The most productive topic in here that will help us go on with theis game

[albertojonas]

Spot on mate, I've said that a few times before, he is relying on the members that are wanting to believe in his methods.

In the land of the blind, the one eyed monster is king

Why should the freak be the King?? 
I see the blind leading the blonde...

[Bayes]

Maybe what i need to ask here is, who, in this forum are the premier algorithmic modelers who can speak with authority regarding any particular method put under the microscope?  If you are among them, can you point me to some of your research so i can be as confident about your results as you are?

There are a few coders here, myself among them. Coding a system is really the only reliable way to find out whether it works long-term, but there are a number of issues which make it problematic. Firstly, as you point out, coders can make mistakes. Most mistakes are likely to occur in the interpretation of the system - maybe the rules are ambiguous, or the coder hasn't bothered to check the output against some known results. The latter check will expose any errors, and should always be done, but in practice it hardly ever is. Usually the coder just posts the results in the form of a graph, and that's the end of it.

Also, some members dismiss coding because either they think it doesn't mirror "real" casino conditions (whatever that means) or they think it's a waste of time anyway because "no-one will ever play 1 million spins". Both of these objections are flawed. ANY system can be simulated, no matter how complex, and that includes "hit & run" rules. Obviously you can't take into account things like patience and discipline, but these factors should count in favour of simulation not against them - a computer has infinite patience and iron discipline - it does exactly what it's told, no more and no less.  JL is always banging on about the "human factor" as being an essential ingredient for success, but he dismisses simulations as worthless, go figure.

And as to "never playing a million spins", the objection misses the point. A new model of car is tested in the factory to destruction - corresponding to 100s of thousands or millions of miles of use. Would you object that such testing is a waste of time because "no-one will ever drive a million miles"? The point is to put the system (car) under extended pressure in as many conditions as possible to identify any weaknesses.

In any case it's irrelevant as a criticism of coding because you can simulate over as many spins as you want; once the program is written it's no more work to run it over 10 million spins than it is to run it over 1000.

Or they say "nothing will hold up over a billion spins", therefore coding is a waste of time.

Yeah, let's bury our heads in the sand and just test enough so that it wins but not so much that it loses. 

[TwoCatSam]

If someone has done tests on RNG play-mode, and, exactly following Legend's instructions, showed evidence that it won't work, then say so.

OK, I'll say so.

I made a movie of some CODE something, playing just the way Atlantis said I should.  My first attempt was wrong.  It lost 80 units on the 13th game.  (I made and posted a screen-shot movie of this.)  If it lost that quickly, how can you ever hope to recover 80 units without losing again?  That is my question.

Notice that none of the promoters of JL came forward to say a word.  Not, "Sam, you did that wrong." or "Sam, you photo shopped that movie". 

John had said he could beat RNG with any CODE system day and night.  His only comment was something like I should pat myself for proving the system did not work.  Yes, I should!!  PAT PAT PAT

It amazes me how people will just eat up graphs and stats without a shred of proof of their validity, but when I post an undeniable truth that goes against JL, the crowd falls mute.

Sam



By the way, this is not "hate" any more than Bayes or Superman's or turner's or rob's or anyone else's post.  It's just me stating my truth.

[Robeenhuut]

Where is u know "who"?  We need more contributors 2 this very valuable thread 

[Johnlegend]

Been there and done that, (that's why he doesn't like me sticking my nose in) you haven't looked deep enough into the archives here mate, since THE ZONE all his systems have been coded and tested against RNG play mode, pure coding random, random.org, RNG real money mode, PHP random and dublinbet live tables, and guess what, they all fail, and not just for me, others have tested too, BUT as I used a bot, which he hates as they prove a point, it was continual play, which he hates too but hit n run has also been tested, there is no difference between RNG play mode or real mode, play mode may be "softer" but you won't beat it like he claims.

You have to remember, he has produced probably 6 or 7 methods over his stay here, all of them are supposedly the dogs dangly bits, but he keeps producing new ones, why is that?

Superman I made a claim I can beat an RNG in PLAY MODE day in and day out. And I am willing to prove it. Under one condition.

You have made it your mission along with a  few others to nonsense my name and methods on this forum at every turn. You acuse me of only coming here because I crave attention. COME ON get real. A roulette forum for ATTENTION?

This is what I propose to prove once and for all not only can I beat an RNG day in day out in play mode (which is the reason I know real money mode cheats) But that in fact the methods I push on this forum do indeed work

I already use a Ladbrokes RNG to help me test my methods and those of other members I see as promising. It has a starting bank of just 200 units. Which is what I always suggest the best Bankroll to start off with. I will take daily pictures of the days newspaper and the current balance on the RNG. I will do this until the balance rises from 200 units to over 600. And if you and any other negatives want to see them you supply me an email. I will do this over and over resetting the RNG back to 200 units. And winning over 600 for as long as you deem necessary.

So you cannot say I just got lucky. YOUR SIDE OF THE BARGAIN. You will then have the decency to come back on this forum and appologize to me in front of all the other members. For your constant doubting and slanderous comments. If you agree to this. We will proceed.

Its time for you and all the other negatives on this forum to see when I state something I mean it.

[TwoCatSam]

"Under one condition.", said John.

What might that condition be?

