The JL Challenge

[TwoCatSam]

Still

I'll go with number 1 and 5 both.   Maybe I'm beating a dead horse, but why would a player who can win money want to prove it to a group by fun-betting?

I seem to be the only person who believes in screen-capture wmvs.  While I would not reveal the placement of my bets, I can surely capture the E window and people can watch the total increase.

And decrease.......

Sam

[Still]

Still

I'll go with number 1 and 5 both.   Maybe I'm beating a dead horse, but why would a player who can win money want to prove it to a group by fun-betting?

If you recall, some people were calling John Legend out, saying things, doubting everything he is saying/doing.  He likes to share what he finds  and was getting flak.  So Bayes made a proposal and JL stood up to back up what he was saying.  Most of us agreed this is a valid method of proving something, even more than posting videos of some online play.  Proving something here will give JL the right to speak with confidence (bragging rights) about things he is saying/doing...and hopefully silence critics who bog down the threads he starts.  Why anybody else would do it is another question, but i give respect to Skakus for taking the challenge.  If he does well, then he too ought to get some respect, especially if he decides to publish his method(s).   Proving something here also benefits JL to the degree that he has more ways to make money than with just live wheels.  He ought to be able to bet against RNGs in the future. 

As for fun-betting, this test is probably not fun for either JL or Skakus.  And in my opinion, any betting under a base unit of 1 euro is *for fun* anyway.     

I seem to be the only person who believes in screen-capture wmvs.  While I would not reveal the placement of my bets, I can surely capture the E window and people can watch the total increase.

And decrease.......

Sam

Sam, JL is the epitome of positive forum contributors because he shares what he finds to be profitable. He might be mistaken, but his approach is as, or more scientific than most here on the forum.   Obviously, i can't exactly say how much he holds back and does not share.  But for a long time, he has been sharing things that he believes beat the casino and has posted some pretty impressive stats that even Bayes agrees can't be random.  And now you are saying here that if you had a system you thought could win, you would not publish how you select your bets.   Since Bayes RNG publishes your bet selections, you would not take this test, even though you normally use a base unit of a dime?  I don't see the difference between a private dime and a publicly placed bet.  For one thing, even though we see what Skakus is selecting, we still don't know exactly what his method is.  Likewise with JL, if/when he uses a method we don't yet know about.  So there's no reason for YOU to not use Bayes RNG to prove something if that's what you want to do.  You  don't want to because there's no money at stake?  Again, base units of a dime are not money.  As for the validity of screen capture wmvs, it is not a more valid way of logging results than what Bayes has set up.   And your way would take us a lot of unnecessary time to look at the results, especially if it is a video. Watching a balance grow, whether by video or screen-capture tells us less, not more, than what Bayes RNG data tells us in the time it takes to load it into Excel and run stats/charts on it.   

Now, as for me, i am tempted to take Bayes test.  It would not be a waste of time for me because i am not betting any sized unit yet at all, largely because of the problems the gubmint has created for U.S. citizens.  For another thing, i would not bet a single dime unless i thought i had reason to beat the wheel in the long-term.  However, i need to believe in a system before i will spend precious time learning it and manually betting on it in any venue.  I want to be clear, unless something offers the opportunity to win long-term, i do not consider it fun.  Apparently there are people here who are happy to lose less.  I just don't get that mentality.   

What i am mainly asking of posters here is to be contributors, not concealers, nor complainers.  Complainers and concealers slow down people like me from finding a system - if there is a system - that can beat the wheel long-term.  I have come here with an open mind.  I don't KNOW whether a system can beat the wheel or not.  I come from a trading background with some reason to believe that a random walk can be beaten, despite books written to the contrary.  Too many people consistently make money out of the randomness we call 'the market', either despite it's randomness, and/or because it is not not purely random like a roulette wheel. 

I have spent far too much time in this forum with too little to show and my patience is running thin with certain kinds of posters.  My attitude is get out of the way of people who are proving the impossible is not impossible.   I am here because i would prefer to make money this way than the other ways i have in mind.   Before i learn and test every system that is proposed, i want to see at least one system work long-term.  One system, working long-term, suggests that there may be similar systems that could work.  I have to sift through a lot of NOISE to get to this system, and still, it has not been proven to my complete satisfaction.  I give respect first to those here who are working to prove something, like JL.  I especially give respect to those who are actually sharing what they believe works, long-term, and not just things they are happy to lose less with.  I am nearly ready to step out, and check back in but once a month or every quarter.  Were it not for contributors like JL and Flat_Ino i would not be here at all. 

So, bottom line, Sam, it's time for you to step up.  You've been here many years. You've been the beneficiary of a lot of generosity.  If you don't want to reveal (if you want to continue to conceal) what you think works long-term, then i encourage you to step up to Bayes RNG, because, in fact, it does NOT reveal your entire method of bet selection.  It does reveal money management but so what? 

You can continue to play for private dimes, or you can play for public credibility.  I would rather see the latter. 

