Why any good Pick 3 system, method, or tool will ,almost, certainly failPrev Topic Next Topic

New Topic New Poll

Pick3Guy

United States
Member #155,987
June 5, 2014
497 Posts
Offline

Nov 15, 2014, 7:23 pm

There's a very fundamental reason why any good system, method, or tool will most likely fail. This is due to the extended losing streaks that ,sometimes, follow a series of wins. Usually, you'd have a few consecutive losses that aren't really an issue. But, oftentimes, there's a hefty price to pay for that sudden influx of wins.

A classic, and perfect, example of this is with Win D's double trap and what we have observed. According to the charts, this "tool" has shown great success with getting many ,concentrated, wins. But, they also show long losing streaks that shouldn't be ignored. As it stands, these losing streaks will, inevitably, occur. This means that some change would be needed to address this.

An analogy to this problem can be given ,in the field of hydrodynamics, with the phenomenon of rogue waves. Usually, you'd have ocean waves that are not so big or small. But, at times, there are monster waves that are capable of sinking a large ship with a quickness. At one time, rogue waves were the stuff of science fiction. But, nowadays, their existence has been proved and can even be explained using the Laws of Quantum Mechanics. The ocean, almost certainly, can't be tamed to prevent these freak waves. Instead, ships are instructed to reroute.

Just like with rogue waves, these rogue losing streaks can come out of nowhere and ,very easily, wipe us out. Likewise, you can't tame the game, but you can control how you play and lessen the likelihood of running into one of these monster losing streaks. So, what can we do about this?

So far, I've been working extra hard on this problem since it has ,recently, been found to exist within my own system. This is a fundamental problem that runs through the heart of the Pick 3 with anything we use. But, for a long time, I've known that the answer is in placing restrictions(i.e. requirements) on our play. We need to place either more or better restrictions to ,in effect, help balance out our wins and losses. So, it's ,mainly, just a matter of which restrictions and how many. Although, the problem with placing restrictions is that they cause you to play less often.

Anyway, there's a reason why I keep referring back to Win D's double trap. That's because it has a real connection to my own system and this has intrigued me. As mentioned, some logical support has been found ,within my system, for Win D's double trap. However, the idea behind Win D's double trap is logically flawed. The reason why can be found in both Win D's posts and my responses to them.

Still, an extensive, and comprehensive, analysis has been done ,using my knowledge, with Win D's double trap. This has led to a flood of new information and a new ,and improved, version of Win D's double trap that is not logically flawed. Essentially, it's a cross between Win D's double trap and my system. But, this modified Win D double trap still doesn't cut it when it comes to these kinds of losing streaks.

Fortunately, though, an important discovery was made while conducting my analysis. That is, I've kept noticing certain trends that accompany the appearances of doubles. Sure enough, this breakthrough has turned out to be a major missing piece since it provides for newer ,and much better, restrictions. So far, it has proved to be very effective in protecting against these freak losing streaks.
garyo1954

Texas
United States
Member #4,549
May 2, 2004
4,228 Posts
Offline

Nov 15, 2014, 8:02 pm

Quote: Originally posted by Pick3Guy on Nov 15, 2014
There's a very fundamental reason why any good system, method, or tool will most likely fail. This is due to the extended losing streaks that ,sometimes, follow a series of wins. Usually, you'd have a few consecutive losses that aren't really an issue. But, oftentimes, there's a hefty price to pay for that sudden influx of wins.

A classic, and perfect, example of this is with Win D's double trap and what we have observed. According to the charts, this "tool" has shown great success with getting many ,concentrated, wins. But, they also show long losing streaks that shouldn't be ignored. As it stands, these losing streaks will, inevitably, occur. This means that some change would be needed to address this.

An analogy to this problem can be given ,in the field of hydrodynamics, with the phenomenon of rogue waves. Usually, you'd have ocean waves that are not so big or small. But, at times, there are monster waves that are capable of sinking a large ship with a quickness. At one time, rogue waves were the stuff of science fiction. But, nowadays, their existence has been proved and can even be explained using the Laws of Quantum Mechanics. The ocean, almost certainly, can't be tamed to prevent these freak waves. Instead, ships are instructed to reroute.

