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

[TwoCatSam]

OK GANG

There is was!!  The old...I know something but I won't tell!!

What comes next???

I know something and I'll sell it to a very selected few.

Very selected few=those who will buy it.

Don't know Charles Scammer, but youse guys may be right!!!!!

I LOVE IT......

Sam

[Johnlegend]

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

I've said my bit. Its up to you. You can go on believing the lies of math. Or you can see the truth laid bare.

[TwoCatSam]

Lay it bare, John, lay it bare.

All you've done is preach. 

Where I come from, after you bragged about walking on water for so long, we'd tote your arse down to the pond.

You've talked your talk; now walk your walk!

You are making an absolute fool of yourself!  Have you no pride?  Have you no shame?

Would you cut your own throat if you had a big enough audience cheering you on?  Lord, I think you would!!

Samster

[vile]

Nou maybe,but he is CH

[Johnlegend]

OK GANG

There is was!!  The old...I know something but I won't tell!!

What comes next???

I know something and I'll sell it to a very selected few.

Very selected few=those who will buy it.

Don't know Charles scammer, but youse guys may be right!!!!!

I LOVE IT......

Sam

Wrong again Sam. Your test proved nothing. Mine will prove everything. Because I will do it over and over and over. Until Even Bayes will concede. Well maybe not. But the vast majority will come to understand.  And no. No money has ever or will ever be asked from anyone. Dont you remember Superman saying he would pay to see me beat an RNG. I dont want his money. Just an appology will do fine.

[Robeenhuut]

Superman has to decide what comes first. His ego or the truth. Because he has a lot to lose here and he knows it. I'm going to blow this maths nonsense out of the water before I'm done on here. Then I won't 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. I've 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 haven't 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.

We r here having this debate not 2 dispute f roulette is beatable John. And not everybody that questions yr methods thinks that roulette is not beatable.  On d contrary.  U just come off here like somebody that constantly avoids d real issue here which is f yr systems work as advertised.

[Johnlegend]

We r here having this debate not 2 dispute f roulette is beatable John. And not everybody that questions yr methods thinks that roulette is not beatable.  On d contrary.  U just come off here like somebody that constantly avoids d real issue here which is f yr systems work as advertised.

Robeenhuut save it. I have made the offer. Now im watching the back peddaling. I expected. They know that if I do this. They have nothing left to argue about. Theyre DONE. Sam has started his usual mindless babble to sidetrack the issue.

Its there and waiting. When a certain person finds his courage. Im out of here...

[TwoCatSam]

John, you poor thing!

(Gawd, I'm feeling like the Villagers poking Frankenstein's Monster.)

YOU SAY......

You have all these stats.  We're supposed to take you a face value.  No, thanks.  People lie, John.  People lie all the time.  How do any of us know you're telling the truth.

You're like the guy who can do 1,000 push-ups when no one is looking!

Proof is laying out a set of ideas/data and asking others to independently verify.  Not saying.."Take my word for it!".

Mindless babble?  John, I'm just asking logical questions your followers won't ask for fear you might really have something and you withhold it.

Why do you need "conditions" on your test?  What can't your original statement suffice.  "I can beat play money RNG all day and night."  Why won't that suffice?

Sam

[Bayes]

I say good on you John for stepping up to the plate (assuming you actually do, of course  )

Personally I don't think there's any kind of scam going on, JL's only "crime" is to hype his systems and make claims that seem a little (ok, a lot) dubious, but that's no big deal, plenty of others have done the same on these forums and they probably always will.

[superman]

WOW what a thread, first up, I don't ever recall calling you a liar, a shrill maybe.
I have never declared myself as a maths guy either, your confusing me with Mr Bayes, he's great with stats/maths etc, there's plenty here who have asked for his help over the years, without groans.

ok, back to the thread

It could very well be that you're programming skills are flawless and you are able to model any set of instructions.  How can i or anyone be certain of this?

Many have seen/used my bots over the years, they can vouch for me.

Have you ever come across any  system that holds up under your type of testing?  (Probably an irrelevant question).

Nope, and my type of testing has been explained here many times, if a system/method has a floor it will be found.

My recommendation is to post whether JohnLegend likes it or not.  But it's not enough to say "It fails".

As I already said, I have posted the results but they are obviousley not what SOME people want to hear, thats the big problem here, SOME people are so gullible that they really want to believe and any bad news puts them off.

