Private groups can definitely be better stuffed, if it has members of same level of knowledge, skill and enthusiasm. Open forums very rarely concentrate on something serious and 90% debates run over old useless stuffs and leg pullings.
Our members are dedicated to PASSION and PURPOSE without drama!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Show posts MenuQuoteEven of those that are attempting to learn this have expressed difficulties in understanding it.You may take it as a matter of pride but I think this is failure at your part or your concepts are vague and ambiguous.
QuoteIt's completely possible to deliberately win every session you attempt to play. All it takes is skill and perseverance based on experience.requires to be proved.
QuoteIt's completely possible to deliberately win every session you attempt to play. All it takes is skill and perseverance based on experience.This is the boldest stuff I can ever read or hear regarding a random game. These so called randomness experts claim to win every session. Joke of the millenium.
Quote from: Bayes on December 12, 2012, 12:21:18 PMIt is. It is called game of chance and no one can make it a game of skill. A smart player can only take chances in smart manner like not playing martingale type of thing and stop loss and profit target etc. There can not be an "educated guess". This is the most uneducated way to handle randomness. You can ofcourse read the past but by no mean take any inference out of those regarding future.
KR,
None taken. So you mean it's ALL down to luck? Ok, but the point I'm trying make is that there isn't ultimately any difference between using systems and reading randomness. This is what emerges if you look more closely at what "reading randomness" means, at least, as far as I understand the term. Spike & Gizmo claim there IS a difference, and one that make the difference between winning and losing.