Just like with rogue waves, these rogue losing streaks can come out of nowhere and ,very easily, wipe us out. Likewise, you can't tame the game, but you can control how you play and lessen the likelihood of running into one of these monster losing streaks. So, what can we do about this?

So far, I've been working extra hard on this problem since it has ,recently, been found to exist within my own system. This is a fundamental problem that runs through the heart of the Pick 3 with anything we use. But, for a long time, I've known that the answer is in placing restrictions(i.e. requirements) on our play. We need to place either more or better restrictions to ,in effect, help balance out our wins and losses. So, it's ,mainly, just a matter of which restrictions and how many. Although, the problem with placing restrictions is that they cause you to play less often.

Anyway, there's a reason why I keep referring back to Win D's double trap. That's because it has a real connection to my own system and this has intrigued me. As mentioned, some logical support has been found ,within my system, for Win D's double trap. However, the idea behind Win D's double trap is logically flawed. The reason why can be found in both Win D's posts and my responses to them.

Still, an extensive, and comprehensive, analysis has been done ,using my knowledge, with Win D's double trap. This has led to a flood of new information and a new ,and improved, version of Win D's double trap that is not logically flawed. Essentially, it's a cross between Win D's double trap and my system. But, this modified Win D double trap still doesn't cut it when it comes to these kinds of losing streaks.

Fortunately, though, an important discovery was made while conducting my analysis. That is, I've kept noticing certain trends that accompany the appearances of doubles. Sure enough, this breakthrough has turned out to be a major missing piece since it provides for newer ,and much better, restrictions. So far, it has proved to be very effective in protecting against these freak losing streaks.

Short version: I solved this because I said so.

Otherwise, nothing to detail the perceived flaw; no numbers to prove it.

A bunch of stuff about rogue waves. Something about the lottery commission rerouting ships to defeat doubles traps.

A claim of some recent discovery that defeats the perceived flaw that you haven't proved exists.

Again no numbers to prove any solution has been found.

Like you told Frankie, "post some numbers we can check."

G

I'm probably here unless I'm not.
Dreaming would be a perfectly useless function if it's only purpose was to entertain.
adobea78

United States
Member #116,339
September 8, 2011
5,094 Posts
Offline

Nov 15, 2014, 8:12 pm

Quote: Originally posted by Pick3Guy on Nov 15, 2014
There's a very fundamental reason why any good system, method, or tool will most likely fail. This is due to the extended losing streaks that ,sometimes, follow a series of wins. Usually, you'd have a few consecutive losses that aren't really an issue. But, oftentimes, there's a hefty price to pay for that sudden influx of wins.

A classic, and perfect, example of this is with Win D's double trap and what we have observed. According to the charts, this "tool" has shown great success with getting many ,concentrated, wins. But, they also show long losing streaks that shouldn't be ignored. As it stands, these losing streaks will, inevitably, occur. This means that some change would be needed to address this.

An analogy to this problem can be given ,in the field of hydrodynamics, with the phenomenon of rogue waves. Usually, you'd have ocean waves that are not so big or small. But, at times, there are monster waves that are capable of sinking a large ship with a quickness. At one time, rogue waves were the stuff of science fiction. But, nowadays, their existence has been proved and can even be explained using the Laws of Quantum Mechanics. The ocean, almost certainly, can't be tamed to prevent these freak waves. Instead, ships are instructed to reroute.

Just like with rogue waves, these rogue losing streaks can come out of nowhere and ,very easily, wipe us out. Likewise, you can't tame the game, but you can control how you play and lessen the likelihood of running into one of these monster losing streaks. So, what can we do about this?

