Blue Angel's HG (Fallacious)

[thelaw]

FHG?

Fallacious Holy Grail (named by Blue Angel)

[denzie]

@nick... started from 1unit Base bet ?

[Steve]

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.

[thelaw]

Couple of clarifications :

1) System is based on cold ec, so, yes, based on cold numbers.......but not just a few, the ec that's the most behind for each 37 spin cycle

2) The 1 million spin test on this thread is a similar system, but not the exact system as outlined by Blue Angel (on first page). It was provided as a reference.

3) Someone else mentioned the $100K reward, not Blue Angel. As it is his system, respectfully, it would be up to him to make that claim if he chooses

4) As far as I know, BA has not posted his 1 million spins, but has the challenge out to anyone to find a sequence that kills the method. He also stated that the method beat all of the Weisbaden Spielbank results. This data has not been presented on any forum as far as I know. BA has run the method on each and every challenge set provided publicly on several forums.

5) As for a "lucky" million spins, let's be precise. How many spins proves that a system actually works long term? Keep in mind, the 1 million spin test on this thread had an average +1 unit for each 55 spins and a dd over 5000 units.........not sure I would call that lucky, but maybe..

All of the above is to the best of my knowledge, so probably best to get precise details from BA himself!!!

[Steve]

How many spins proves that a system actually works long term?

There is no set number. Simply the more spins you test, the higher the probability that the system is a genuine winner. Even with bias analysis, 10,000 spins doesnt guarantee a bias is real. It is just a statistically relevant sample, and calculated risk. But for the purposes of testing a system like this, 1M spins would be adequate, but then i would test it again over a completely different 1m spins with proper rng algorithm.

If no zero roulette is used, then there is no house edge and beating 1M spins would be more plausible.

[denzie]

All of the above is to the best of my knowledge, so probably best to get precise details from BA himself!!!

Let's bring him over here 
And as his manager I'll take 20% . Just kiddiiiiing. 
Seriously though. ...would be interesting to let him join the thread.

[RouletteGhost]

i think its pretty cut and dry

the man won a 1,000,000 spin test

however i do not see it as playable

[denzie]

i think its pretty cut and dry

the man won a 1,000,000 spin test

however i do not see it as playable

Why not? On fast rng spins it's very playable

[RouletteGhost]

Why not? On fast rng spins it's very playable

i guess so.....hey if it works....and u got the balls and the bankroll

[Steve]

At the moment we know nothing about the parameters used in the test, or the spins. I see free energy devices all the time with fantastic claims from the inventor. And when it comes to other people replicating experiments and validating claims, everything falls flat. It doesnt mean free energy doesnt exist because it clearly does (solar for example), but my point is often improper testing is done.

[Steve]

RG any system can be is scalable. It is more the working principles of a system that interest me, not the system itself. ie the mechanism and logic behind the bet selection. Because then if it worked, it can be applied to many areas.

[denzie]

At the moment we know nothing about the parameters used in the test, or the spins. I see free energy devices all the time with fantastic claims from the inventor. And when it comes to other people replicating experiments and validating claims, everything falls flat. It doesnt mean free energy doesnt exist because it clearly does (solar for example), but my point is often improper testing is done.

Well will see if Blue_Angel or Nickmsi wanna join the challenge. .... would be interesting right ?

[thelaw]

There is no set number. Simply the more spins you test, the higher the probability that the system is a genuine winner. Even with bias analysis, 10,000 spins doesnt guarantee a bias is real. It is just a statistically relevant sample, and calculated risk. But for the purposes of testing a system like this, 1M spins would be adequate, but then i would test it again over a completely different 1m spins with proper rng algorithm.

If no zero roulette is used, then there is no house edge and beating 1M spins would be more plausible.

At some point we have to call it.

If not, 1 million is labeled possibly "lucky", so then 2 million..........then maybe there's an issue with that.......the line keeps moving.

I would say 1 Million spins is enough proof to actually play the system live or rng, unless there is a flaw in the testing.

Hopefully Nickmsi can provide more testing info. I don't think that BA is interested in joining this forum, or he'd be here already.

[Steve]

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?

[Steve]

Again about rhe progression, look at it: 1,2,4,8,16,32,64

Thats out of control. One of two things can happen: you get really lucky with the larger bets, or blow your bankroll. So which is going to happen? Well are the cold numbers going to come back in waves? NO..... Roulette doesnt work like that. Its easy to prove, See the free software. The same principles have been tested countless times.