In a way you could consider trials of a system/method/strategy as past results under scrutiny.
If you agree with the above statement, then let's make one step further and say that this is the base of reverse engineering.
So here is my first question; what's the problem with reverse engineering?
Let me clarify that I'm not with, neither against it, in my opinion it could be the foundation of a "Holy Grail" or it could be nothing.
For example if we reverse engineer 1,000 results it would be insignificant because the sample is relatively small, but if we would do the same for 1,000,000 results with a positive outcome, it could be the definition of the "Holy Grail" of gambling because in such huge total of results too many combinations, situations are getting covered.
So, IMO, reverse engineering doesn't mean anything if we don't determine how much is enough, how many results conclude a sufficient sample.
Here comes my second question which has 2 legs:
When you are trying a system/strategy/method how long does it take before you feel confident enough and proceed to the real game? I want not a number of observed spins, but a number of successful bets, thank you.
And the 2nd leg of the question, if doesn't stands to your expectations, how many units you have to lose (in paper/trial) in total before you decide that this system/strategy/method is not good for you?
Have you ever felt very confident about something you have tried but when you start it with real money you experienced negative results?
If yes, did it happen few times or many times?
If you asked me, honestly it happened to me many times, that's why I feel, in a way, like Ken...
because he said that tried MANY systems/methods/strategies, spending MUCH time and money on the way.
Personally speaking, I DON'T regret my decisions, but I'm trying to learn from my mistakes and don't repeat them.
All that time time and money spent I consider it as investment for my development, not only for my gambling experience but also for my progress as a personality.
Under such difficult situations is where one could build a strong character and not when everything is easy and nice.
One last thing, I have nothing against "hit 'n' run" tactics, BUT when someone is applying such tactic then it becomes obvious that he cares about the results and the profit, NOT the game itself!
So if someone claims that he doesn't care about money, but only about "ideas" while he is fan of "hit 'n' run" there are 2 possible explanations...
(admin: edited. BA, this is a nice post, why end it with polemic? What is the point?)