*PATTERN BREAKER*

[superman]

I have never lost two games in a row in 3.5 years

You know, you make statements like this all the time, only a year ago you were playing the zone, thats all you were playing, as you never mentioned any of these matrix ideas back then, you also stated you had been playing the zone for many years, people need to read between the lines with you, newbies don't know your history on the forums, many have started losing recently, what do you say to them? like stuart for example, he's playing LIVE wheel and it collapsed like a cheap garden chair, I noticed you didn't respond to him, wonder why.

[superman]

i know red and black are different than H L and O E

Mate, how did you work that out?

[Johnlegend]

You know, you make statements like this all the time, only a year ago you were playing the zone, that's all you were playing, as you never mentioned any of these matrix ideas back then, you also stated you had been playing the zone for many years, people need to read between the lines with you, newbies don't know your history on the forums, many have started losing recently, what do you say to them? like stuart for example, he's playing LIVE wheel and it collapsed like a cheap garden chair, I noticed you didn't respond to him, wonder why.

Pattern Breaker isnt a Matrix idea Superman. I am under no obligation to reveal all that I do until I am ready to do so. I responded to him in general. I can ONLY go with what I see. I saw a stealth today Superman. 40 spins after my session was over. So guess what I know it can happen. You can bust open the miller lite now. But I don't think you are capable of understanding this game can be beaten overall. When you apply the three tenets of success properly.

Everything you do has to have maths logic to back you up. I play HIT AND RUN for a reason. It WORKS. Especially effective when the paper odds are LARGER. You are cutting out the possibility of running into a losing game with far greater odds in your favour. Some people can't win no matter what you give them Superman. You must know this by now yourself. If for example I said (fact) that I have only seen one VERTICAL 8 for the dozens in over 2000 vertical QUADS recorded. All of a sudden someone will have them popping up like daisies. I tell it as I see it. What you do with that information is up to you. I say paper test till you are happy with it yourself. I don't say go out and take out a loan and play it straight away.

Regarding the Zone I played it from 2001 up until I realized the MATRIX CONCEPT was better. I am not precious over my methods Superman. CODE 4 isnt mine. NEITHER is THE REVERSE SLIDE. And DIVIDE AND CONQUER TOO. Keep that in mind. Before you try and tar and feather me as some charlatan out to rip people off. How I am supposed to be doing that I will never know. You want your little Bot world to remain in tact where a method goes in and gets ripped to threads. And you can sleep well at night knowing all you believe in is safe. So you don't find yourself questioning your own intelligence. ITS NOT THAT SIMPLE BUB. And that's my role here. To make that known.

[Anthony]

I have a question.

I don't really have a lot of money to play with so I was wondering instead of 2,4,8 if I could use 1,2,4 step progression?

I feel like because this doesn't lose twice in a row it might be the best system for me to play.

Thanks!

[Bayes]

Anthony,

How do you know it doesn't lose twice in a row? Make sure you do your own research, what has worked for JL might not work for you.

It WILL lose twice in a row, the only thing you don't know is when. If you're willing to take that risk, fine, but please don't play with money you can't afford to lose on the strength of what JL has said.

[Robeenhuut]

Anthony,

How do you know it doesn't lose twice in a row? Make sure you do your own research, what has worked for JL might not work for you.

It WILL lose twice in a row, the only thing you don't know is when. If you're willing to take that risk, fine, but please don't play with money you can't afford to lose on the strength of what JL has said.

Hello Bayes

U sound like there is a conspiracy here 2 mislead some newbies.  I think that everybody here has enough brains 2 come 2 their own conclusions.  Everything can lose twice in row of course. Nobody claims the opposite here. But it might be when u r a way ahead.
Do u have something better here.  Share with us plz.  About the math - f u play system with chance of losing lets say once in 81 chances u can go easily 500 or more consecutive wins.


Regards

[Bayes]

U sound like there is a conspiracy here 2 mislead some newbies.

No, I'm not saying that there's a conspiracy or that anyone is trying to deliberately mislead newbies.

I think that everybody here has enough brains 2 come 2 their own conclusions.  Everything can lose twice in row of course. Nobody claims the opposite here

Um.. I think someone just did. Anthony said: "because this doesn't lose twice in a row..."

But it might be when u r a way ahead.

It might, or it might lose twice consecutively.  Maybe you've forgotten what it's like to be a newbie, but you tend to believe some things which looking back seem ridiculous after the benefit of some experience and knowledge.

Do You have something better here.  Share with us plz.

So I'm not allowed to post a cautionary comment unless I have something better? I've contributed enough to this forum and I'm under no obligation to post something "better". I don't believe any simple systems can win long term. JL's "solution" to this is hit & run, which is a fallacy.

About the math - f u play system with chance of losing lets say once in 81 chances You can go easily 500 or more consecutive wins.

Maybe so, but where did Anthony get the idea that this particular system can't lose twice in a row?
Listen, it's not my place to be some kind of nanny - people should be responsible for their own actions and make their own mistakes, and that's really the best way to learn, but I'm not going to ignore a claim which is so obviously wrong.