So far, I've been working extra hard on this problem since it has ,recently, been found to exist within my own system. This is a fundamental problem that runs through the heart of the Pick 3 with anything we use. But, for a long time, I've known that the answer is in placing restrictions(i.e. requirements) on our play. We need to place either more or better restrictions to ,in effect, help balance out our wins and losses. So, it's ,mainly, just a matter of which restrictions and how many. Although, the problem with placing restrictions is that they cause you to play less often.

Anyway, there's a reason why I keep referring back to Win D's double trap. That's because it has a real connection to my own system and this has intrigued me. As mentioned, some logical support has been found ,within my system, for Win D's double trap. However, the idea behind Win D's double trap is logically flawed. The reason why can be found in both Win D's posts and my responses to them.

Still, an extensive, and comprehensive, analysis has been done ,using my knowledge, with Win D's double trap. This has led to a flood of new information and a new ,and improved, version of Win D's double trap that is not logically flawed. Essentially, it's a cross between Win D's double trap and my system. But, this modified Win D double trap still doesn't cut it when it comes to these kinds of losing streaks.

Fortunately, though, an important discovery was made while conducting my analysis. That is, I've kept noticing certain trends that accompany the appearances of doubles. Sure enough, this breakthrough has turned out to be a major missing piece since it provides for newer ,and much better, restrictions. So far, it has proved to be very effective in protecting against these freak losing streaks.

There's a very fundamental reason why any good system, method, or tool will most likely fail.

What's a good system? You may have a 'good system' and bad waging strategy, the ideal that extended losing streaks is the reason for a system failure is not factual. You can slice and dice it anyway, the 'elephant' in the room is RANDOMNESS, and randomness decides everything. We predict because we're not certain, there is nothing logical about predicting in random setting, your best bet is assumptions and intuition coupled with a disciplined waging strategy.
RJOh

100

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20,272 Posts
Offline

Nov 15, 2014, 8:22 pm

"There's a very fundamental reason why any good system, method, or tool will most likely fail."

Failure is an indication that any system, method or tool is no good.

* you don't need to buy every combination, just the winning ones *
Prometheus1

United States
Member #1,344
April 6, 2003
184 Posts
Offline

Nov 15, 2014, 8:27 pm

Quote: Originally posted by Pick3Guy on Nov 15, 2014
There's a very fundamental reason why any good system, method, or tool will most likely fail. This is due to the extended losing streaks that ,sometimes, follow a series of wins. Usually, you'd have a few consecutive losses that aren't really an issue. But, oftentimes, there's a hefty price to pay for that sudden influx of wins.

A classic, and perfect, example of this is with Win D's double trap and what we have observed. According to the charts, this "tool" has shown great success with getting many ,concentrated, wins. But, they also show long losing streaks that shouldn't be ignored. As it stands, these losing streaks will, inevitably, occur. This means that some change would be needed to address this.

An analogy to this problem can be given ,in the field of hydrodynamics, with the phenomenon of rogue waves. Usually, you'd have ocean waves that are not so big or small. But, at times, there are monster waves that are capable of sinking a large ship with a quickness. At one time, rogue waves were the stuff of science fiction. But, nowadays, their existence has been proved and can even be explained using the Laws of Quantum Mechanics. The ocean, almost certainly, can't be tamed to prevent these freak waves. Instead, ships are instructed to reroute.

Just like with rogue waves, these rogue losing streaks can come out of nowhere and ,very easily, wipe us out. Likewise, you can't tame the game, but you can control how you play and lessen the likelihood of running into one of these monster losing streaks. So, what can we do about this?

So far, I've been working extra hard on this problem since it has ,recently, been found to exist within my own system. This is a fundamental problem that runs through the heart of the Pick 3 with anything we use. But, for a long time, I've known that the answer is in placing restrictions(i.e. requirements) on our play. We need to place either more or better restrictions to ,in effect, help balance out our wins and losses. So, it's ,mainly, just a matter of which restrictions and how many. Although, the problem with placing restrictions is that they cause you to play less often.

Anyway, there's a reason why I keep referring back to Win D's double trap. That's because it has a real connection to my own system and this has intrigued me. As mentioned, some logical support has been found ,within my system, for Win D's double trap. However, the idea behind Win D's double trap is logically flawed. The reason why can be found in both Win D's posts and my responses to them.

