The JL Challenge

[superman]

Ok, so I take it that the BV phase of this challenge is under way?

Account is setup, but I can't put any money in as my card forst needs verifying with moneybookers, all my gambling money is in paypal, moneybookers sent me the test amount which I must enter as soon as it shows on my bank statement, they say 2 - 3 days.

OR someone with money in moneybookers can send me £20 so we can get it underway and I will send it back to them as soon as my card is verified.

Personally I don't care which game JL plays, european or no zero, as most of the BV players here play no zero I don't see why JL can't do his challenge there, atleast the odds will help him a little bit, thoughts anyone.

[Still]

I'm not sure why the spread is all that important, maybe someone can explain that to me.  Ok, maybe we want to know that a win is due to good money management as much as good bet selection.  We want to know if high numbers can be gained by grinding it out over a longer term, rather than risking 100% on one bet.  I don't think anyone wants to see that.  But the spread should be a matter of % of BR...what is considered safe and sane.  In the trading world, most would say that 1% of BR is max to risk on any one trade/bet/idea.  I'm sure pro gamblers would agree.  But it seems to me that if JL wanted to go to 10% that ought to be his prerogative.  I would like to see spread relative to BR because i want to eventually see a chart with exponential growth.  Could not do that with a max cap on bet size.  If the casino allows it why not?  I would like to see JL beat the casino according to the rules of most casinos.  So if BV is more liberal with spread, maybe adjust to something more normal-typical of a land-based casino. 

Also, as for disclosure of the system, i think those of us who believe should be able to receive 'five' or anything else via PM so that we are not bogged down by the delays invoked by doubters always seeking more proof.   

[Still]

Personally I don't care which game JL plays, european or no zero, as most of the BV players here play no zero I don't see why JL can't do his challenge there, atleast the odds will help him a little bit, thoughts anyone.

I would like to see JL beat the casino on the same terms that most casinos offer, or at least most European casinos.  Would like to see how his systems handle one zero. Two zeros is ridiculous anyway.  That way, when he wins, we can all feel that we can all win anywhere, anytime there is a one zero game offered that is fair. 

[Ralph]

Bv ZWheel will do, the spreed is high, but some casinos in Europe has spreed from 1Euro to 10000 euro.
If they did not benefit from that, its should not just be such a spreed.
Low stakes 1cent at BV make people from low salary contries play as well, an Euro is some money there.
The 1000 Euro bet will come from other kind of players, or at a desperate way of catch a loss.

Many ways playing online will not be practical on landbased casinos.

[Bayes]

Personally I don't care which game JL plays, european or no zero, as most of the BV players here play no zero I don't see why JL can't do his challenge there, atleast the odds will help him a little bit, thoughts anyone.

My opinion is that JL should play the zero wheel. I think the test should as far as possible be a continuation of what he's been playing up until now, and he's done well so far, so why not? After all, a no-zero game is only available in BV (and Betfair) and surely the test should reflect the average "real world" conditions as far as possible? Also, using NZ means you have to pay a commission of 10% after every session, which makes things more complicated than they need to be when trying to assess his advantage, if any.

I also think the spread should be 1-100 units, which means a max stake of 1 euro. Again, he's been doing ok with a max of 50u, so this would be an improvement. The higher the spread, the more spins JL will have to play to demonstrate an advantage (because high stakes mean high variance); most people can win for a long time given a big enough bank and house limit, but isn't this challenge more to do with JL showing us that his methods and systems can win as claimed? in that case he shouldn't need to use stakes which are larger than in any of the systems he's posted.

[superman]

Also, as for disclosure of the system, i think those of us who believe should be able to receive 'five' or anything else via PM so that we are not bogged down by the delays invoked by doubters always seeking more proof

Yes we would all like to see it BUT as the current test is now clouded in doubt AND the test could have been cheated it would be better to wait and see if JL can perform again at an actual casino, be patient it will start very soon. The test was done ON the forum pages not via PM's so the method should also be posted rather than passed privately.

[Stepkevh]

I totally agree with Bayes about the fact that John should be playing on the
single zero wheel.
Afterall, Bayes RNG was also single zero.
The limit should also be 100 units instead of 50 because as far as i followed the thread John said he needed a limit of 54 for his "five" method, its the 4th step of his progr, so 100 sounds fair enough 

And i agree with Superman too for the fact that the Bayes test was shown on the forum, so teh method should also be posted on te forum instead privatly.