[Robeenhuut]

Hello Bayes

D problem here is that u think that there r no "simple" systems or methods that r successful in d long term.
How do u know that?. Did u test them all? So gamblers fallacy does not apply 2 whatever u r using?

I dont want 2 brag but im doing ok so far with these simple methods n i dont play any systems posted here recently with exception of CODE 4. N im not a newbie here  maybe except in number of posts.

N i dont want u 2 post anything because im ok with my stuff. I just hate empty criticism 4 d sake of it.
U just pick up on 1 negative comment n ride on it.

Regards

[Johnlegend]

Hello Bayes

D problem here is that u think that there r no "simple" systems or methods that r successful in d long term.
How do You know that?. Did u test them all? So gamblers fallacy does not apply 2 whatever u r using?

I don't want 2 brag but I'm doing ok so far with these simple methods n i don't play any systems posted here recently with exception of CODE 4. N I'm not a newbie here  maybe except in number of posts.

N i don't want u 2 post anything because I'm ok with my stuff. I just hate empty criticism 4 d sake of it.
U just pick up on 1 negative comment n ride on it.

Regards

Well said Robeenhutt. To Anthony. I don't claim PATTERN BREAKER *WILL NEVER LOSE TWICE*. I stated I've never lost twice in the 3.5 years I've played it. Now the way I play it with BOTH HIGH LOW and ODD EVEN SIMULTANEOUSLY.

You are very unlikely to lose both in the same session. Keep in mind I play like this five times a day. Bayes is right to offer a cautionary word.

And as a Newbie you need to invest a lot of time in testing a method on paper before you risk your money. Robeenhutt is also right in saying LONGTERM you will profit from these methods. But take it slow to begin with. Until you have an understanding of why it works.

Once you reach a certain level with any of these methods, you are beyond negative figures. But this takes time. Hit and run is no fallacy particularly on an 80/1 method. Bayes couldnt argue that point with any solid grounds. When playing a method such as CODE 4, 2 by 2 has given me a startling strikerate of now 1010/1. But would be at least 1000/11 if I had played drawn out sessions.

The value of hit and run has shown itself right there. Without question its superior to continuos play.

[Anthony]

Thank you for Bayes and JohnLegend for both or your responses!

I agree there is risk in everything you do. Nothing in life is certain. But ultimately it's the people who take chances who succeed. If you just sit around waiting for something to happen you will still be in the same place you were when you started.

From what I have read on this forum even before becoming a member I believe this is one of the best systems to play. I do plan on doing ALOT more testing just to be comfortable with this system before I play it.

JohnLegend you say you play Hi-Lo/Odd Even at the same time? How does that work? Do you record a spin and if it's lets say 9 you will mark down that spin in one column as Lo and in another column as Odd? Please tell me if that's correct.

[Bayes]

D problem here is that u think that there r no "simple" systems or methods that r successful in d long term.
How do You know that?. Did u test them all? So gamblers fallacy does not apply 2 whatever u r using?

That's not a problem, just don't use simple systems. 

I didn't say I know it, I said I believe it, based on the fact that none of the systems I've tested over the years hold up. It's also common sense; the only constant and "predictable" thing about random outcomes is that they're continually changing, if your method isn't flexible or can't change with random (which is what simple systems don't do), then how can you expect it to keep up? you're demanding that outcomes conform to your rigid expectations. That can't work.
And no, the gambler's fallacy doesn't apply to the way I play.

N i don't want u 2 post anything because I'm ok with my stuff. I just hate empty criticism 4 d sake of it.

Did I miss something? where is the empty criticism? all I did was point out to Anthony that PATTERN BREAKER  can lose twice in a row, even John admits that.

U just pick up on 1 negative comment n ride on it.

Again, I don't know what bought this on, which negative comment are you talking about?

by the way John, when you have time, please could you respond to my request in this thread? thanks.

@ John,

When testing systems, I assume you don't play live but use recorded spins. If so, where do you get the spins and how do you simulate the Hit & Run strategy?

[frost]

And no, the gambler's fallacy doesn't apply to the way I play.

that's interesting. i thought gamblers fallacy was evident in all systems because we are always 'expecting' something to happen. if it isn't present that would mean you would win on your first bet all the time wouldn't it?

[Chrisbis]

Its because he uses excellent Maths and great MM frost.
Totally different (though sometimes very laborious) game!

[Robeenhuut]

that's interesting. i thought gamblers fallacy was evident in all systems because we are always 'expecting' something to happen. if it isn't present that would mean you would win on your first bet all the time wouldn't it?

Its because he uses excellent Maths and great MM frost.
Totally different (though sometimes very laborious) game!

Hello everybody

I guess Bayes applies Bayes theorem 2 roulette n makes a killing. Im pretty good @ mathematics 2 so i will have 2 research this more  because we all know now that all "simple" methods suck n d way 2 beat roulette is 2 have PhD in mathematics n MBA - massive bank account.

N he even does not worry about GF 

Regards

[Chrisbis]

Hello everybody

I guess..............

N he even does not worry about GF 

Regards

I take GF to mean Girl Friend!! LoL