Quote from: Number Six on February 17, 2014, 06:22:42 PM
XXVV,
Yes I did not read it. I read the criteria Bayes used for his program, so regardless I am pretty sure I understand what it's all about. Not sure I need to do my homework really, your opinion of this method of play does not tally with mine. I don't see the problem. There's nothing wrong with advising caution before someone plays it for real. If they do or not has no bearing on me at all.
My view is hardly biased, I'm not bashing any one here, I just don't see the logic. There is actually nothing to support that fact that your bet selections somehow offer an increased probability of winning. I feel like I've seen it all before.
Fair enough the last sentence really sums your view and thank you for the directness.
What interests me about science and research or design, is trying to see something anew, from a slightly different angle. A fresh 'insight'.
Simply stated I believe WF does that in that in many cases, sometimes a majority of cases, a win van be achieved through a higher than expected grouping of winning bet outcomes when there are 3 or 4 targets in a game as we have defined. This fluctuates of course but in my experience and in substantial samples of live spin testing we have found there is a sufficient dominance of these characteristsics, especially WF1,2, and 3, in order to provide short term gain which can be captured and amassed.
Of course this varies and we flat stake and stop loss to try to maximise bet efficiency.
It works for me with addition especially of further detail to which I have referred.
The warm numbers often come and go and in my view most often do not become hot as in the RWD definition.
My original idea was that the 'warming' process' gives this view a freshness and slightly different quality, what is termed 'a point of difference' in commercial jargon. However if after all that, you still feel you have 'seen it all' then I need discuss this no further.
Thank you