Still, an extensive, and comprehensive, analysis has been done ,using my knowledge, with Win D's double trap. This has led to a flood of new information and a new ,and improved, version of Win D's double trap that is not logically flawed. Essentially, it's a cross between Win D's double trap and my system. But, this modified Win D double trap still doesn't cut it when it comes to these kinds of losing streaks.

Fortunately, though, an important discovery was made while conducting my analysis. That is, I've kept noticing certain trends that accompany the appearances of doubles. Sure enough, this breakthrough has turned out to be a major missing piece since it provides for newer ,and much better, restrictions. So far, it has proved to be very effective in protecting against these freak losing streaks.

Such broad general statements don't interest anyone. We all know the problems with the game and it's odds already. So, what we need are very specific numbers. Numbers to actually prove what ever you are trying to say. Just words don't cut it. This is a numbers game. Showing is better than saying.

Many here have shown results which are proved out with examples. Most always what they show in one form or the other use images of some kind. Specific results in math form is the best. Otherwise, anyone can come back at your very " Wordy Observations" with the classic phrase of "Uh-uh".

Prove out your words with clear understandable statistics otherwise they don't count for much. Just another vague opinion. No numbers mean nothing to this crowd after years of hearing the same old negative "random" stuff. Breakthroughs deserve visible proofs.

PROMETHEUS
garyo1954

Texas
United States
Member #4,549
May 2, 2004
4,228 Posts
Offline

Nov 15, 2014, 9:40 pm

Quote: Originally posted by Prometheus1 on Nov 15, 2014
Such broad general statements don't interest anyone. We all know the problems with the game and it's odds already. So, what we need are very specific numbers. Numbers to actually prove what ever you are trying to say. Just words don't cut it. This is a numbers game. Showing is better than saying.

Many here have shown results which are proved out with examples. Most always what they show in one form or the other use images of some kind. Specific results in math form is the best. Otherwise, anyone can come back at your very " Wordy Observations" with the classic phrase of "Uh-uh".

Prove out your words with clear understandable statistics otherwise they don't count for much. Just another vague opinion. No numbers mean nothing to this crowd after years of hearing the same old negative "random" stuff. Breakthroughs deserve visible proofs.

Sheesh, all this newfangled TRANSPARENT MATH stuff.

I'm probably here unless I'm not.
Dreaming would be a perfectly useless function if it's only purpose was to entertain.
grwurston

100

Same #'s. Different games.

United States
Member #90,247
April 24, 2010
13,811 Posts
Online

Nov 15, 2014, 10:01 pm

Quote: Originally posted by Pick3Guy on Nov 15, 2014
There's a very fundamental reason why any good system, method, or tool will most likely fail. This is due to the extended losing streaks that ,sometimes, follow a series of wins. Usually, you'd have a few consecutive losses that aren't really an issue. But, oftentimes, there's a hefty price to pay for that sudden influx of wins.

A classic, and perfect, example of this is with Win D's double trap and what we have observed. According to the charts, this "tool" has shown great success with getting many ,concentrated, wins. But, they also show long losing streaks that shouldn't be ignored. As it stands, these losing streaks will, inevitably, occur. This means that some change would be needed to address this.

An analogy to this problem can be given ,in the field of hydrodynamics, with the phenomenon of rogue waves. Usually, you'd have ocean waves that are not so big or small. But, at times, there are monster waves that are capable of sinking a large ship with a quickness. At one time, rogue waves were the stuff of science fiction. But, nowadays, their existence has been proved and can even be explained using the Laws of Quantum Mechanics. The ocean, almost certainly, can't be tamed to prevent these freak waves. Instead, ships are instructed to reroute.

Just like with rogue waves, these rogue losing streaks can come out of nowhere and ,very easily, wipe us out. Likewise, you can't tame the game, but you can control how you play and lessen the likelihood of running into one of these monster losing streaks. So, what can we do about this?

