So.....every idea has been thought of?

[Number Six]

Naturally neither you nor your claims can be taken seriously.....unless......unless you can elaborate on the "nothingness" upon which your 7% benchmark is based. For example, you are part of a global percentage, both historical and present. Therefore you must have a number in mind that represents the total number of players to have ever played to the standards of your criteria in order to be a percentage of something real. For this you would have to factor in a myriad practically inestimable variables. While you're on a role could you explain to us mortals how to build a propulsion system for faster than light travel?

[Mr J]

"represents the total number of players to have ever played to the standards of your criteria" >>> Wrong answer coolbreeze. I already posted the guidlines at which I estimated at 7%. You are getting too goofy with EVERYTHING included.....what if it was cloudy in London and Phil was going to play but it started to rain so he cancelled. Who knows, he might of NETTED 5K that day? lol I posted it, agree or not, thats cool. I win and you PROBABLY dont. Thats the BEST compliment I can give you. I refuse to "up" your status just because you are mad for not winning. I'm not the enemy, blame the casinos for that.  Ken

[Number Six]

The point is, for an average player like you who might visit two different casinos in his lifetime it's impossible to estimate. For all intents and purposes you are even insignficant. In your world, which is limited to roulette boards and the people on them, it might SEEM plausible to say "I'm in the top 7%", in the real world it's unacceptable and nonsensical.

[Mr J]

LETS TRY THE CRITERIA AGAIN >>> Not top of the leader board but I would answer like this.....GRANTED, the math would be tough but I look at it in terms of 'percent'. 1) Net only for roulette. 2) All forms of play including AP (cough). 3) Over the last 3 years.

4) All members on the major roulette boards. 5) In terms of 'percent', thats tougher. 6) How many visits per month/year? What about 4 times a month? (which is low) 7) 144 visits.  Ken

[Number Six]

Though I misread your initial post, I have concluded that your claim is no less absurd even considering the criteria since, like you admitted, it is based on nothing and therefore means nothing. It's a simple fantasy you're happy to indulge yourself in and cannot one bit be taken seriously. But if it makes you feel good

[Mr J]

(I was waiting for that) Let me ask this....what if I stated, IMO, I was in the top 90% (same guidelines) for LOSING at this game? I would bet, you would either agree OR have no comment. You would not say......"your claim is no less absurd even considering the criteria since, like you admitted, it is based on nothing and therefore means nothing". Would you stand up for me? "Hey Ken, go easy on yourself, the top 90% for losing? No way Ken, I find that hard to believe". Damn, I ask the good questions. These are the SAME questions deemed as, "Ken sure starts trouble". lol  Ken

[Number Six]

Yes, whether negative or positive, if something has no substance it has no substance. However, if you were to say, "for every dollar I wager I lose between 5 and 6 cents" I would probably believe that. 7% is a ballpark figure in your own mind that has no meaning because you have no idea how many people constitute the criteria and how much they win or lose...truly you are in the top 7% of nothing. You obviously know this. To compose a leader board it would actually be better to use some sort of points scoring system that factors in net winnings, among other things, to produce a survey that reflects performance or effectivness rather than just raw winnings, though it still couldn't be done due to confirmation bias (there has to be a proportional element between how much people can win in relation to how much they have at stake and how much they can stake). Realistically it is nothing but a fantasy and I would even suggest that you retract your claim. LOL

[Mr J]

No way, I won't delete the 7%. We dont agree, no big deal. It won't be the last time for that. I love roulette, its a fun game. I think too many people are afraid to play, IMO. I have tried to win with flat betting, I cant. I have tried to win placing bets based on NOTHING, I lose. Over the years, I STRONGLY BELIEVE that trial and error is most important but again, thats my opinion.  Ken

[Mr J]

"YOU DONT BEAT THE CASINO SO DONT TRY IT COS YOU WILL LOSE" >>> Ok, thanks for your opinion.  Ken

[Mr J]

All.....and I do appreciate your post, I wasn't joking.  Ken

[Mr J]

-