[Still]

Jesus...is this still going! LoL

Yah that's the idea...to keep going until something is proved. 

What is this post actually trying to prove?
John is a liar
John isnt a liar

My last chart proved that John's bottom line has been heading straight up since he apparently figured out how to handle Bayes RNG.  It may not have been heading straight up long enough to prove to doubters whether or not he has been lying (or lucky) about past performances. 

I think its lost its way

Let me get this straight.  John Legend's chart is headed straight up, and you think this thread has lost it's way?

I really can't be arsed reading through all this again, so this may of been suggested but wouldnt this be good if it was a place we could go to and run our idea as an approved idea...like john is doing.like mabe a star rating.... 1 Bayes test Star may be " +20U in 50 spins, 10 Bayes stars may be " go order your Island in the Carribian"

A few pages back, a discussion began about what would be considered a win in the shortest amount of spins...now that valid statistics are rolling in.   Maybe you didn't read it, but its somewhere in the range of 5000 to 10000 spins.  Even then, the resulting statistics have to be well beyond standard deviation for random.  It would not necessarily be related to units gained, or even units gained per spin because it might be possible to get away with bad money management for a while, but not for 5000-10000 spins. 

If the ability to participate in this challenge depends on Bayes accommodations, then Bayes has his own sense of the number of brownie points needed to justify his time.  He has already turned someone down because what he proposed would not prove anything.  Likewise, if you can make 20U in 50 spins, it is up to Bayes if he wants to work to see more, but a sample that narrow is, imo, silly.   

So......
Turners Holy Grail F#ckin best system ever.....3 Bayes test stars.
Turners Street Gold Best Ever System......4 Bayes stars.

(They don't exist before you start getting all exiting)

Do you want to participate or not?  Then just ask Bayes!  He will let you know if any of your systems have merit enough to be considered, and whether the amount of effort you are willing to spend testing them has any merit (hint: more than 50 spins).  Once data starts rolling in, we will be able to determine, with Bayes help, what is beyond the bounds of random deviation, thus proving you have a valid, long-term winner.  Till then, you've got nothing on JohnLegend and shouldn't be judging, publicly,  whether or not he or this thread has lost his/its way.   I might ask Steve to make a whole new section : Systems That Don't Actually Work, But Will Help You Lose Less.   You could post your systems there, and let us decide for ourselves whether JohnLegend, Skakus, or anyone else is posting stats beyond extreme deviations from random. 

[Bayes]

What I do like is Bayes idea to have a test site to play against that people can see the results of.

Mabe bayes could automatically score the attempt...we could use it to get a score. A score people could see before they read.

wow.....look...turners "F*ckin Ace Holy Grail system" scored a 4 star in Bayes test.

TF, I agree with you and this is what I have planned, but it's a lot of work. Not only that, this kind of thing has to be paid for by someone, and why should I be out of pocket? Maybe I could come to some arrangement with Steve to host it on the forum, or charge a nominal amount to pay for the hosting service.

@ Still, thanks for the support. This was intended to be a one-off for JL, and although I'm happy that Skakus has also taken up the challenge, I don't want more than that. With the current scheme I have in place, it would be too time-consuming for me to keep track of all the players. What's needed is something totally automated and online.

[Robeenhuut]

Hello Still

I think that you won't be able to find what you are looking for in this forum. There are some good systems posted here that could give you some profit but nothing is guaranteed to work long term. As to JL challenge even if he wins it it won't prove much to some people. It will prove that he could go from 300 to 5000 level. But the question will always linger if he could repeat that feat.
There were some systems posted on forums that were able to generate 5k or 10k units profit but nobody seems to be playing them. And Sam posted few systems here and tested a lot but never made any long term guarantees.
But i still appreciate the effort of all parties involved.


Regards

[Turner]

TF, I agree with you and this is what I have planned, but it's a lot of work. Not only that, this kind of thing has to be paid for by someone, and why should I be out of pocket? Maybe I could come to some arrangement with Steve to host it on the forum, or charge a nominal amount to pay for the hosting service.

Bayes,
Sorry....you know the ideas guys allways fall out with the budget guys. I totally appreciate what effort you have put in with this test program

[Ralph]

There are automatic devices on the net already, called casinos, if you have confident in your play, why not use a casino. The stat pages should be good enough as reference.

I do not know exactly how it is played, but probably not 1,3,9,27,81....
A large bankroll of thousends will be needed.

Whats happen here is not impossible at all.

[Turner]

STILL....

what are you.?..JL's agent lol

Calm down for feck sake

I appreciate JL's input into this forum.

[Bayes]

Do you want to participate or not?  Then just ask Bayes!  He will let you know if any of your systems have merit enough to be considered, and whether the amount of effort you are willing to spend testing them has any merit (hint: more than 50 spins).  Once data starts rolling in, we will be able to determine, with Bayes help, what is beyond the bounds of random deviation, thus proving you have a valid, long-term winner.  Till then, you've got nothing on JohnLegend and shouldn't be judging, publicly,  whether or not he or this thread has lost his/its way.   I might ask Steve to make a whole new section : Systems That Don't Actually Work, But Will Help You Lose Less.   You could post your systems there, and let us decide for ourselves whether JohnLegend, Skakus, or anyone else is posting stats beyond extreme deviations from random.

