Really looking forward to your test results on PB/F 

[moles40]

Thanks for your testing over at weisbaden.

Did you run the system with the 20 spin gap before you play another round,as I can't see how this makes any difference to your chances of winning or loosing in the long term.

[Twisteruk]

Live Play update !

Im now just playing LIVE 

Just Played 9 Sessions with 4 different Casinos but 9 different Wheels

Im playing a 5-10-25 Unit Spread (my personal choice)

Sessions Played 9

Sessions Won 9

Profit +10 Units

Bets Won of First Step 5
Bets Won on Second Step 3
Bets Won on Third Step 1

Duration around 25 Minutes


Rinse and Repeat