So far, I've been working extra hard on this problem since it has ,recently, been found to exist within my own system. This is a fundamental problem that runs through the heart of the Pick 3 with anything we use. But, for a long time, I've known that the answer is in placing restrictions(i.e. requirements) on our play. We need to place either more or better restrictions to ,in effect, help balance out our wins and losses. So, it's ,mainly, just a matter of which restrictions and how many. Although, the problem with placing restrictions is that they cause you to play less often.

Anyway, there's a reason why I keep referring back to Win D's double trap. That's because it has a real connection to my own system and this has intrigued me. As mentioned, some logical support has been found ,within my system, for Win D's double trap. However, the idea behind Win D's double trap is logically flawed. The reason why can be found in both Win D's posts and my responses to them.

Still, an extensive, and comprehensive, analysis has been done ,using my knowledge, with Win D's double trap. This has led to a flood of new information and a new ,and improved, version of Win D's double trap that is not logically flawed. Essentially, it's a cross between Win D's double trap and my system. But, this modified Win D double trap still doesn't cut it when it comes to these kinds of losing streaks.

Fortunately, though, an important discovery was made while conducting my analysis. That is, I've kept noticing certain trends that accompany the appearances of doubles. Sure enough, this breakthrough has turned out to be a major missing piece since it provides for newer ,and much better, restrictions. So far, it has proved to be very effective in protecting against these freak losing streaks.

If you have a long winning streak we all say that our system or method is successful. But when we have a losing streak we say the system failed. How can that be when we already have had success with it? Our wins have proven that the system is good.

So perhaps the failure is ourselves, in that we are not correctly analyzing the information that we currently have. In other words we are not making the correct observations about what the game is doing. Or maybe we are, but we don't want to accept or acknowledge what we are seeing. Instead of being totally objective, we are letting our own biases decide what we should play. For example, All odds have hit 5 times in the last 6 days so... I really like all evens tonight instead of all odds because I have a feeling...besides they're due. But all odds hit again.

Everything we do in this game is a choice. Do I play such and such or not. Whether we win or lose all depends on whether or not we made the right choices based on our observations of what the game is doing. The more choices we make, the more chances we have of being wrong. If we win great, but if we lose, we say well random got me, or the system failed. Not really, we lost because we had a feeling...(our bias) and we went against what the game is doing. Bad choice.

Observe what the game is doing, and use what it gives you. In the above example, it's giving you all odds, so play all odds. Don't fight the game with your "feeling". That is where the long losing streaks start.
onlymoney

United States
Member #128,784
June 2, 2012
5,427 Posts
Offline

Nov 15, 2014, 10:46 pm

Quote: Originally posted by Pick3Guy on Nov 15, 2014
There's a very fundamental reason why any good system, method, or tool will most likely fail. This is due to the extended losing streaks that ,sometimes, follow a series of wins. Usually, you'd have a few consecutive losses that aren't really an issue. But, oftentimes, there's a hefty price to pay for that sudden influx of wins.

A classic, and perfect, example of this is with Win D's double trap and what we have observed. According to the charts, this "tool" has shown great success with getting many ,concentrated, wins. But, they also show long losing streaks that shouldn't be ignored. As it stands, these losing streaks will, inevitably, occur. This means that some change would be needed to address this.

An analogy to this problem can be given ,in the field of hydrodynamics, with the phenomenon of rogue waves. Usually, you'd have ocean waves that are not so big or small. But, at times, there are monster waves that are capable of sinking a large ship with a quickness. At one time, rogue waves were the stuff of science fiction. But, nowadays, their existence has been proved and can even be explained using the Laws of Quantum Mechanics. The ocean, almost certainly, can't be tamed to prevent these freak waves. Instead, ships are instructed to reroute.

Just like with rogue waves, these rogue losing streaks can come out of nowhere and ,very easily, wipe us out. Likewise, you can't tame the game, but you can control how you play and lessen the likelihood of running into one of these monster losing streaks. So, what can we do about this?

