JohnLegend's systems: Do they work as claimed?

[Bayes]

I'm interested in finding out what people think of John's systems, since they've attracted quite a bit of attention in the past.
Not to be taken too seriously, and of course, the results won't really "prove" anything one way or the other.

[vundarosa]

Personally what interest me on JL systems is the low BR required. They lose just as expected of any system but they're definitely a decent way to slowly build one's BR, and are easy to understand.

Of course a big challenge for someone with a low BR is time management. One has to invest a lot of time for a seemingly small reward...but when playing with a big enough BR, i actually think JL systems are worth the trouble.
 
my 2 cents

vundarosa

[amk]

Personally what interest me on JL systems is the low BR required. They lose just as expected of any system but they're definitely a decent way to slowly build one's BR, and are easy to understand.

Of course a big challenge for someone with a low BR is time management. One has to invest a lot of time for a seemingly small reward...but when playing with a big enough BR, I actually think JL systems are worth the trouble.
 
my 2 cents

vundarosa

Fully agree vundarosa.......

Hello Bayes, after a lot of roulette research I just find JohnLegends methods to ring true and his results speak for themselves..............

[Bayes]

The problem I have with John's systems, and all the currently fashionable "matrix methods", is that the bet selections are always touted as effective ways to somehow trick random - the implication is that "random" is unlikely to come up with the pattern in the matrix, and that's where you get your advantage. This is a bit like lottery players who would never choose the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 because that pattern is too "perfect", instead they use something like 3,7,16,23,28,34, which seems to be more "random", and thus more likely to hit. Like many roulette players, they forget that all sequences are equally likely. It's really not hard to come up with a new matrix system. Here's one -

RBBBR
BRBRR
BBRBB

The idea is to arrange the outcomes in lines and bet for the 'V' shape NOT to occur. It took me precisely 3 seconds to invent this system. There are literally millions of matrix methods you could dream up, but just because you arrange the outcomes in a particular way and then abstract patterns doesn't mean that those patterns are less likely to occur than any others you didn't happen to think of. A pattern isn't necessary at all in order for the chance of success to be exactly the same. For example, you would get the same results by betting on Red in each of the positions where you would normally bet against the V pattern forming.

[Chrisbis]

I see Ur point Very precisely Jules.

Here's my take on it.

If U take the mentioned matrix, and strung it out in a 'Straight Line', like we would with normal play, the choice of when to bet, becomes a variant on a straight line rule. Forinstance.

Here's Ur "V" formation:-

RBBBR
BRBRR
BBRBB

But shown as a straight line load:-

RBBBRBRBRRBBRBB

and the "V" now shows as:-

RBBBRBRBRRBBRBB

which could be a written rule of:-

"Bet on the 1st spin, then the 5th spin, then the 7th spin, then  the 9th spin, then the 13th spin, in a series of 15 blocks of spins."

U see, when Unwrapping the 'Illuzion' bet, it can become a reasonably easy bet to wright a function formula for.

Having said all that, I like the cleverness of the Matrix bets, and  if "Clever" can put on over the Roulette Random, then so be it.
Where I think the Matrix needs to go, is in playing a variety of Matrices (Matri'i) all at the same time, and allowing a computer program to decide which one suit the conditions thrown out by the Spin results at that time.

[superman]

allowing a computer program to decide which one suit the conditions thrown out by the Spin results at that time

Theres no decision to be made though, the odds are identical no matter what eye candy you look at, JL has been lucky to avoid losing attacks, others haven't had the same luck, that's all it boils down to, luck

[artattack]

I do see your point regarding the forming of patterns, for the V in your example to form once is of course possible, but using Johns thoughts on random, can random form that same V four times in a row. and how often. This is what we are betting against.

[superman]

can random form that same V four times in a row. and how often

Often enough to take back whatever you won, random is forming whatever patterns they are visualising on a frequent enough basis, the only thing they have for them is this hit n run thingy ma bob, which equates to luck and nothing else.

[Chrisbis]

I do see your point regarding the forming of patterns, for the V in your example to form once is of course possible, but using Johns thoughts on random, can random form that same V four times in a row. and how often. This is what we are betting against.

