Thomas Grant Scam

[Spike]

Beware, people. I challenged Grant to a test in real time on Dublin with two witnesses and he agreed to it and then almost immediately pulled his post and closed the thread. DO NOT TRUST THIS SCAMMER!

[Tiago2]

you should ask super-roulette, not Grant

[super-roulette]

Beware, people. I challenged Grant to a test in real time on Dublin with two witnesses and he agreed to it and then almost immediately pulled his post and closed the thread. DO NOT TRUST THIS SCAMMER!

Spike I asked Tom to close the thread and he obliged. I have offered a trial and received no response.

Tom does not receive anything from me for openly discussing his results and the tirade of abuse that has been directed his way is unwarranted and unfair.

Matt

[Spike]

tirade of abuse that has been directed his way is unwarranted and unfair.>>

All I know is he agreed to a fair test and then pulled his post and closed the thread. What am I supposed to assume from that?

Just another scam..

[super-roulette]

All I know is he agreed to a fair test and then pulled his post and closed the thread. What am I supposed to assume from that?

Just another scam..

Spike, yes I can see why that looks a little smelly, happily agreeing to a test and then locking the thread, but it was only because I asked him to.

As I mentioned my offer of a second independent trial fell on deaf ears...it is not like I am trying to deceive anyone.

Matt

[Number Six]

In my book this bot has been classified as a very high risk investment. It was tested by a moderator over many many months and shown to be a failure. Twocat lost money that to some would be a considerable amount. I don't need to test the bot to know it won't win consistently, that has already been done and the results are in. But now you're trying to blame these losses on a faulty internet connection. I followed Twocat's tests. I looked at the graphs. The drawdowns from the systems, in terms of units, are crazy and if the systems were to be tested in the public area they would be scrapped as unplayable. Typically the drawdowns were in the high hundreds and often creeping into several thousands. That tells me the bet selection is fatally flawed and its hit rate is absolutely nowhere near high enough to generate steady profits. Progressions bust and they always do. What's to say they can't bust five times on the trot and wipe you out...in fact, someone researching your bot found this to be the case. Everyone knows a negative progression system will take you to the cleaners. I don't know why you think because a system is automated it magically becomes a winner. And my motive on this forum is to help people with their ideas, maybe show where they are going wrong and can be improved, and to dispell myths like "you can make money while you sleep" and "the longer you play the more you win". I have a job I like, I am learning from an expert how to beat the game conclusively and I have good relations with my family. Why would I be jealous of a system seller? The motives that should be questioned are yours and your affiliates.

[super-roulette]

In my book this bot has been classified as a very high risk investment. It was tested by a moderator over many many months and shown to be a failure. Twocat lost money that to some would be a considerable amount.

It did and does continue to win consistently. Sam won many sessions on end before he had the loss, why does not that count as a winning system? Can you assure a win each and every session? If you are having a bad session, do you continue until you lose your entire bankroll? I never blamed or am trying to blame the internet connection for the loss, I said that losing connection and resetting mid game magnified the potential for a loss. I have never said draw downs wont occur, they most definitely will, the key to being successful is having sufficient bank roll to absorb them when they occur. Tom has won close to 1500E to date, in my eyes that is very successful - would you not agree? Oh by the way, Sam is still actively using the software, he is a hardened roulette player and most definitely sees the value in it.

I don't need to test the bot to know it won't win consistently, that has already been done and the results are in.

The results are in? What about Tom's results? What about the results of other's who are using it? You are more than happy to only look on one side of the coin and totally ignore the other side because it may contradict your point of view. How can you know it won't win consistently if you haven't used it? By declining the test you are simply implying you are unsure whether or not convictions about it not working are as valid as you make them out to be.

in fact, someone researching your bot found this to be the case.

No one can research it without using it, who was this mysterious researcher?

I don't know why you think because a system is automated it magically becomes a winner.

You must not read what I write carefully. I have never once said the automation makes it a winner. Specifically I posted the automation is simply an interface to what is 'under the hood'. The fact it is automated makes it easy to use and allows people who do not want to be a slave to the table do other things. Automation without cleverly designed strategies is useless.

And my motive on this forum is to help people with their ideas, maybe show where they are going wrong and can be improved, and to dispell myths like "you can make money while you sleep" and "the longer you play the more you win".

I have made close to 300E, playing .03 E bets in the last 6 nights while I slept, so no need to dispel it, as a myth, it is FACT. Yes it is true, even though it is hard for you to accept anything that doesn't align with your own ideals, but the more you play, the more you will win. The strategies are sound, so it stands to reason that this must also be fact.

I have a job I like, I am learning from an expert how to beat the game conclusively and I have good relations with my family. Why would I be jealous of a system seller? The motives that should be questioned are yours and your affiliates.

I have not one affiliate. I too have a loving family and a full time job. But I am also a thinker, someone who is curious about why things happen as they do. I understand the game of roulette, more than you realise N6. You want to pursue your way of studying the game and that is fine, but I don't like to overcomplicate things, I see them for what they are and this led me to developing strategies for beating the game consistently. Label me a SCAM artist if you will, but basing this on the fact I am selling something is absurd.

