Will you ever acknowledge the existence of the Grail witout VB?

[Drazen]

Dear friends

Lately we got unique opportunity to witness the existence of the Grail. It goes beyond all our hopes, imaginations and expectations. It seems it is right here in front of our noses and we even have some hints how to get it for ourselves. All thanks to Priyanka. Most mysterious and most polite member I have ever spoke with.

Or maybe you think I rushed with conclusions?

But what about achieved score for the mentioned first ranked player in our internal casino here? I mean about his win rate? Am I the only one who finds this enough thrilling that nothing except having very healthy edge could explain it?

So the main question is: Is this enough for all mathematicians, statisticians, professional players, recreationists or just sympathizers of this powerful game who doubt creating a mathematical edge is possible without use of visual ballistics, finally to admit that such concept maybe is possible?

Or there is only some big fraud in all this which can explain it?

[3Nine]

I don't need to be sold.

[RouletteGhost]

Priyanka definitely backed up the words

[JimmieB]

Think I need to read through the Pri thread(s), thanks Pri

[TurboGenius]

"We" don't know the number of spins bet on.
I would suppose that it's data though that is available somewhere - but it's the most important
factor in saying something is a success or not.
Balance, amount bet and amount won / win rate don't tell the story at all.

So the main question is: Is this enough for all mathematicians, statisticians, professional players, recreationists or just sympathizers of this powerful game who doubt creating a mathematical edge is possible without use of visual ballistics, finally to admit that such concept maybe is possible?

No. Not without knowing how many spins were played.

Or there is only some big fraud in all this which can explain it?

I wouldn't go that far lol. But we don't have the information needed to figure it out.
If it "IS" a large number of spins played - even then - in order for it to be proof we would have
to rule out any possibility of cheating. We would have to rule out any possible flaw with the numbers as well. I've seen for myself strange things that normal spins don't do. If there is some
error in how the spins are being displayed, etc - that has to be ruled out as well.
At that point you could consider it a genuinely great method of playing - but only once these issues are resolved.

[Tomla021]

Priyanka def has something in her toolbox that we would all love to have!!!!! It is so cool and gives hope

[TurboGenius]

Priyanka def has something in her toolbox that we would all love to have!!!!! It is so cool and gives hope

I would agree - but again that all depends on the number of spins played total.
I don't believe in the term 'luck' but in order for something to be worthy of any excitement, it has to be backed up with data, and at this time we are limited to just "what looks good".
(Life has taught me that what looks good is rarely the best answer lol)

[Steve]

I wouldnt get too excited yet. He's played just 166 spins.

I'm more than happy to say there's more ways to beat roulette than just VB. But I cant say other methods don't increase accuracy of predictions. Why has been explained many times.

[Tomla021]

Is Pryanka a man or a woman .  Me thinks woman but what do I know......,,,, Im pretty confidant she can keep her win rate over 2 ----She also kept the same above 2 pre "the reset" ,,,,

[RouletteGhost]

im convinced that even if you prove it and show it and live it, it won't matter

priyanka may turn into that proof

the naysayers will stay naysayers no matter what

[TurboGenius]

I wouldnt get too excited yet. He's played just 166 spins.

Well, that explains that. lol

im convinced that even if you prove it and show it and live it, it won't matter
priyanka may turn into that proof
the naysayers will stay naysayers no matter what

No way - when someone does that amazing thing - even the naysayers will have to agree that something works once it's proven to work. No one can seriously think that 166 spins is anywhere near enough to "get excited" over.
That's like a 180 average bowler having a 300 game. It's entirely possible, but after 30 more games - their average is 180.... Now (like people I know) - have 7 or 8 300's ? Of course, who can argue that person knows what their doing.
Makes it easier now - knowing the spin count - to answer the questions though.

Or maybe you think I rushed with conclusions?

[icashbot]

where can i play this table please ?

[TurboGenius]

link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=16796.0

[Drazen]

Thank you for your replies. I think all this will be exciting as the time flows.

TG and Steve I agree. It is all about the proofs. We will never get it in full step by step to test it each for ourselves of course, but if Priyanka decides to play enough of spins in our game, I think it should be valid proof in the end. But how many?

My personal opinion is that the edge in Priyankas way of play isn't questionable, but only time will tell.

But how many minimum played spins we must take as a proof if the hit rate will still be above expectations then?

5K ,10K, 100K or more?

Of course for placing 100K or more bets manually will take enormous amount of time, unless Pri decides to make a bot, so I think this proving could take some time.

Cheers

[Drazen]

I'm more than happy to say there's more ways to beat roulette than just VB.

Do you mean aside from using physics (RC)?