"I checked the archives and found this:
"JohnLegend's The Zone in my opinion is a great method, particularly for a newbie." ~ Proofreaders2000
"It fails, sadly,..." ~ Superman"--Still

I grew.  The Zone was a miserable failure.

As the man said, a miserable failure, which when first launched JL stated he was going to pay for some members to go to Vegas with him, he also stated he would bring Vegas to its knees, now JL, tell me I am lying about that, it was on the old VLS site, theres othere here who know it was said.

Its not about algorithms n bots. Get paper n pen n test Trilogy and report results.  We tested other method Reversed Code 4 Attack. Check d results. All others including Code 20 r based on d same flawed concept

Flawed concept is very accurate, I have stated before, if you write results on paper you WILL see eye candy forming, this I think is how JL has reached his flawed methods, "turn random on its head" pure bo!!ocks.

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

The human factor, something that only JL seems to have, so far he has never disclosed this snippet of info.

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.

An excellent analogy Mr Bayes, that is the exact reason I test like I do, I want to know if the sh!t is going to hit the fan, everyone should, it's money at the end of the day. If you play hit n run and are up for weeks months, you will eventually have a bad run, the bad run could be to hits or it could last for the next 2 months, do you really not want to know how bad it could be?? guess it's your cash and your choice.

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

Exactly what the masses seem to want there Bayes.

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

Does day and night mean continual play JL? if so I take it you have a favoured RNG for this, if you do and it wins wins wins then I would suggest trying a different RNG as the one you favour must be rigged to make you win as NONE of your methods will last on playtech or betvoyager in play mode and thats a guarentee OR even in RXTreme.

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?

Wrong mate, I am here for the same reason as everyone else, I have no intention of making your name nonesense, your methods are nonesense IN MY OPINION, and a few others, you are actually the initiator of the conflict, think back to the zone on VLS many people on that forum tried it and gave it the thumbs down, you only had ONE person, Stackbundles, who actually sided with you there, I see he is still looking for a winning method lately, and when you found you were not getting the attention your zone, in your opinion, should have got you vanished!! now over the last year or so you appeared here with more methods, found there was more interest and so you've stuck around. The initial conflict came from you directed AT me when I posted my results, "stupid maths boyz" , "code jockies" maybe not those exact words, but you were not happy when others came to my defence with the same losing results, so you vanished.

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

Mate, as I said earlier, if you can sit all day and night and win, the RNG at Ladbrokes in play mode IS setup to bu!!$hit you, and now you think because of this real mode cheats, that's actually quite sad.

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

Proceed as you wish, how this is going to prove anything is beyond me, it's flawed from the offset, anyone can play and top up if they lose, how you can prove it I have no idea all I can tell you is your methods fail over the long haul, as I've always said, the issue is, YOU don't want to believe it niether do a handful of others, my tests, and other members have proved the point, why can't you accept it without calling the non believers ignorant.

Its up to superman. Is he indeed man enough to take the challenge

Whats the challenge? did I miss something here

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

Is there just the one RNG you can beat? or are you covering ALL/ANY RNG? betvoyager would be much better for your methods as there is no zero

I come here to show this game is for the taking. When you play it the right way

It's the last 7 words that do it as usual.

Superman claims an RNG can't be beaten consistently. Now I say it can

Spot on JL, it can't, please anyone else confirm this, has anyone seen any method coded in RX or any other software win consistently with a limited progression to keep within table limts? if it was possible it would be know already and the casinos would have shut up shop.

Superman has to decide what comes first. His ego or the truth. Because he has a lot to lose here and he knows it. I'm going to blow this maths nonsense out of the water before I'm done on here. Then I won't 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. I've known it for years.

You da man JL, a few seem to believe you but many don't, lol what a statement fella.

He talked of the forces of random closing the net on a pattern. God WAS HE RIGHT

We know this, this is probably what we are trying to say to you since the zone!!

And I have findings I haven't 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.

Oh my, I can't even think of a response to this, I see Sam has though, so let's get this straight then, you have many great grail like methods already that in you opinion have random running away from you BUT you still have something else up your sleeve, unreal.

John, you could sell sheep sh*t to a shepherd

ROFLMAO nice one Sam

Wrong again Sam. Your test proved nothing. Mine will prove everything. Because I will do it over and over and over. Until Even Bayes will concede. Well maybe not

Trust me JL, if you can prove it he will concede, we all will but I can't see how you are going to categorically prove it beyond any shadow of doubt, please advise

Superman saying he would pay to see me beat an RNG. I don't want his money. Just an appology will do fine

Phew, as I don't have much money, thanks for the let off, as stated above, if you can prove it, many will accept your methods with open arms, but as stated earlier in the post, nobody else has managed to beat RNG play/real mode so good luck to you.

