The old VLS is dead.

[Spike!]

I am not upset in the least.>>

Coulda fooled me...

>>I'm curious to know what you get out of posting on public forums>>

What does anybody 'get out' of posting on forums? What do you 'get out' of it? It makes me think when I start threads and write posts. Forums is the only place you can find like minded people. Why does somebody who likes butterflies post on butterfly forums? Thats where all the people who love butterflies are.

[Nathan Detroit]

Spike,

But the cuckoos  are  nesting all over. They do not discriminate  .

[Spike!]

Hey Nathan, is there a cuckoo forum? There must be..

[gizmotron]

Can you elaborate on this statement?

Effectiveness follows the same Kind of states that reading randomness does. It's important to know the differences  when a perfectly good premise passes through the three states. It's important to make rapid adjustments. Change is the key to improving effectiveness results.

[Spike!]

Randomness seems to come in waves, interspersed by chaos. I track randomness in EC's because the waves are closer together, and the highs and lows of the waves are reasonable. Tracking the randomness for all 37 or 38 numbers seperately would be almost impossible, the waves aren't managable.

[Herb6]

No it doesn't

[Spike!]

No what doesn't?

[Herb6]

Seriously,

You and Gizmo need to stop pretending that you understand randomness as it pertains to roulette. 

[Spike!]

<<You and Gizmo need to stop pretending that you understand randomness>>

Seriously, you need to answer if its possible to do better than 50/50 on coin flips. Seriously, you need to convince me why I can't read randomness to exploit roulette.  Seriously, you need to show us the math that says trends and patterns can't and don't happen.

Seriously....

[Herb6]

Spike,

If you and Gizmotron don't already know the answer to the above question, then there's very little chance that either of you will ever comprehend randomness.

[Spike!]

Um, what above question?  Which post is it in?

[Bayes]

BTW, where is the rule book for begging? What page number says that "The burden of proof is on those who make the claims." ?

Sorry to disappoint, but it's nothing to do with begging. Think about it, how can anyone possibly show that yours and Spike's methods (if they even exist) do not exist? You would have to try every possible roulette strategy or system devised or yet to be tried, then report back to you or spike. You would then say "Nope - that ain't it, keep trying!.

What you're trying to do is shift the burden of proof to others who have made no claim. It's like saying "bigfoot exists, prove that he doesn't!". Then if I go out and look for bigfoot but don't find him, you will then say "you must have just missed him - try looking over there!"

So no-one can prove that your 60%/72% methods don't exist (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), only you can prove that they do. Since you won't do that (and you also reject the mathematical proof that they can't work), then we are left with empty words which signify nothing.

[Bayes]

The very notion of "reading random" is an oxymoron.>

So are most things until you understand them.

So are most things???    

Do you know how Zen masters teach? They don't actually teach anything, they point. Its because what they know can't be taught, it can only be understood by looking at it differently.

Yes, I did know that actually. But what does this have to do with picking 72% winners? zen meditation and practice may have a lot of benefits, but predicting the future isn't one of them! 

You sure are a hoot Spike, keep up the good work!

[Noble Savage]

lol he sure is.

I'm glad there are a few intelligent people here.

[gizmotron]

What you're trying to do is shift the burden of proof to others who have made no claim. It's like saying "bigfoot exists, prove that he doesn't!". Then if I go out and look for bigfoot but don't find him, you will then say "you must have just missed him - try looking over there!"

What I'm trying to do is to make people place a value on something shared with them in a way that they will value in the end. The point is to protect the opportunity. As long as the skeptics like you over react like you do I'm almost assured that it's safe. You are like a weather balloon at Roswell, New Mexico back in the 50's. You make us out to be KOOKs. You provide us the perfect cover. Thanks.

[gizmotron]

-