Was asked to give it a whirl. Not here to spout anything, just testing (this is the testing zone right?)
I am testing the PB (Pattern Breaker) - original idea, in which after eliminating 7 of the 8 possible combinations, we then bet that the next pattern won't be the eight. I am using a 2,4,8 progression as indicated in the original thread.
I am tracking all 3 even chances (H/L, E/O, R/B) as this is how I would play it should I ever do so. The bets are few and far between and therefore playing all 3 at once does speed it up a little (not much though).
Test 1 results
Spins: 350
End BR: -4 units
Total Bets made: 22 (8 on H/L, 8 on R/B, 6 on E/O)
Bets won: 19
Bets lost: 3 (all 3 loses were on H/L and 2 of them included a Zero)
Using a 1,3,7 progression would have ended in -1 unit.
Initial thoughts,
As I mentioned earlier in a JL post, this method appears to simply delay the wins and losses. If my math is right (which I doubt) there are 8 possible patterns and 7 of those will give us a win, but the last will give us a loss. We win 2 units each win, and lose -14 units each loss. which if we win 7/8 would make us break even. Of course I'm not including that pesky Zero which comes into play and causes our overall BR to dwindle. Funny that my first test gave me almost exactly these results...
Anyways, I'll keep testing. By no means do I think that 350 spins is definative.
Just food for thought.
MM
MM
Thanks for the testing.
I know that's work!!
Sam
Quote from: mattymattz on Jun 21, 02:22 PM 2012
Was asked to give it a whirl. Not here to spout anything, just testing (this is the testing zone right?)
I am testing the PB (Pattern Breaker) - original idea, in which after eliminating 7 of the 8 possible combinations, we then bet that the next pattern won't be the eight. I am using a 2,4,8 progression as indicated in the original thread.
I am tracking all 3 even chances (H/L, E/O, R/B) as this is how I would play it should I ever do so. The bets are few and far between and therefore playing all 3 at once does speed it up a little (not much though).
Test 1 results
Spins: 350
End BR: -4 units
Total Bets made: 22 (8 on H/L, 8 on R/B, 6 on E/O)
Bets won: 19
Bets lost: 3 (all 3 loses were on H/L and 2 of them included a Zero)
Using a 1,3,7 progression would have ended in -1 unit.
Initial thoughts,
As I mentioned earlier in a JL post, this method appears to simply delay the wins and losses. If my math is right (which I doubt) there are 8 possible patterns and 7 of those will give us a win, but the last will give us a loss. We win 2 units each win, and lose -14 units each loss. which if we win 7/8 would make us break even. Of course I'm not including that pesky Zero which comes into play and causes our overall BR to dwindle. Funny that my first test gave me almost exactly these results...
Anyways, I'll keep testing. By no means do I think that 350 spins is definative.
Just food for thought.
MM
Hello MM
No need 4 further testing. D results will be dismissed by JL as not valid because u did not employ hit n run tactic. Playing continuously it will hover around 7/1 in d long run but its of course possible 2 have better strike rate initially. But that can be said of any EC method betting 1,2,4 against any pattern or matrix.
Regards
Reminds me of the Kenny Rogers song
"You got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em."
That doesn't say anything except you should know. Not how to know.
Hit and run says you should, but not how you should. How do you know when to hit? When to run?
You don't.
Sam
To amk.........
Let me see if I summarize correctly. If I write down the eight combinations for h/l and o/e in two columns and begin marking off each row as it appears, I will sooner or later be left with all eight marked out on one column and seven marked out on the other column. I then bet against the last row forming.
Now, is that it?
amk, I would not accept your money or anyone's money to bet on such a system. No offense. I would never bet with another's money where I wouldn't bet with mine. Even my wife's..........
That being said, I will test this system.
Would you be up for me using either the numbers posted for Ville. They are 300 at a time. Or is there a place now where I can download from Germany?
Bro, I just don't have time to sit in front of this box.
Oh, Hey! I could use the number capture by Tiago2 and capture Dublin numbers while I walk the mongrels.
Let me know what is acceptable.
Sam
TwoCat,
You make your two columns of H/L and O/E.
You check them of as they come in.
When one column has seven marked off and all that is left is the eighth you start paying close attention. If the eighth pattern now appears directly in the next 3 spins it is considered a virtual loss.
Now you jump over to the other column and bet that the same thing won't happen here.
7 patterns appearing and then in the next three spins the eighth.
I saw this purely as a business venture TwoCat. Just like the stocks or any business we would like to get started. For a successful business we need capital and a manager.