Stephan

[Skakus]

Yes, in the end a victory on single zero could help more people.

Limit should probaly be % based as Still suggests. JL should be able to up the ante as he goes, as long as he doesn't go over factors of 54 per dozen for any current progression.

JL has promised to post his method eventually, give him time guys.

At least he's not a douchebag like me, who has not promised to share his Bayes' RNG smasher system! 

I did give out the EC Money Management strategy though, and that's got to be worth something. 

[iggiv]

mind u  guys if we bet single straight numbers instead of table layout--- 2 zeros instead of 1 won't make as much difference as betting on table layout. All u gotta do is just bet 12 numbers instead of dozens or columns or 18 numbers instead of EC.

[iggiv]

and u can bet other number or numbers, it won't make that much difference. 11 or 14 is still good enough isn't it

[albertojonas]

Sam I'm not posting the method until I'm at least 1000 up on BV. I don't want members lile Albertojonas calling me a cheat. I had to work darn hard to get the better of that rng. Now ill do the same on BV and put. This argument to bed forever. I will find out once and for all if BV is fair or not.

If it is Superman will like what he sees over the next year plus. And will do nicely out of his investment. I promise him that.

And you all have to remember this is all early days, I have a long way to go. And also a new revised version of the ZONE. That is cleanng up on live wheels. So step back and look out for the the target of 3000 points.

The conditions of the test were flawed.


I wish you luck. It is very possible to win for a certain number of bets. It happens all the time.
In this forum, there are threads of systems winning 2 months, flat betting, playing all spins from all tables, from a B&M Casino. Everyone that tested "stuff" in this forum came across with streaks of wins. And the other half will say that it will crash sometime.
I just do not believe in the logic behind your systems. We just agree to disagree.

[donik7777]

Hello John! What would happen if you placed your method and be tested for other members of the forum at least 100,000 units? I think nothing will not change. Perhaps for many will not have to prove anything.

All the best.

[Johnlegend]

My opinion is that JL should play the zero wheel. I think the test should as far as possible be a continuation of what he's been playing up until now, and he's done well so far, so why not? After all, a no-zero game is only available in BV (and Betfair) and surely the test should reflect the average "real world" conditions as far as possible? Also, using NZ means you have to pay a commission of 10% after every session, which makes things more complicated than they need to be when trying to assess his advantage, if any.

I also think the spread should be 1-100 units, which means a max stake of 1 euro. Again, he's been doing ok with a max of 50u, so this would be an improvement. The higher the spread, the more spins JL will have to play to demonstrate an advantage (because high stakes mean high variance); most people can win for a long time given a big enough bank and house limit, but isn't this challenge more to do with JL showing us that his methods and systems can win as claimed? in that case he shouldn't need to use stakes which are larger than in any of the systems he's posted.

I'm 100% in agreement with Bayes here. I want to show winning is posible on the European based single zero wheel. I don't need to go higher than 2x81 If I grow my bank to 5000 points 50 dollars or poumds. I would want to use a base point of 3 units. So the progression would be 3-3---9-9---27-27---81-81 and that's the limit.

[Johnlegend]

The conditions of the test were flawed.


I wish you luck. It is very possible to win for a certain number of bets. It happens all the time.
In this forum, there are threads of systems winning 2 months, flat betting, playing all spins from all tables, from a B&M Casino. Everyone that tested "stuff" in this forum came across with streaks of wins. And the other half will say that it will crash sometime.
I just do not believe in the logic behind your systems. We just agree to disagree.

We shall see ALbert, Five. Came like all my methods do. From observing a consistency within certain parameters. There is no explainable logic. Just an observation. That says random doesn't go beyond certain points too often. Its then up to the observer, to try to forge a method to take advantage of their findings. That's all I do.

[albertojonas]

We shall see ALbert, Five. Came like all my methods do. From observing a consistency within certain parameters. There is no explainable logic. Just an observation. That says random doesn't go beyond certain points too often. Its then up to the observer, to try to forge a method to take advantage of their findings. That's all I do.

There is no explainable logic? Everything has an explanation and behind it there is always maths and probability. The ways you built to try and take advantage of those phenomena with certain parameters is the other factor that lacks consistency. I wish you no harm, we had our discussions in the past. After all it's the clash that makes the world evolve.
Cheers