TwoCat

[mattymattz]

JL,
If you are serious about this demonstration, I would only suggest using video instead of pictures, as people will just claim you photoshopped them... its been done before.
MM

[Johnlegend]

JL,
If you are serious about this demonstration, I would only suggest using video instead of pictures, as people will just claim you photoshopped them... its been done before.
MM

I'm not a technical person MM. I wouldnt know how to doctor anything. Just win at roulette that's my game. Besides I cannot see how you can doctor the screen of a cell phone like that. This is the reason PLAY RNG is the best way to prove this whole thing. You start off with a set Balance. And you cannot add funds like on a real wheel. Your method will either sink or swim. And with only a 200 unit balance I don't have much room for failure. That's the whole point of that small balance. This is the best I can do. Its up to superman. Is he indeed man enough to take the challenge.

[Robeenhuut]

I'm not a technical person MM. I wouldnt know how to doctor anything. Just win at roulette that's my game. Besides I cannot see how you can doctor the screen of a cell phone like that. This is the reason PLAY RNG is the best way to prove this whole thing. You start off with a set Balance. And you cannot add funds like on a real wheel. Your method will either sink or swim. And with only a 200 unit balance I don't have much room for failure. That's the whole point of that small balance. This is the best I can do. Its up to superman. Is he is indeed man enough to take the challenge.

Hello John

D point here is not 2 beat RNG but regular wheel or air ball. We can get real spins data from this forum n do an old fashioned pen a paper testing.  100 games 2 start with n then progress f necessary. It could be done very quickly.

Regards

[TwoCatSam]

John, John, John........

To quote Ronald Reagan:  There you go again!

What conditions?

You made the statement you could beat RNG day and night with any CODE system.  When I proved you wrong, you say you can do it with "conditions".  What conditions?  And why?  What changed, other than I proved you wrong?

MM is right.  WMCapture sells a very easy to use software for less than $40 American.  You can make videos and speak to us directly!

Come on, John!  Show ol' Superman up!  Show us all up!  Win and we will all make money and hail you the "Roulette King".

Geez, I'd love to!!

Sam

[TwoCatSam]

Hello John

D point here is not 2 beat RNG but regular wheel or air ball. We can get real spins data from this forum n do an old fashioned pen a paper testing.  100 games 2 start with n then progress f necessary. It could be done very quickly.

Regards

I posted "The TwoCat 5,000" a couple of years ago.  It was a real wheel meticulously recorded for 5,000 spins.  One hundred per day for fifty days.

If you can beat "The TwoCat 5,000", you have something!!

Sam

[Johnlegend]

Hello John

D point here is not 2 beat RNG but regular wheel or air ball. We can get real spins data from this forum n do an old fashioned pen a paper testing.  100 games 2 start with n then progress f necessary. It could be done very quickly.

Regards

Robeenhuut. That comes next. You are missing the point. Superman has called me a liar. Along with some others. A fraudster only here for attention. He and Bayes both hold this ridiculous belief that if a method can't survive a bot test. Its of no worth. I then made the statement that all my methods thrive on a play mode RNG. And I can beat it at will. He says that's nonsense. Its time to throw down. And once and for all show the newbies and the oldies. That I don't come here to stroke my ego and get attention. I come here to show this game is for the taking. When you play it the right way.

[Johnlegend]

John, John, John........

To quote Ronald Reagan:  There you go again!

What conditions?

You made the statement you could beat RNG day and night with any CODE system.  When I proved you wrong, you say you can do it with "conditions".  What conditions?  And why?  What changed, other than I proved you wrong?

MM is right.  WMCapture sells a very easy to use software for less than $40 American.  You can make videos and speak to us directly!

Come on, John!  Show ol' Superman up!  Show us all up!  Win and we will all make money and hail you the "Roulette King".

Geez, I'd love to!!

Sam

I'm a private person. I don't do public videos for anyone. You are lucky I am offering this. I  don't want to be the roulette anything. I simply show what I use to win. The point is. Superman claims an RNG can't be beaten consistently. Now I say it can. And I have done it for years. that's why I jump on anyone who says a real money RNG is fair. Because its NOT.

[Johnlegend]

Superman has to decide what comes first. His ego or the truth. Because he has alot to lose here and he knows it. Im going to blow this maths rubbish out of the water before im done on here. Then I wont have to ever post another thing. The whole maths related to roulette thing will be debunked. Once and for all. Einstein was wrong. theyre all wrong. Ive known it for years.

Random has a saturation point. A level it can so rarely fall below. It can be read like a book and exploited. One of the members on this forum I have TRUE respect for. Is XXVV. He talked pure sense about the game. His posts inspired the hell out of me. And made me a better player than I was before I read them. He talked of the forces of random closing the net on a pattern. GOD WAS HE RIGHT. And I have findings I havent even imparted on here and neverwill. I will put them into real action. And let any interested ask to know. This game is so beatable its ridiculous.

But NOT while your head is sunk in old flawed maths teachings. Be sure of that.

[TwoCatSam]

John, John, John.............

How soon you forget your own words when it serves your purpose.  Are you a politician?  Will Rogers once said, "Did you notice when they're talking, they're not saying anything?".  You talk; you say nothing.

What about your statement you could beat fun RNG all day and night?  What about my video?

You are a private person?  John, you could sell sheep sh*t to a shepherd, but even you can't see that one!!

John, say something and nail it down. 

TCS