So far, I've been working extra hard on this problem since it has ,recently, been found to exist within my own system. This is a fundamental problem that runs through the heart of the Pick 3 with anything we use. But, for a long time, I've known that the answer is in placing restrictions(i.e. requirements) on our play. We need to place either more or better restrictions to ,in effect, help balance out our wins and losses. So, it's ,mainly, just a matter of which restrictions and how many. Although, the problem with placing restrictions is that they cause you to play less often.

Anyway, there's a reason why I keep referring back to Win D's double trap. That's because it has a real connection to my own system and this has intrigued me. As mentioned, some logical support has been found ,within my system, for Win D's double trap. However, the idea behind Win D's double trap is logically flawed. The reason why can be found in both Win D's posts and my responses to them.

Still, an extensive, and comprehensive, analysis has been done ,using my knowledge, with Win D's double trap. This has led to a flood of new information and a new ,and improved, version of Win D's double trap that is not logically flawed. Essentially, it's a cross between Win D's double trap and my system. But, this modified Win D double trap still doesn't cut it when it comes to these kinds of losing streaks.

Fortunately, though, an important discovery was made while conducting my analysis. That is, I've kept noticing certain trends that accompany the appearances of doubles. Sure enough, this breakthrough has turned out to be a major missing piece since it provides for newer ,and much better, restrictions. So far, it has proved to be very effective in protecting against these freak losing streaks.

What a breath of fresh air. Your writing is lucid and to the point.

Double restrictions are easier to handle, you're right. As for myself, I've always tried avoiding anything to do with doubles because I felt they were the wrenches thrown into the system. But now I may rethink studying the doubles "expectation" behaviors as you so profoundly alluded to.

My experiments on studying doubles ONLY, till this day has gotten me perplexed. In short, I was trying to apply a p-3 system to doubles only, and for the life of me, I couldn't get past a certain point. It was trying to fit a cube into a triangle.

There are 270 straight doubles as opposed to 720 straight singles. Wouldn't it make sense to study doubles only? Sure the hits don't come everyday, but so WHAT? I'd rather play on a sure thing and have to wait, then spend money everyday just to chase the 720 combos...

Thanks, and I can't wait to see more.
garyo1954

Texas
United States
Member #4,549
May 2, 2004
4,228 Posts
Offline

Nov 15, 2014, 11:05 pm

Quote: Originally posted by onlymoney on Nov 15, 2014
What a breath of fresh air. Your writing is lucid and to the point.

Double restrictions are easier to handle, you're right. As for myself, I've always tried avoiding anything to do with doubles because I felt they were the wrenches thrown into the system. But now I may rethink studying the doubles "expectation" behaviors as you so profoundly alluded to.

My experiments on studying doubles ONLY, till this day has gotten me perplexed. In short, I was trying to apply a p-3 system to doubles only, and for the life of me, I couldn't get past a certain point. It was trying to fit a cube into a triangle.

There are 270 straight doubles as opposed to 720 straight singles. Wouldn't it make sense to study doubles only? Sure the hits don't come everyday, but so WHAT? I'd rather play on a sure thing and have to wait, then spend money everyday just to chase the 720 combos...

Thanks, and I can't wait to see more.

You didn't say "hydrodynamics" so you missed the point.

I'm probably here unless I'm not.
Dreaming would be a perfectly useless function if it's only purpose was to entertain.
doodoohead

United States
Member #2,392
September 27, 2003
1,039 Posts
Offline

Nov 15, 2014, 11:09 pm

What was the point? No point was ever shown to us. He said he had a system of some kind. He said there were problems that must be solved. Yes, how. We all know that. He didn't show any of his so called improvements.

What's refreshing about someone saying they have something they can't or will not show us? Around here secret systems no one ever gets to see are not refreshing. Same old same old.

* If you can name it, you can find it, and if you can find it, you can track it, and if you can track it, you can beat it.
RJOh

100

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20,272 Posts
Offline

Nov 15, 2014, 11:14 pm

Yeah I agree, what so great about a good system that consistently fails. Failure is failure whether it's a good system or a lousy system.