Matt

[Number Six]

Your bot plays SYSTEMS, not strategies. If it played strategies it would be closer to a long term winner and WOULD NOT experience drawdowns running into thousands of units. The fact is Twocat is now in debt by two hundred euros (possible more?). The bot is losing money, how can you even try to deny that? Systems win and lose. They lose more than they win. I don't trust anything Thomas Grant writes, he is not an independent party, he is an untrustworthy tester who probably has financial incentives to put your bot in a good light. No one else has come forward to say they win consistently because these people don't exist. The botists hide in an underground forum group and complain to each other that they are losing money hand over fist. Of course, you always try to blame them for losing and using dodgy settings, not actually the bot. Guess what? I over the past six nights I have been building a time machine and this morning I went back to the cretaceous. Cool, eh? Wow, I can say anything.

[Spike]

It did and does continue to win consistently.<<<

No, it doesn't. If it did, you wouldn't be selling it, you would keep it a secret and be terrified somebody would find out about it. No mechanical or automated system or method can beat random outcomes, its mathematically impossible. Thats why its called 'random', its unpredictable.

[thomasgrant]

Beware, people. I challenged Grant to a test in real time on Dublin with two witnesses and he agreed to it and then almost immediately pulled his post and closed the thread. DO NOT TRUST THIS SCAMMER!

Yes it's me your local SCAMMER.
And yes you did challenge me.
But I just followed what Matt asked me to do.
And that was to lock the topic.
Matt was getting fed up with people asking stupid questions.
He has already offered a trial of the software.

But why believe anything I have to say.
I'm just a scammmer... apparently.

[super-roulette]

Sheeesh,I feel like I am in a five setter at Wimbledon 

Strategy, system, method, it is all just semantics, you can call it whatever. Doing anything, whether repetitive, mechanical, or on a hunch or whim is a system. The dictionary definition of a system is "A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole

N6, how do you judge the effectiveness of a method of play? Long term results? Ability to turn over the bank roll, once? twice? three times? No one is denying Sam lost money, but why do you not recognise he also won money? He turned over his bank roll 4 times on two separate occasions - if he had quit at this point,  would you still say it was a losing method?

1000s of of units draw down is relative to the bet size. The bet size was .01, so this is 10E. You can comfortably make between 500 and 1500 units a session playing the way Sam did, even with 1000 unit draw downs. Drawn downs are not only expected, but accepted. It is an undeniable fact that the balance will normalise from a draw down and then increase.

Tom is an independent third party. I do not know why you assume otherwise. Happily accepting the word of others that something doesn't work, but then dismissing the word of someone who says it does, simply because you don't feel you can trust him, smacks of hypocrisy.

The forum is not underground or hidden, it is simply restricted to people who use the software. It is very active and vibrant and we are right on the cutting edge of the game of roulette, both in regards to automation and the game itself. Contrary to what you think,we do not complain to each other about losing money. The forum is a supportive, helpful place to be and as I have stated many times, numerous people are winning consistently.

I have never blamed anyone for losing due to using dodgy settings. You insist on creating your own illusion bubble.to help validate in your own mind that something not aligned with your own ideals can't work. I provide as much support as people need. There is a learning curve attached to using the software correctly and efficiently and the best way to ensure continued success is to simply practice with it before playing for real. However like I have said, once someone has the software I can not control how they use it, I can only offer advice on how it should be used.

N6 your attempt at humour is facetious. I simply state it as it is. I now know we are going no where with this. We are at and will always be at polar opposites. I think however, you need to argue your points more objectively, being subjective and allowing emotion to influence your basis of belief, will only lead you to incorrect conclusions.

Matt

[Spike]

Matt was getting fed up with people asking stupid questions.>>

Yes, scammers get very frustrated when people question them. Why can't they just shut up and send the money is what all scammers think, oh well..

[Spike]

You insist on creating your own illusion bubble.>>>

Its no illusion or fantasy that no bot or system can predict random with any accuracy. I repeat, if you had such a bot, you would keep it top secret and be terrified somebody would find out about it. It would be the proverbial goose that laid golden eggs. In the old days, if there was such a goose, would the owner have leant it out for peanuts? He would have kept it under lock and key, as you would have done also.

Get real..

[Number Six]

Mr super-roulette comic,
I have seen you write numerous times that the bot will only win with the right settings. This is a joke. No amount of tweaking can turn a losing system into a winner. Twocat experienced what everyone does when they buy a system. It works for a while and then wipes you out. You re-deposit and give it another go. You get wiped again. And just because you are using 0.01 chips doesn't make 1000s of units drawdown acceptable. What if I wanted to use 1 euro chips? Would I need a bankroll of 50,000? 100,000? A million? You are an amateur and have fallen into this trap of thinking 0.01 chips are nothing and that with a big enough bankroll you can ride through the bad stints. It's ignorance of the very highest order. Twocat actually lost 430 euros in ONE sitting. That is 43,000 units. It is utterly stupid. Those figures alone are enough to suggest that your systems are completely impractical. I mean, seriously, I couldn't lose 43,000 units if I TRIED!
Lastly, that you don't know the difference between a roulette system and a strategy also proves you are largely clueless.

[Spike]

Lastly, that you don't know the difference between a roulette system and a strategy>>>

Its amazing the number of scammers that know almost nothing about the game. Remember JBrockBetting awhile back? He knew nothing about roulette, yet tried to convice us he had beaten it. Pretty funny..

[Spike]

-