There is already software on the forum which can help you to decide whether your system has any merit, that wasn't really the main purpose of this challenge, but simply to allow JL to show us that all the bragging and amazing results he's been posting here isn't just hot air.

When (if) the online thing ever gets done, I can see a number of uses:

1. A simple online roulette game much like any online casino in fun mode.
2. A platform for roulette competitions.
3. An opportunity for "braggers" to show us how great they really are.
4. A chance for systems sellers to prove to us that their systems really do work as advertised.

Point (4) might be controversial. There isn't any section for sellers on this forum, unlike at VLS, but it might be worth thinking about if there was a way for them to demonstrate their claims.

[Ralph]

A rare deviation is by definition rare, but happens anyhow more often than we think.
Every day on this planet, in all casinos land and online, its a hugde number of spins.
Most of them are in normal range of deviation, but still there are  room for many rare outcomes.

We speak not often of the common outcomes, rather then it is something  special.
Special for the eys, many rare events goes passed, as we do not look for them.

Any thousend spins are very unique.

[Skakus]

I've got nothing to prove to anybody other than myself by doing this challenge. All I stand to benefit from it is to increase my knowledge base, and improve my game through focus and sustained effort. 


Thanks Bayes for accommodating my challenge of your rng.


Thanks JL for stepping up and having a go.


Thanks Still and others for your contributions, efforts, and support.


Thanks to all the critics, skeptics, detractors, and naysayers for being true to your convictions.

[TwoCatSam]

Still

"You can continue to play for private dimes, or you can play for public credibility.  I would rather see the latter."

I have no need for public credibility. 

I once called myself the "Master Testicator", (the latter word being a pun on George W. Bush) because I feel I test fairly and completely and post failures as well as any "successes", if there are any!  Because of that, I get things in my email that are marked "for your eyes only" so to speak. Many of them are worthless.  You should have seen the email I got from a fellow once after I told him that!

So, yes, I have software, robots, systems and ideas in my files that I have been privileged to receive.  And I don't publish them.  One such is a bacarrat system a fellow wanted me to test on Dublin and Bet Voyager, as he feels no-zero roulette is the same as baccarat.  This is a very good system.  It took a dive two days ago and I dropped about 175 Euro, not dimes, and am in recovery.

AGAIN, THAT'S THE THING PEOPLE!!  IT IS NOT WHEN OR IF THE RFH WILL COME, IT'S HOW YOU OVERCOME IT.

I have published four systems that I actually made money with and still can.  I did last night.  Again, I didn't say I'd run them through RX or some program to see if they worked--I said I cashed checks from casinos.  I've walked out of casinos after using them with a profit in my pocket.

Believe it or don't.  I couldn't muster up the energy to care less.

By the way, you don't have to watch an entire video.  You can just fast forward and drop in from time to time.  And are you so busy you would not spend a few minutes to learn a winning system.

Mores the pity!

Sam

[Turner]

There is already software on the forum which can help you to decide whether your system has any merit, that wasn't really the main purpose of this challenge, but simply to allow JL to show us that all the bragging and amazing results he's been posting here isn't just hot air.

When (if) the online thing ever gets done, I can see a number of uses:

1. A simple online roulette game much like any online casino in fun mode. useful!
2. A platform for roulette competitions. I ran a chess club...the buggers always get bored halfway thro the comp.
3. An opportunity for "braggers" to show us how great they really are. Beautiful...will cut bragging down by 99% lol
4. A chance for systems sellers to prove to us that their systems really do work as advertised. Thats the coolest of the lot :-)

[Johnlegend]

Hello Still

I think that you won't be able to find what you are looking for in this forum. There are some good systems posted here that could give you some profit but nothing is guaranteed to work long term. As to JL challenge even if he wins it it won't prove much to some people. It will prove that he could go from 300 to 5000 level. But the question will always linger if he could repeat that feat.
There were some systems posted on forums that were able to generate 5k or 10k units profit but nobody seems to be playing them. And Sam posted few systems here and tested a lot but never made any long term guarantees.
But i still appreciate the effort of all parties involved.


Regards

Hutt once I can win I can do it over and over. How many times would I have to do it to satisfy you? Also to Sam I will do the live deal In the future. Its. Very. Very slow. That's the problem, dublin spin the ball 20 times an hour. It would take 2 years to show what I can show on here in 1 month.

[Turner]

@turnerfeck

Would you be willing to submit your best system(s) to the same test that JohnLegend and Skakus are taking?  If not, why not?  Let me guess;

No.....Let ME guess....you are JohnLegend !!!
You need to phrase...type and syntax differently if you are going to Dopple.

I spent 10 years in chat rooms. I'm a text style expert.