............and when it DOES form those patterns Four times in a row, all your left with (as a player) is to PROGRESS Urself out of trouble, exactly the same as you would (if you choose to do so), with any other System/Routine/Sequence.

Maybe the real question, is the comparison between a Progression of a Matrix Sequence, and its ability to recover; and, any other system play, that uses Progressions to recover.

[superman]

Maybe the real question, is the comparison between a Progression of a Matrix Sequence, and its ability to recover; and, any other system play, that uses Progressions to recover

Exactly Chris, the results will be the same no matter what pattern you choose to follow

[warrior]

I do see your point regarding the forming of patterns, for the V in your example to form once is of course possible, but using Johns thoughts on random, can random form that same V four times in a row. and how often. This is what we are betting against.

YESTERDAY driveing to my workout im stopped at a red light see this nice looking girl on a bike, by the way this true ,one hour later i meet the same girl on here bike at the same red light what are the odds,this happens to alot of people,but if i go to my workout at the same time today at the same red light will i see the same girl on the bike at the same red light maybe ,maybe not but if it happens today i will be amazed.

[Chrisbis]

So now its all down to:

Progression.....!

[Chrisbis]

Few facts then.

• Matrix appears to ONLY require 4-6 steps of progression to Win.
• Many other Systems, require 10-16-20 steps of progression to Win.
• No Matrix (till proven otherwise) can Win with Continuous Play.
• No System has shown to Win on a Continuous Play.

Would anyone like to Comment, or Add/Subtract this statements?

[GLC]

Here's my basic thought on matrices.  If we play any of the methods posted on this forum, we are usually just betting that the last result in a formation will either be something or not be something.  If it's a dozen then there's 1 in 3 chances it will be or 2 in 3 chances it won't be.  The 1 in 3 pays 2:1 and the 2:3 pays 1:2.  I don't see an advantage here.  If you have three opportunities to bet you should get 1 yes and 2 nos for single dozen bet or 2 yeses and 1 no for double dozen bet.


The really difficult way is to bet against the "slide" as an example, forming from the 2nd spin or even the 1st spin.  Example:  Let's say we're betting againts the following:


1223
2122
1211
3221


That's four 1's on a left top to bottom right diagonal.  If we wait till three have formed, we only have a 1 in 3 chance that it will form the 4th, or 2 in 3 that it won't form.


If we start betting on the 2nd row (2122) that the 1 won't show and then if it does, we bet on the 3rd row (1211) that the 1 won't show etc... Now it will be a rare event.  The problem is that we will have to have a very big progression in order to make money every time our bet is right.


I don't know all the math, but I know logically that we have the same odds of winning in the long run whether we wait to only bet against the 4th 1 showing, or we start betting against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th 1 showing.


Betting against the whole slide forming gives us a lot more wins than waiting until the 1st 3 numbers have formed and then betting the 4th won't.  The problem is an overall loss betting against all 4 forming, sets us back proportionately as much as a loss when only betting for the last number to not show.


Okay, it's early here.  But you get the point I'm trying  to make.  Right?

[6th-sense]

i see we have yet another poll..just to put a little pointer here i,ve played continiously diaganoly like the slide version but with a small tweak ie if the results were this
a b c c    heres the 1st line
A b c a    here a comes under a so our next bet will on the next line sliding under b
b B C a    is a b again so lose but now we stay on this line and bet the last 2 dozens above
c b b a     which in this case is c and a it hits doz c first so we win...

               with this and using another doz system its very easy not to progress too much as one system helps the other out...john legend is on the right track....a quick question to you superman...one system is not like any other at all ...i,ll put this to you and other coders on here   if we were to play double streets ie n1  to n6   so there are of course 6 n6,s....in typical matrix mode  you write down the very 1st 6 n6 or to most double streets  ie the results are ds 6-4-1-4-3-5   the odds are astronomical of you hitting the very same numbers again(double streets)  i call it roulette codebreaker..chrisbis i think you need time out making silly polls...patience is the key and using two systems at least which is not very hard is the answer  ...i don,t think you have it ..wheres alibabha gone?