Interesting point from the Wiz site

[Mr J]

Its almost 2:30am, I'll respond tomorrow. On my terms, not yours.

Ken   

[Mike]

The most valuable part was when you asked if principles and theory was the same thing thus implying that your theories were sound. That is why I was delighted when you mentioned theory.

Ken will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's what he was implying. By mentioning THEORY, he was trying to imply that AP is ok in theory, and maybe it worked in 1923, but not now. What he doesn't understand is that yes, modern wheels are very different from what they were, but the PRINCIPLES on which AP is based (ie; physics) haven't changed. However, statistics and looking at past spins weren't valid principles for increasing the accuracy of predictions in 1923, and they NEVER will be.

[System]

Its almost 2:30am, I'll respond tomorrow. On my terms, not yours.

Ken   

Whatever Mr. J, whether you respond on my terms, or your terms, or Santa Clause's terms who cares and what is the relevance on who's terms you are posting on? What are my terms? lol 

Mr. J look at this sentence you posted:"The anti-method folks are looking for KEY WORDS in the explanation of WHY a method 'should' work. I *NEVER* include those words when I post a method, at least give me that much."  I personally think that you don't have shit. You accuse others of being evasive when you yourself is just that. People in glass houses right?

[Kelly]

You ask for proof from AP guys but cannot supply your own 'theories' why your systems should work. You say you should not be disrespected. Well I believe nobody should but having said that I believe respect should be earned and not demanded. You mention "I dont HIDE in waiting so I can attack others." Sadly the only attacking seems to be you on guys like Mike and Kelly. What I have seen is that they genuinely want to educate. Seriously, one should listen to all maybe something can be learned. You seem to be more focused on discrediting AP. Sad.

The funny thing is, the last person i would wanna discuss AP tecknickes with is Ken, but he also happens to be the one that i discuss it the most with.  Mind you, im not coming on to him. The all time king of hate towards AP is not able to have a discussion without talking about it.   I would not open a topic on the subject anymore but if someone asks a decent question i will answer or if someone got something wrong, i will put him back on track if i can do it 5 - 6 lines. And of course if someone calls me a liar for believing in gamblers fallacy, i might want some proof that im actually lying. 

[System]

The funny thing is, the last person I would wanna discuss AP tecknickes with is Ken, but he also happens to be the one that I discuss it the most with.  Mind you, im not coming on to him. The all time king of hate towards AP is not able to have a discussion without talking about it.   I would not open a topic on the subject anymore but if someone asks a decent question I will answer or if someone got something wrong, I will put him back on track if I can do it 5 - 6 lines. And of course if someone calls me a liar for believing in gamblers fallacy, I might want some proof that im actually lying. 

Decent post and point taken.

[geoff365]

The wheel is like a stock market........ Some number(s) are worth more.

[Mr J]

"Mr. J look at this sentence you posted:"The anti-method folks are looking for KEY WORDS in the explanation of WHY a method 'should' work. I *NEVER* include those words when I post a method, at least give me that much."  I personally think that you don't have shit. You accuse others of being evasive when you yourself is just that. People in glass houses right"? >>>


Sorry about that, was painting all day yesterday, today and more tomorrow. I'll go on and on, thats cool with me bro. I am 100% correct....."The anti-method folks are looking for KEY WORDS in the explanation of WHY a method 'should' work". <<< Let me ask you this. Of ALL the methods you have ever read, from any poster, which one would you agree with regarding.......a proper explanation of 'why' it works?

In other words, lets not focus on you slamming me, what other methods do YOU 'agree' with?? My point? Lets try this again for the slower crowd. You WANT so bad for me to say CERTAIN things in order for you to pounce!! I won't say those things and it drives you nuts!!!  *NO* method on this planet is perfect, never will be. I get asked a certain question alot so I'll throw the SAME question back at any AP (cough) person.......with your AP (cough) skills, do you feel you BEAT roulette?

