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.