* you don't need to buy every combination, just the winning ones *
onlymoney

United States
Member #128,784
June 2, 2012
5,427 Posts
Offline

Nov 15, 2014, 11:15 pm

Quote: Originally posted by doodoohead on Nov 15, 2014
What was the point? No point was ever shown to us. He said he had a system of some kind. He said there were problems that must be solved. Yes, how. We all know that. He didn't show any of his so called improvements.

What's refreshing about someone saying they have something they can't or will not show us? Around here secret systems no one ever gets to see are not refreshing. Same old same old.

It's much more refreshing than reading a comment by a user named doodoohead.

So you want a magic wand? Let me look into my crystal ball and see where they sell bunny rabbits and hats. When i find the link, I'll post it.
onlymoney

United States
Member #128,784
June 2, 2012
5,427 Posts
Offline

Nov 15, 2014, 11:22 pm

Quote: Originally posted by garyo1954 on Nov 15, 2014
You didn't say "hydrodynamics" so you missed the point.

His analogy was spot on. I've seen those shows about rogue waves. Just like anything else, numbers work in waves and calm, meaning randomness/chaos behaves sporadically, yet generally predictable.

Waves at the beach usually come in three, then there's a sort of calm for a while until the waves show again.

Numbers work the same way. There is "Normal" activity, and sudden spikes. recent Florida p-3 winners are a good example. The 9 in the first position couldn't stay away. That's not the normal distribution. There's a deviance in the flow, like a piece of wood in a fast running river causing a vortex in the water around it, then the flow may get stronger and the piece of wood becomes loose, returning the flow of water back to it's smooth pattern.
doodoohead

United States
Member #2,392
September 27, 2003
1,039 Posts
Offline

Nov 15, 2014, 11:34 pm

Please, Where is anything "talked" about and so Refreshingly shown anywhere up there? So, do we see ANY tiny proof of these marvelous claims? That's my point. Everyone already knows about "Rogue Waves". Big deal, its called "win some lose some". Show some of those claims. That's where the rubber meets the road for making money. Big talk ! Always with the big claims. Then a lot of off subject diversions get tossed around. Then personal slights attempts about someone's humorous Avatar name and off it goes again right onlymoney? First blood. No thanks, not interested. That's not the point either is it? Or, is it?

" Fortunately, though, an important discovery was made while conducting my analysis. That is, I've kept noticing certain trends that accompany the appearances of doubles. Sure enough, this breakthrough has turned out to be a major missing piece since it provides for newer ,and muchbetter, restrictions. So far, it has proved to be very effective in protecting against these freak losing streaks."

llllllllllll

* If you can name it, you can find it, and if you can find it, you can track it, and if you can track it, you can beat it.
CTNY

New Haven, CT - Queens, NY
United States
Member #98,736
October 13, 2010
5,458 Posts
Offline

Nov 15, 2014, 11:35 pm

Quote: Originally posted by adobea78 on Nov 15, 2014
There's a very fundamental reason why any good system, method, or tool will most likely fail.

What's a good system? You may have a 'good system' and bad waging strategy, the ideal that extended losing streaks is the reason for a system failure is not factual. You can slice and dice it anyway, the 'elephant' in the room is RANDOMNESS, and randomness decides everything. We predict because we're not certain, there is nothing logical about predicting in random setting, your best bet is assumptions and intuition coupled with a disciplined waging strategy.

We predict because we're not certain, there is nothing logical about predicting in random setting, your best bet is assumptions and intuition coupled with a disciplined waging strategy.

This pretty much sums it up.

To Predict: is to declare or tell in advance.

Discipline. Not becoming emotionally attached to your predictions. Progressive wagering.

Study your predictions. Know your predictions. Become your predictions.

Ok well maybe not the last part lol

Winnning at digit games are always supplemental.

The goal is to approach the Pick 3 & Pick 4 game sensibly and systematically!!

I'm not like the guy who predicted the end of the world and nothing happened.