CODE 4

[Bayes]

Spot on AMK, its plain common sense really. But often those with rigidly logical thinking lack that to some degree. Aside from the method I drop on here on Sunday. Hit and run is the superior application for methods like PATTERN BREAKER, CODE 4, DIVIDE AND CONQUER, and of course PATTERN 4. It simply works, you will land between losing games more often than you land ON THEM. that's the plain fact Bayes. I have 16 years of experience playing both ways. I could never get an edge longterm playing STRAIGHT.

Sometimes  common sense can lead you astray, and you need to use 'rigidly logical' thinking to get you back on track. This is a case in point. The notion of time is a red herring in this discussion - the bottom line is the number of spins you play . So how long should you leave between hit and run sessions in terms of the number of spins? You realise the absurdity of the position if you try to justify the answer to this question. 10 spins? 20? 100? why should the choice of one be preferable to another unless you're using some other criteria as your entry point into a game.

JL, if you're getting superior results playing hit and run it must be because of some other factor which you haven't told us about. As Smee has pointed out, the only 'advantage' is delaying the inevitable. If you only play 2 or 3 games per day and your entry into the game is random, it won't make any difference to the final results than if you played 20 games per day, or continuously, the only difference is it will take longer to lose.

[Bayes]

The center of discussion seems to be that It is an unproved claim. I realize that John has his own dogmas regarding this game, as any other player creates their own based on personal experience. I really admire the drive JL has in beating the game, and maybe the way he hypes his interventions here, gives courage to many people.
But i am afraid we are running in circles.


Keeping this in the field of healthy discussion, i would ask if anyone can make a substantial proof of such claim.


"HIT & RUN raises odds expectation."


It would be a real turn point in the way we face the game.


Otherwise it will remain forever in the speculation world, and both sides of the opinion will never advance.


Anyone has a valid hypothesis to submit with verifiable results?
If there is genuine interest on this we should open a new thread.

Good Luck
Zer0Blue

Well said. To keep this forum alive it needs to ruthlessly weed out those approaches which don't work or are based on fallacies. If no-one speaks out or challenges unproven dogma then we're doomed to endlessly regurgitate the same old failed systems. The newbies deserve better than that.

[amk]

Hello Bayes and ZeroBlue,

This will be the last of my thoughts about playing styles on this thread. Perhaps ZeroBlue can take the lead and start a new "Philosophies" thread......  I just really enjoy playing, discussing and creating methods Love hearing from the likes of Bayes, ZeroBlue, Hermes, JohnLegend, Proofreader, XXVV, the list goes on......

If for example we analyze 5000 perhaps 10000 spins and see a consistent pattern of wins and loses, as I mentioned earlier

WWWLWWWLWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWLLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWLW

I would expect that the next 5000 or 10000 spins analyzed will show the same pattern. Yes perhaps somewhere, someone will see as short spell of  WWLLWWWLWLLLLWWWLLWWLLLLWW

The vast majority of spins will have the same consistent pattern/flow.........

Each day I, as I like to term it, I through 5 darts at this pattern, a consistent pattern. Then I am not adding up spins in the conventional sense as playing 100 spins straight. Even after I have thrown my darts 100 times I haven't thrown them at a fluctuating pattern, I have kept throwing them at the same pattern...  This pattern has no memory and the odds always remain in my favor.........

[vundarosa]

"If you only play 2 or 3 games per day and your entry into the game is random, it won't make any difference to the final results than if you played 20 games per day, or continuously, the only difference is it will take longer to lose."

--------------

good point!

vundarosa

[vundarosa]

I play for 20 units per game betting every line

a)1A1A
b)2B2B
c)3C3C
against a)
against b)
against c)

and so on

So far, 200 games played no loss

a loss will come eventually but i am moving forward in my BR nevertheless.

vundarosa

-------------

I've now found my first loss...., playing for 15-20u per section.

