Regarding PATTERN BREAKER.

[flukey luke]

Here is a good way to test PATTERN BREAKER and you will then see what you are letting yourself in for.
 
There are 8 patterns.
 
LLL
LLH
LHH
LHL
 
HHH
HHL
HLL
HLH
 
What you can do is go to random.org and download numbers from 1-8 to represent the 8 categories above.
 
Now here is a snapshot of the very FIRST batch I downloaded.
 
[attachimg=1]
 
You can see it lost the second game. I think people claiming that you can EASILY go 50 games without a loss is stretching the TRUTH a bit.
 
I am going to test this over the next few weeks myself and just get an idea of how it performs. I don't cheat when testing because I have nothing to gain or lose with this. It should actually perform better without the zero than if you were playing on a live wheel.
 
It is certainly no different than what Bayes is going to do with his RNG simulator. These are just random numbers as well and should give a good idea as to how PATTERN BREAKER performs.
 
 

[Johnlegend]

Here is a good way to test PATTERN BREAKER and you will then see what you are letting yourself in for.
 
There are 8 patterns.
 
LLL
LLH
LHH
LHL
 
HHH
HHL
HLL
HLH
 
What you can do is go to random.org and download numbers from 1-8 to represent the 8 categories above.
 
Now here is a snapshot of the very FIRST batch I downloaded.
 
[attachimg=1]
 
You can see it lost the second game. I think people claiming that you can EASILY go 50 games without a loss is stretching the TRUTH a bit.
 
I am going to test this over the next few weeks myself and just get an idea of how it performs. I don't cheat when testing because I have nothing to gain or lose with this. It should actually perform better without the zero than if you were playing on a live wheel.
 
It is certainly no different than what Bayes is going to do with his RNG simulator. These are just random numbers as well and should give a good idea as to how PATTERN BREAKER performs.

Fluke you have mis-understood the double loss element of the method. We aren't talking about tagging two consecutive games together. I've seen several double losses there. We are talking about playing two even chances simultaneously. One is a virtual loss. The next you real play.
 
Now I personally don't wait for a virtual loss. I play the game if the first E/C loses. I treble stakes on the second. And 3907 times out of 3910 I have won.
I also don't bet AGAINST three of a kind. So if the 8th pattern turns out to be HHH or EEE I bet for it not against it. All these things add to the strikerate. Now a new observation has brought to my attention the stunning consistency of PATTERN 7. It stands as a potential method of its own. never having taken more that 6 attempts to close it over a 3910 game sample. Meaning a 63 unit progression would have survived. It has to be taken seriously. GRAIL?? Who knows. Ill take those numbers while everyone else is hopping around the tables hoping lady luck came through the door with them.

[flukey luke]

Thanks for the updates JL.
 
I just read the first post in your PATTERN BREAKER thread. Rest assured that I will add the modifications to my testing.
 
I don't think PATTERN BREAKER is such a bad idea. It reminds me of something I worked on a while ago. I have never tested any of your ideas. So I am going to get my teeth into it.
 
cheers.

[Johnlegend]

Thanks for the updates JL.
 
I just read the first post in your PATTERN BREAKER thread. Rest assured that I will add the modifications to my testing.
 
I don't think PATTERN BREAKER is such a bad idea. It reminds me of something I worked on a while ago. I have never tested any of your ideas. So I am going to get my teeth into it.
 
cheers.

Take it from me Fluke get more than your teeth into it. This method has been my bread and butter method for over 3 years. The morphing comes over time when you see wonderful consistencies that mean you are never going to negative numbers. The price a little more waiting than a lot of methods. The rewards are up to you. STAYING POWER is sadly lacking amongst the vast majority. CAN YOU WAIT TO WIN? ?? I certainly can. The faster the method the more prone to loss it is. Never forget that. The grail exists but no one can wait for it. Pattern Breaker is a compromise. But if you stay with it for several thousand games. You will know for alltime. Roulette can be taken longterm. No question about it.

[albertojonas]

Here is a good way to test PATTERN BREAKER and you will then see what you are letting yourself in for.
 
There are 8 patterns.
 
LLL
LLH
LHH
LHL
 
HHH
HHL
HLL
HLH
 
What you can do is go to random.org and download numbers from 1-8 to represent the 8 categories above.
 
Now here is a snapshot of the very FIRST batch I downloaded.
 