We r here having this debate not 2 dispute f roulette is beatable John. And not everybody that questions yr methods thinks that roulette is not beatable.  On d contrary.  U just come off here like somebody that constantly avoids d real issue here which is f yr systems work as advertised

Thats correct Robeen, they do not work as advertised as nobody else has that missing factor that JL seems to have.

Robeenhuut save it. I have made the offer. Now I'm watching the back peddaling. I expected. They know that if I do this. They have nothing left to argue about. Theyre DONE. Sam has started his usual mindless babble to sidetrack the issue.

Its there and waiting. When a certain person finds his courage. I'm out of here...

Courage is not needed, why are you waiting, what are you waiting for? as I said earlier how you can prove it is unknow to me but I would like to see what you can do against RNG, no back peddaling from me JL

Proof is laying out a set of ideas/data and asking others to independently verify.  Not saying.."Take my word for it!".
Mindless babble?  John, I'm just asking logical questions your followers won't ask for fear you might really have something and you withhold it

That just about sums it all up, the sheep are scared of the shepherd

It's taken me a while to type all this out as you can imagine, if I really didn't believe I wouldn't have bothered so before you do JL, don't try and turn this all around as more words against you, it is not, the replies are all my opinions and findings, FA to do with maths, pure results/findings of continual testing against many forms of RNG and dublinbet live wheel, I must admit one thing, I haven't coded your last 2 or 3 methods as they are, in my opinion, more of the same, flawed methods, as someone else stated, so I didn't bother, since then I have had a hard drive crash and lost most of my bot code, yes I had backups but they were found to be corrupt too, if and when something appears that may actually stand any chance of winning I will start coding again but now I don't have the time or inclination.
Good luck to you and I hope you can prove me and the maths guys all wrong.

[TwoCatSam]

What a post!!  Must have taken a couple of hours to do that.

I think the ball is in John's court.  I agree with one thing:  I never heard a challenge to superman.

Could be get clarification on that?

John?

TwoCat

[superman]

Yes it took a while Sam, tried to cover everything as honest and accurate as I could to avoid the inevitable -- -- -- "Superman you are wrong" which usually follows any post from me on his threads

I agree with one thing:  I never heard a challenge to superman

I can't see how it could be a challenge as I already said it can't be done, my opinion again of course, how he's going to prove it can be done is beyond me, I look forward to being proven wrong, I know how to eat humble pie, I've been wrong before, I'm a big boy I can accept it IF it can be proven, good luck JL

[Bayes]

Great post, superman. No-nonsense straight talking and it was nice to be reminded of some of JL's history here and at VLS.

I have a suggestion as to how we might be able set up a foolproof challenge for John, if he's willing. This is something I put forward on VLS a while ago for Gizmo, but he wasn't interested. I write some software, basically a simplified roulette game, which will allow John to play roulette and will record and save his results. The program will allow him his starting bankroll, but no more. There will be certain controls built into the software which will mean he can't cheat, but in all other respects it will like playing for real (he'll be able to skip spins etc as much as he wants). This will be much faster and easier for him than playing at one of the online RNGs. If he suspects foul play, I can pre-load the program with spins and get a hash value for them, then he can check that I haven't deliberately written in code to make him lose, just like at BV.  I could even use actual spins and not RNG, if he'd prefer.

So think about it John. Believe me when I say that I really hope you'll take up the challenge and win, just like you say you can. 

[Nickmsi]

Great idea Bayes . . .

I think the public competition on the other forum took too long and many lost interest.

I would add that if you could make the program available to other members who want a crack at beating RNG, like myself, that would add a little spice to it all.

Even if John Legend decides not to participate, you might get a few others who would,  It would be great fun and hopefully informative as well.

I know there are members who will scoff at playing RNG but I believe you can beat both live and RNG, numbers are just numbers.

Give it some thought as it would liven up this forum with something other than the constant vitriol.

Nick

[TwoCatSam]

One thing that has always bothered me.  This made me lose faith in Gamlet which hurt....

If you can do it, do it with real money!  Why would any person with a winning system want to waste their time with play money?

Not to slight Bayes!  That is a great idea.

Frankly, I'd be skeered to play with it!!

Sam