Yes, I know that the system can't win, no matter how much it's tweaked, that's why I think it's a waste of time to pursue this any further on betselection-cc or post my simulation results. They will just say (in fact XXVV already has) that MB deliberately left out certain details (apparently the ones which make the difference between winning and losing, thus making the whole system worthless).
You appear to have a remarkable ability to see into the future. Let us say your assumptions are faulty.
The system as you refer to it is a 'strategy' and is a way of viewing the outcomes and dealing with them in an ordered and efficient manner. I say this not as a student of MB or an interested party ( in the sense of any commercial benefit) but as someone who listens to others and evaluates what they say, and if reasonable gives the writer or speaker the goodwill of hearing them out, suspending disbelief, or giving the benefit of the doubt which is a fine principle of law.
Thus when Jason Chan who is a professional man based in Melbourne, and a player at the same casino/ table, then I respect what he has to say, even though I may wonder at times over the lack of wisdom in MB having no editor or P/A to evaluate and test his book drafts.
I do not consider that a simple well intentioned book published over a 25 year period is a scam or the product of some sort of conspiracy amongst intelligent individuals. The tattle that is put out by Real or Xander is lowest level slander and abuse much as we have to witness with many blogs written by individuals who seek attention. I am surprised you position yourself beside this troll figure Real.
Mike, I am in agreement with you that in hindsight so much more could have been done better in discussing and communicating the strategy of MB play. However that does not mean the work is corrupted or without value; far from it, given patience, understanding and practice with effective communication, then I believe there is much to gain from such effort, if we are to believe Jason and some colleagues.
That is being open-minded rather than closed.
I would prefer you did not assume or predict outcomes or behaviour when it comes to a reasoned evaluation of this work. Why did you not publish your results in the context of my BLOG where there would have been no editing or disruption, and a valuable dialogue could have ensued between yourself and Jason or others. By refusing to show this 'result' you have prevented dozens of interested readers from learning the strengths and weaknesses of this work.
You side with someone who is renowned for not listening or answering queries, someone who has blatantly lied regarding myself and others, and someone who takes no responsibility for such action. It does not ring true. Therefore why would we believe your ' results' of tests/ simulation.
Your view that 'escape clauses' would be used to fog the truth is not my way of doing things.
Sadly, all this demonstrates is just how difficult it is to effectively communicate, especially when dealing with one party that has a biased view, and another who appears anyway to have all the answers, yet who may wisely withhold some detail for reasons of intellectual property privacy.
It is a fine line sometimes and I fear that the subtlety of this point goes way over the head of your colleague here Real who seems to have a shotgun mentality and who remains blind to reason. The recent post by Real regarding bias on a US wheel giving reasoning that perimeter table numbers are less likely to be bet, and that certain other numbers ( according to data) are more likely to be skewed by bias, was outrageous infantile nonsense, and I was astonished that such was viewed as 'great post' by Kav.
Personally, I am interested in truth, and if you are able to demonstrate that the MB strategy was a failure ( once you have access to sufficient information , or how else could you evaluate it) or that it sometimes worked, or that it frequently worked, that would be outstanding and I would publish your results without hesitation as long as all parties communicated honestly and in good spirit with an open mind.
It is frustrating isn't it that such an opportunity is unlikely because on one side there is valuable information, and on the other unhealthy scepticism.
No professional is going to fully outline all details on a public forum - they would be mad to do so.
The best that can be achieved is to agree to discuss principles which can tip the balance in the favour of a strategy, and agree that given this is on the right track then a winning strategy can be reasonably foreseen. I was hoping that this is what could be achieved in this case.