[attachimg=1]
 
You can see it lost the second game. I think people claiming that you can EASILY go 50 games without a loss is stretching the TRUTH a bit.
 
I am going to test this over the next few weeks myself and just get an idea of how it performs. I don't cheat when testing because I have nothing to gain or lose with this. It should actually perform better without the zero than if you were playing on a live wheel.
 
It is certainly no different than what Bayes is going to do with his RNG simulator. These are just random numbers as well and should give a good idea as to how PATTERN BREAKER performs.

in reality there are only 4 patterns:

xxx
xoo
xox
xxo

and i find amusing and "less dangerous" to observe a complete cycle where all the possibilities show at least once.

from this observation one may develop different ways of speculation.

what i find rare is to see the 4 formations showing up in a row. 1234...
24 in 256

but this is just one way.

you may develop a playing model on this with smart mm.

cheers

[TwoCatSam]

what i find rare is to see the 4 formations showing up in a row. 1234...
24 in 256

Useful information.  Very useful!  I love it!!

Thanks...

Sam

[albertojonas]

what i find rare is to see the 4 formations showing up in a row. 1234...
24 in 256

Useful information.  Very useful!  I love it!!

Thanks...

Sam

this is one possibilitie...

[justanothergambler]

at the time when the ball spins and you are waiting for  "her" it to land in that blackhole (pocket), you have always less than 50% to win no matter how you twist and arrange those H and L.. I tested them before, they will hurt you from nowhere!

cheers

[Johnlegend]

JAG it doesnt work like that with the PATTERN BREAKER concept, We are letting random flow and work for us, Until there is one Pattern standing, Or two now as my focus is on the stunning consistency of the 7th pattern, From there we flow with random allow it to do what it does naturally and just collect profit when it does, PATTERN 7 may be a progression grail, have have 3920 results, Random usually close that 7th pattern inside 3 attempts,  A 63 units progression would have made me 3920 units profit and never have fallen, Nothing else ive used or seen can match thore numbers, I will post a method for it soon, Even if the strikrate were 200/1 Thats a great breakdown but 3920 for 0, Is out of this world, As far as im concerned thats a grail,

[albertojonas]

what i find rare is to see the 4 formations showing up in a row. 1234...
24 in 256

Useful information.  Very useful!  I love it!!

Thanks...

Sam

Also
1111
2222
3333
4444


for of the same formation in a row are rare
=)
one can reduce bets and go for it... only two bets have to be placed at maximum to exploit this =)


as JAG says it is GF at is best application =)

[TwoCatSam]

one can reduce bets and go for it... only two bets have to be placed at maximum to exploit this =)

Alberto

I was just going to explain, using the logic of KonFuSed, how this is pure gambler's fallacy, but the above statement stopped me cold.

Would you or JAG care to explain it, or if it has been explained and I missed it, point me in the right direction.

Sam

[albertojonas]

one can reduce bets and go for it... only two bets have to be placed at maximum to exploit this =)

Alberto

I was just going to explain, using the logic of KonFuSed, how this is pure gambler's fallacy, but the above statement stopped me cold.

Would you or JAG care to explain it, or if it has been explained and I missed it, point me in the right direction.

Sam

After all mathematically it is always 50% minus the zero. Doesn't matter what triggers are chosen for bet selection, in raw the odds stay the same. It has been explained countless times.


The only difference is the spam of the correction. One can play a lifetime winning as other can lose at first session. It is just that some believe that some bets have less dispersion of hits than others and that can be exploited with nice money management.


There are no illusions.   

========================================================
I would like to add that i often see this progression being applied:
+1 on a Loss -1 on a Win.
In my head this misses logic. It is supposed to bet more on wins and less on losses. So for me this configures inverted logic.
I would prefer to raise my unit on a loss and stay the same on a win.
a bit off topic but i had to mention it.

========================================================
About the bet suggested above it is simple:


You see RRR BBB BBB R_->here you bet chop (B)
if lost
you bet again.
===============================


I want to refer also that when we mention mathematically it means on a infinite number of spins...
Did anyone see 60 reds in a row?
NOT. but it is possible. Anyone won the lottery 3 times in a row? Not. But still possible....
Who never got a green light when arriving at traffic lights?


We play Human conditioned sessions, on Live Roulette it means at most 350 spins. The formations that appear on such sessions are common and Huge deviations are rare. One must tend to explore what is most common.


Cheers