240 Games won
1 loss --120u lost
Max profit before loss: 254u
Total profit: +134u

zero appeared in the second bet, i only cover zero on 3rd and 4th bets. Maybe need to cover zero from second bet onwards...


vundarosa

[Johnlegend]

Sometimes  common sense can lead you astray, and you need to use 'rigidly logical' thinking to get you back on track. This is a case in point. The notion of time is a red herring in this discussion - the bottom line is the number of spins you play . So how long should you leave between hit and run sessions in terms of the number of spins? You realise the absurdity of the position if you try to justify the answer to this question. 10 spins? 20? 100? why should the choice of one be preferable to another unless you're using some other criteria as your entry point into a game.

JL, if you're getting superior results playing hit and run it must be because of some other factor which you haven't told us about. As Smee has pointed out, the only 'advantage' is delaying the inevitable. If you only play 2 or 3 games per day and your entry into the game is random, it won't make any difference to the final results than if you played 20 games per day, or continuously, the only difference is it will take longer to lose.

I'm afraid you are very wrong on those assumptions Bayes. Example of what I would get if I played for intance PATTERN BREAKER, Consecutively.

WWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWLWWLWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWLWWWL

WWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWLWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWL

That would be a typical result if I played PATTERN BREAKER all day long
You would seldom win more than 12 or so games in a row. NOW, my results for the last 70 odd games I played.

WWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWLWWWWWWW

WWWWWWWWLWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWW

As you can see you still get the typical 5 or 6 wins then a loss. BUT, the difference is when a long streak developes it goes on longer than it ever would if you played consecutively. That is the crux of why HIT AND RUN produces a superior strikerate. You are landing on winning games MORE than you would playing straight. Its that simple. Call it timing, luck whatever you like. that's what happens. Why that's so difficult for people to take onboard is beyond me. But I have been playing this way for the last 7 years with VASTLY superior results to what straight play used to bring me.
And that's with a method that has paper odds of 7/1. With code 4 you have paper odds of 80/1. The chances of finding a losing game are so much more remote when you play 2 by 2 as I do. Then a 4 figured strikerate becomes more than a pipe dream. I always aim for a strikerate around double that of the paper odds. I have it with the PATTERN BREAKER/4. And I am going way beyond my expectations with CODE 4. I would be happy with 160/1. But I am approaching 400 games no loss. And its not that they don't happen. I have 3 recorded. The thing is I wasn't home. My session was over and I was merely an observer. TWO BY TWO people.

That discipline to shut it down and come back later is PRICELESS. One other thing stop getting hung up on this 20,40 etc spins later branch. its not the reason HIT AND RUN works. It works as I explained because you are far more likely to be landing on a winning game more than you would if you played consecutively.

Consecutively you are on randoms track. When it decides its going to loserville you have no choice. Loserville it is. Playing hit and run. You are the passenger who gets off the train more often before it reaches loserville. You stop off in winnersville more often, before the last stop. Think it over. The casinos will do whatever they can to keep a high roller playing at their tables. They know the likely outcome if they do. I have seen a player walk into a casino, play one game for a 200 units return every day of the week. Then stop and enjoy the rest of the evening at the bar. I have seen people win more in a day than some people earn in a year, only to leave 7 or 8 hours later not able to afford their taxi fare home.

I PLAY HIT AND RUN for one reason, and one reason only, IT WORKS. If there was a way for me to spend 8 consecutive hours playing and winning if I chose to. Id be on it. Well there is, Its coming tomorrow. 

[viclimks]

I'm afraid you are very wrong on those assumptions Bayes. Example of what I would get if I played for intance PATTERN BREAKER, Consecutively.

WWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWLWWLWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWLWWWL

WWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWLWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWL

That would be a typical result if I played PATTERN BREAKER all day long
You would seldom win more than 12 or so games in a row. NOW, my results for the last 70 odd games I played.

WWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWLWWWWWWW

WWWWWWWWLWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWW

As you can see you still get the typical 5 or 6 wins then a loss. BUT, the difference is when a long streak developes it goes on longer than it ever would if you played consecutively. That is the crux of why HIT AND RUN produces a superior strikerate. You are landing on winning games MORE than you would playing straight. Its that simple. Call it timing, luck whatever you like. that's what happens. Why that's so difficult for people to take onboard is beyond me. But I have been playing this way for the last 7 years with VASTLY superior results to what straight play used to bring me.
And that's with a method that has paper odds of 7/1. With code 4 you have paper odds of 80/1. The chances of finding a losing game are so much more remote when you play 2 by 2 as I do. Then a 4 figured strikerate becomes more than a pipe dream. I always aim for a strikerate around double that of the paper odds. I have it with the PATTERN BREAKER/4. And I am going way beyond my expectations with CODE 4. I would be happy with 160/1. But I am approaching 400 games no loss. And its not that they don't happen. I have 3 recorded. The thing is I wasn't home. My session was over and I was merely an observer. TWO BY TWO people.

That discipline to shut it down and come back later is PRICELESS. One other thing stop getting hung up on this 20,40 etc spins later branch. its not the reason HIT AND RUN works. It works as I explained because you are far more likely to be landing on a winning game more than you would if you played consecutively.

Consecutively you are on randoms track. When it decides its going to loserville you have no choice. Loserville it is. Playing hit and run. You are the passenger who gets off the train more often before it reaches loserville. You stop off in winnersville more often, before the last stop. Think it over. The casinos will do whatever they can to keep a high roller playing at their tables. They know the likely outcome if they do. I have seen a player walk into a casino, play one game for a 200 units return every day of the week. Then stop and enjoy the rest of the evening at the bar. I have seen people win more in a day than some people earn in a year, only to leave 7 or 8 hours later not able to afford their taxi fare home.

I PLAY HIT AND RUN for one reason, and one reason only, IT WORKS. If there was a way for me to spend 8 consecutive hours playing and winning if I chose to. Id be on it. Well there is, Its coming tomorrow.

JL,Cheers to u......

[Bayes]

As you can see you still get the typical 5 or 6 wins then a loss. BUT, the difference is when a long streak developes it goes on longer than it ever would if you played consecutively. That is the crux of why HIT AND RUN produces a superior strikerate.

JL, you haven't given a reason why the strike rate should be higher, you've just given a sample of wins and losses (which really means nothing). Why will a winning streak go on longer if 'broken up'? you have no answer to that because there is no answer, it defies all logic. All we have is your claim that you have won using this method, but no-one else seems to be getting the same results.

I have more questions, but since your new system doesn't rely on hit and run, I won't bother with them, for now...

Looking forward to testing the new system.

[Robeenhuut]

JL, you haven't given a reason why the strike rate should be higher, you've just given a sample of wins and losses (which really means nothing). Why will a winning streak go on longer if 'broken up'? you have no answer to that because there is no answer, it defies all logic. All we have is your claim that you have won using this method, but no-one else seems to be getting the same results.

I have more questions, but since your new system doesn't rely on hit and run, I won't bother with them, for now...


Looking forward to testing the new system.

Hello Bayes

And what reason would satisfy u? 100000 spins sample.... I don't think so because you know the answer. Why don't you commission a scientific paper "How 2 beat probability odds playing short hit and run sessions"?  I heard this argument before - yeah he is successful playing this system but wait few more days - he is due 2 lose big sooner or later. Here goes yr 100000 sample....
And i have some stats matching JL numbers. By the way i lost First ever game played Code 4  Now I'm ahead and creeping upwards. But yeah u know that I'm due soon again.

I'm not JL buddy. I think that he maybe unnecessarily over-hypes his methods so some people may feel some letdown. But we r not in PR discussion here 

I feel that his methods have lots of merit and played extremely short sessions should produce winning results LONG TERM unless somebody proves me wrong. How about you? Its so easy 2 be negative.

I wish everybody a good day.

 

[Johnlegend]

JL, you haven't given a reason why the strike rate should be higher, you've just given a sample of wins and losses (which really means nothing). Why will a winning streak go on longer if 'broken up'? you have no answer to that because there is no answer, it defies all logic. All we have is your claim that you have won using this method, but no-one else seems to be getting the same results.

I have more questions, but since your new system doesn't rely on hit and run, I won't bother with them, for now...

