Balvinder sambhi bryder roulettehjulsbogen (side 4)

Well, where is your proof, mighty winner? Is this still about the fancy book?

Allow me a little trick with words - I won't buy it. Meaning: I don't actually believe you much.

Could you please start being a bit more polite? I can't help myself, but you seem to piss quite a few community members off with your lousy words. Have you noticed?

Take it as a warning.

Good point. 

Even though I couldn't help myself passing this chat without a further note to this person, I just want to ask you to use stars for strong expressions. 🙂 Just a kind plea...

Believe me, I understand your feelings quite well.

Thank you radka,

I was going to post a winning 50% per win system for members, as everone is winning i will now not post this system.

😃😃😃😃😃

Oh, I'm really grateful for this decision. Especially after all your comments.

It's a good thing you won't post any systems here.

Have a good one!

Honestly, I think it's a great idea when people publish "universal systems" openly — it allows other community members to thoroughly discuss them, which, in turn, helps others look at things more critically.

For example, Kareva7 was very persistent in promoting a book and a system in this thread, and now, I believe, search engines will be able to provide their users with information on how to avoid losses.

Put yourself in the shoes of a beginner: when something is asserted authoritatively with supporting news sources that it's a highly profitable thing, you would definitely want to try it if no one presents an opposing point of view.

"Thank you radka,

I was going to post a winning 50% per win system for members, as everone is winning i will now not post this system."

We discuss the "somehow 50%" winning system that a speaker without the ability to back up her claims or ideas mentioned. This entire conversation ended up being a straightforward book promotion, despite your and others' valid concerns and thoughtful justifications. Wouldn't you say?

So, yes, you are saying the same as I do.

Or you didn't understand the reply.

I'm not sure. 🙂

I mean, let them publish. As you know, I have the ability to check various hypotheses and systems on real data, and if his/her ideas turn out to be interesting, let people know about them. If it's just another unsupported claim, then I'll do my best to thoroughly justify it with real examples. So, either we learn something interesting and new, or users will be informed about the "pitfalls" of some new approach.

There is a saying in Russia: "Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater," implying that by carelessness or oversight, we might lose something valuable, dismissing it as, in our view, foolishness. Gold is rarely found in whole nuggets; sometimes you have to dig through mountains of dirt to unearth it.

I think I understand what you are talking about, anyway everyone has the opportunity to try and see for themselves if it is suitable for them or not and then confirm or refute a system. Of course nobody likes to be refuted when they are convinced that there is a profit in it. Then there is pressure rather than conversation. But of course you have to be objective and take the opinions of others into account, and I think they can be verified. However, you also have to accept constructive criticism if you find some holes in the system. That's about as much as I would say. 🙂