The most productive topic in here that will help us go on with theis game

[Johnlegend]

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.

[Johnlegend]

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.

[TwoCatSam]

Game on!!

[Bayes]

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.

[superman]

One 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.

[Nickmsi]

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

[Johnlegend]

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.