Thank you XXVV.

Let's face it: "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach."

You just don't get it. The flat earth experts of their time proclaimed their truth. It took others to show them the real facts. I expect a few of you to prove me right. I know it will happen. What I do is so simple that those that seek a complicated expertise will be astonished at what they overlooked. I have every enjoyment in watching this phase of forum discussions.

This is not about how great a method or system works, or how simple or complicated it may be. It's about: Can thinking outside the box be taught? No, period.

Here's a thought: "F" the box. We need a box like we need intellectual guidance.

The Crow

"F" - Forget

Quote from: Gizmotron on July 02, 2014, 01:59:01 AM
I'm totally fascinated by those that can't see it.

I'm totally fascinated by those who DO see it, LOL.

Quote from: The Crow on July 02, 2014, 04:53:51 AM
This is not about how great a method or system works, or how simple or complicated it may be. It's about: Can thinking outside the box be taught? No, period.

Here's a thought: "F" the box. We need a box like we need intellectual guidance.

The Crow

"F" - Forget  <<<<<<<<Nice maneuver !

Basically the whole story is that the man should be able to recognize what is a box to be able to know what is outside the box.

Good thinking, Mare 

Yes -- we first need to define what we mean by 'the box'.

Real simple Esoito >>> "there are 38 numbers and we get paid 35:1, its impossible to win".

THAT PERSON, can not and will not understand what thinking outside the box means.

Ken

...... it means, " lateral thinking ".......












Carlitos 

That's exactly right, Carlitos.

Which neatly brings us back to my previous mention of Edward de Bono who has for many years taught others to think outside the box.

And that fact alone provides the answer to Ken's original question...

Quod Erat Demonstrandum (QED)

This thread reminds me of the prayer:

Quote
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

The courage to change the things I can

And wisdom to know the difference.

Once you accept the faulty premise that spins aren't independent, an infinity of systems become possible. I think most people would assume that independence of outcomes is self-evident, but if you're not convinced, try Googling the "Chi-square test for independence", and use it on any sequence of spins which you think is some kind of indicator of future spins.

I await your results with interest!