Looking forward to testing the new system.
O

I have but you are unwilling to accept it as it goes against all you hold dear. I'm not going to even bother posting anymore methods on this forum. If you cannot take onboard that randomly hitting random for one or two games can produce superior results. To sitting there waiting for the crash.

I'm involved in an excercise of absolute futility. I have nothing to gain by making up anything here. I tell it as it happens. If you can't see that I'm not going to push it anymore. I have more important things pending.

[joiner29]

JL you should not be bothered by these people, they only get their kicks by posting rubbish and trying to belittle other peoples systems. I dont see them posting anything like the consistant methods you post, please keep up the great work
tom

[Bayes]

Hi Robeenhuut,

Sorry you feel I'm being negative, I just thought I was pointing out the obvious. If I thought  maths told the whole story I wouldn't be wasting my time playing roulette, and I wouldn't be winning. I know it's possible to win consistently but hit and run isn't the way forward, it really isn't.

I'm not familiar with all JL's systems, I just know that hit and run is an essential component in them. If he's winning with them then it's due to some other reason. For example, he's compiled stats on how often he will get consecutive losses and he uses fairly heavy progressions, that's the only reason he's winning in my opinion.

What reason would satisfy me?  if there were some kind of trigger to start playing the system based on stats, is one example. But JL says you can enter the game at any point, in other words - randomly. So according to him you can walk up to a table anytime to start play, and you will win more games in the long run by only playing 1 or 2 games, and then leaving the table and coming back X spins later, than if you played 10 or 20 games consecutively without a break. This is what gives you the advantage, according to the hit and run dogma - the mere fact that you're taking  breaks between games.

So someone who plays 20 games in a row is much more likely to fail than someone who plays the 20 games only a couple at a time, even though they've both played exactly the same number of spins. That's important to notice, because the hit and run crowd maintain that the main reason it gives an advantage is because they're not in the game long enough for them to come up against the house edge or the losing runs.

There are just as many losing streaks as winning streaks for any system (in terms of what matters - the payouts). Playing 20 games one after the other, you're just as likely to have picked a winning streak for the system as a losing streak, so there is no reason to believe that hit and run is better. It's really no different than trying to guess whether the next spin is red or black, in terms of whether your random entry point results in wins or losses.

That this is all undeniable assuming you enter the game randomly, which JL says he does.

[Bayes]

I have but you are unwilling to accept it as it goes against all you hold dear. I'm not going to even bother posting anymore methods on this forum. If you cannot take onboard that randomly hitting random for one or two games can produce superior results. To sitting there waiting for the crash.

I'm involved in an excercise of absolute futility. I have nothing to gain by making up anything here. I tell it as it happens. If you can't see that I'm not going to push it anymore. I have more important things pending.

Don't give me that cr*p JL, now you're just throwing your toys out of the pram. 

Take it on the chin and stop trying to make a scapegoat out of me, everyone is encouraged to post systems, but I'm not going to sit idly by and accept what I know to be nonsense, and hit and run is nonsense.

To sitting there waiting for the crash

See? this is the heart of it, but I've just explained in my previous post why it's invalid.  You are no more 'waiting for the crash' by playing consecutive sessions than by playing hit and run.

[atlantis]

I think it better to follow the rules JL laid down for this. Seems logically safer to me...
Anyhow, John - it is Sunday at last - What is name of new method?

A.

[LuckyLucy]

At the end of the day Bayes, none of us are experts at Roulette, otherwise we wouldnt need to create  systems and methods, we would know exactly what to do on every spin and never have any losses.

If someone has a system that works in the long term for them whatever that maybe, just because you dont agree, that is just YOUR opinion, that doesnt constitute it to be nonesense.

If you feel you have a better system that works consistantly, why not post it and share it with us all?

Keep up the good work, not just JL but everyone that contributes to this forum, sharing ideas, trying to help others.

To the doom merchants out there, why can't you offer critique to help try improve a method, not belittle their efforts and ideas, we should be working to the common good.

Lets all work together and beat our common enemy the casino not each other!