Ken

[Mr J]

"Ken will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's what he was implying. By mentioning THEORY, he was trying to imply that AP is ok in theory, and maybe it worked in 1923, but not now" >>> Correct Mike.

Ken

[Mr J]

The funny thing is, the last person I would wanna discuss AP tecknickes with is Ken, but he also happens to be the one that I discuss it the most with.  Mind you, im not coming on to him. The all time king of hate towards AP is not able to have a discussion without talking about it.   I would not open a topic on the subject anymore but if someone asks a decent question I will answer or if someone got something wrong, I will put him back on track if I can do it 5 - 6 lines. And of course if someone calls me a liar for believing in gamblers fallacy, I might want some proof that im actually lying. 

No hate towards AP (cough). My gripe is the same. Its your inability to admit that you are lazy when it comes to TRYING to create something.....a decent method only through a TON of trial & error. Its not that you guys dont agree with methods per say, its that you threw in the towel way too early, so then the finger pointing starts. If I have to PROVE that I do 'well' with methods....SO DO YOU!!!!!! Same rule for everybody. Using AP (cough) is NOTHING MORE than gamblers fallacy. Always has been, always will be. Using past numbers under a FEW examples is VERY useful. Tell me I'm wrong 532 times and I'll tell you that you're wrong 532 times. Your BIAS is terrible these days Kelly/Snowman.

A couple numbers hitting *ALOT* in the last 25 spins (est.) compared to a couple numbers that have NOT hit in the last 300 spins, yeah, they're both the same.    The math 'experts' are the LAST guys you wanna listen to folks, TRUST ME ON THAT !!!


Ken

[Nathan Detroit]

At what stage  did  1923  enter the picture ?  Am I missing something along the   historical path ?

N.D.

[Mr J]

(lol), not really, I could of picked 1982 instead. My point being, the difficulty of AP (cough) BACK THEN compared to now. 'They' will even ADMIT to that.

Ken

[System]

(lol), not really, I could of picked 1982 instead. My point being, the difficulty of AP (cough) BACK THEN compared to now. 'They' will even ADMIT to that.

Ken

I have looked at your systems and there is no advantage over the house. Some of your so-called new ideas have been done before. Fact remains is that you have nothing and you are attackincking others to try and conceal that fact.

[Mr J]

I have looked at your systems and there is no advantage over the house. Some of your so-called new ideas have been done before. Fact remains is that you have nothing and you are attackincking others to try and conceal that fact.

A) I dont play systems, I play methods.

B) There is no form of gambling (even AP) with an 'advantage over the house'.

C) I dont post the TITLE.....'new ideas' in the thread of my methods.

D) You dont know that everything has been done before. If so, prove it. Sound familiar?

E) Have nothing? I appreciate your opinion. I do quite 'well', thanks for your interest.

F) I dont 'attack' others. I RESPOND to posts, does that COUNT as an attack? We need some solid definitions please.

G) What is your style of play for roulette?

Ken

[System]

  My style of play is "The Mr. J - collection of systems methods"  Been doing really badly with it. Thought I especially will go for it because your stuff aint systems; THEY ARE METHODS!  Please explain to me how your 1.2.3 rule system methods are different from systems? 

I have now moved on and I'm playing my own systems methods, system-methods, or method-systems.

Still fail. Time to start looking into your cough Ken for some sense. Kelly, Mike, "I have Cookies" and co. seem to be the only ones that really talk sense and know something. It is never too late to learn J. Listen to your cough for god's sake. It makes alot more sense than your ramblings! 

[Mr J]

A) You are a member from the past.....100% positive on that. Yep, either someone who received no respect OR someone who was banned.

B) You never answered me and I know why. Because then, YOU would be under scrutiny in terms of how you play.
Its always a FUNNY subject. Posters that INSULT others *BUT* do not have the nuts to lay everything out in the open. As much as I cant stand Kelly, at least he lays it out.  Still waiting for that answer System. 

Ken

[Mr J]

-