Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 7, 2016, 5:07 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Why any good Pick 3 system, method, or tool will ,almost, certainly fail

Topic closed. 107 replies. Last post 2 years ago by Pick3Guy.

Page 1 of 8
4.36
PrintE-mailLink

United States
Member #155994
June 5, 2014
497 Posts
Offline
Posted: November 15, 2014, 7:23 pm - IP Logged

 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's avatar - garyo
    Dallas, Texas
    United States
    Member #4549
    May 2, 2004
    1692 Posts
    Online
    Posted: November 15, 2014, 8:02 pm - IP Logged

     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

    My greatest accomplishment is teaching cats about Vienna Sausage. When I need a friend, all I need do is walk outside, pop open a can, and every little critter in the neighborhood drops by to say "Hi!"

      Avatar

      United States
      Member #116344
      September 8, 2011
      3927 Posts
      Online
      Posted: November 15, 2014, 8:12 pm - IP Logged

       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's avatar - chipmunk
        mid-Ohio
        United States
        Member #9
        March 24, 2001
        19828 Posts
        Online
        Posted: November 15, 2014, 8:22 pm - IP Logged

        "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 more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
           
                     Evil Looking       

          Prometheus1's avatar - trace9

          United States
          Member #1344
          April 6, 2003
          177 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: November 15, 2014, 8:27 pm - IP Logged

           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's avatar - garyo
            Dallas, Texas
            United States
            Member #4549
            May 2, 2004
            1692 Posts
            Online
            Posted: November 15, 2014, 9:40 pm - IP Logged

            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.

            My greatest accomplishment is teaching cats about Vienna Sausage. When I need a friend, all I need do is walk outside, pop open a can, and every little critter in the neighborhood drops by to say "Hi!"

              grwurston's avatar - Cute animals_Spider.jpg
              Winning makes me smile.
              bel air maryland
              United States
              Member #90251
              April 24, 2010
              4870 Posts
              Online
              Posted: November 15, 2014, 10:01 pm - IP Logged

               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.

              "You can observe a lot just by watching." Yogi Berra, Hall of Fame baseball player.

              The numbers will tell you what numbers to play. Pay attention to the numbers.

              Don't just think outside the box, crush it.


                United States
                Member #128790
                June 2, 2012
                5431 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: November 15, 2014, 10:46 pm - IP Logged

                 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...Green laugh

                 

                 

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

                Thumbs Up

                  garyo1954's avatar - garyo
                  Dallas, Texas
                  United States
                  Member #4549
                  May 2, 2004
                  1692 Posts
                  Online
                  Posted: November 15, 2014, 11:05 pm - IP Logged

                  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...Green laugh

                   

                   

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

                  Thumbs Up

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

                  My greatest accomplishment is teaching cats about Vienna Sausage. When I need a friend, all I need do is walk outside, pop open a can, and every little critter in the neighborhood drops by to say "Hi!"

                    doodoohead's avatar - bioresonance therapy.jpg

                    United States
                    Member #2392
                    September 27, 2003
                    263 Posts
                    Online
                    Posted: November 15, 2014, 11:09 pm - IP Logged

                    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 want something you have never had, then you have to do something you have never done. 

                      RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                      mid-Ohio
                      United States
                      Member #9
                      March 24, 2001
                      19828 Posts
                      Online
                      Posted: November 15, 2014, 11:14 pm - IP Logged

                      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 more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
                         
                                   Evil Looking       


                        United States
                        Member #128790
                        June 2, 2012
                        5431 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: November 15, 2014, 11:15 pm - IP Logged

                        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.


                          United States
                          Member #128790
                          June 2, 2012
                          5431 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: November 15, 2014, 11:22 pm - IP Logged

                          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's avatar - bioresonance therapy.jpg

                            United States
                            Member #2392
                            September 27, 2003
                            263 Posts
                            Online
                            Posted: November 15, 2014, 11:34 pm - IP Logged

                             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 want something you have never had, then you have to do something you have never done. 

                              CTNY's avatar - Lottery-062.jpg
                              New Haven, CT - Queens, NY
                              United States
                              Member #98740
                              October 13, 2010
                              5432 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: November 15, 2014, 11:35 pm - IP Logged

                              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!! Wink

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