Either way wish you the best and Cat you later :)
Quote from: amk on Jun 22, 03:56 PM 2012
TwoCat,
You make your two columns of H/L and O/E.
You check them of as they come in.
When one column has seven marked off and all that is left is the eighth you start paying close attention. If the eighth pattern now appears directly in the next 3 spins it is considered a virtual loss.
Now you jump over to the other column and bet that the same thing won't happen here.
7 patterns appearing and then in the next three spins the eighth.
I saw this purely as a business venture TwoCat. Just like the stocks or any business we would like to get started. For a successful business we need capital and a manager.
Either way wish you the best and Cat you later :)
amk,
playing this way - how often do you get a trigger? I can imagine you'd have to wait a looong time just for one.
MM
Quote from: mattymattz on Jun 22, 04:03 PM 2012
amk,
playing this way - how often do you get a trigger? I can imagine you'd have to wait a looong time just for one.
MM
The longer you can wait the more you will win Matty. AMKs idea is great. I don't personaly take that approach. Hit and run gives me an average 11/1 strikerate. Tracking High and low and Odd and Even . If the first to qualify loses. I treble stakes on the next. I have only 3 losses in nearly 400 games doing so. That is how you profit in roulette. Identifying something random can't do often and exploiting it with smart Money management.
The Pattern breaker concept is about to delver its ultimate power however. In a method to be called PATTERN 7. I believe its the best alround method that will ever be shown. I will first demonstrate it against Bayes RNG. Then when people realize I am serious. I will post it up. Its alround numbers are staggering. If 63 units can buy a 1000/1 strikerate plus. I don't care what anyone says. That's a grail. I have 3,840 plus results without a single loss. I've been playing it and the progression hasn't even been challenged once yet in over 200 games. But the eye must see, so that minds can believe.
Too many good methods get passed by on this forum by people who think they know too much already. PATTERN 7 will re-educate a lot of people. Bring it on Bayes. I'm ready to roll.
Quote from: Johnlegend on Jun 22, 05:37 PM 2012
The longer you can wait the more you will win Matty. AMKs idea is great. I don't personaly take that approach. Hit and run gives me an average 11/1 strikerate. Tracking High and low and Odd and Even . If the first to qualify loses. I treble stakes on the next. I have only 3 losses in nearly 400 games doing so. That is how you profit in roulette. Identifying something random can't do often and exploiting it with smart Money management.
The Pattern breaker concept is about to delver its ultimate power however. In a method to be called PATTERN 7. I believe its the best alround method that will ever be shown. I will first demonstrate it against Bayes RNG. Then when people realize I am serious. I will post it up. Its alround numbers are staggering. If 63 units can buy a 1000/1 strikerate. I don't care what anyone says. that's a grail. I have 3,840 plus results without a single loss. I've been playing it and the progression hasn't even been challenged once yet in over 200 games. But I eye to see, so that minds can believe.
Too many good methods get passed by on this forum by people who think they know too much already. PATTERN 7 will re-educate a lot of people. Bring it on Bayes. I'm ready to roll.
JL
I have no problem waiting most of the time, but after doing a few tests you could go HUNDREDS of spins before a bet occurs... doesn't seem right.
Quote from: mattymattz on Jun 22, 05:40 PM 2012
JL
I have no problem waiting most of the time, but after doing a few tests you could go HUNDREDS of spins before a bet occurs... doesn't seem right.
That's why I don't do it Matty. I have faith in the rarity of double losses. But I've long wanted a method I can just play and win with a staggering strikerate. No long waiting no drawdowns. No nothing just win. I said this before RANDOM has Virtual limits. Points is can rarely pass. A good method identifies one and exploits it. PATTERN 7 is such a method. I will even put it to test on a real RNG. Because it will tell me without any time wasted if that RNG is rigged or not. PATTERN 7 is working equally well on live wheels and test RNGS. I think its THE ONE. Now I'm eager to show it. When Bayes gets it done.
Since I started this thread, I feel free to comment.
Go for it, Sam!
Pattern7.......another pie-in-the-sky promise.
John, you need to move to Someday Isle. All you ever say is *someday I'll do this" and *someday I'll do that*
Pure bloviatiion.
Sam
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Jun 22, 05:45 PM 2012
Since I started this thread, I feel free to comment.
Sam
actually i started this one - but your free to post :)
lol,
MM
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Jun 22, 05:45 PM 2012
Since I started this thread, I feel free to comment.
Go for it, Sam!
Pattern7.......another pie-in-the-sky promise.
John, you need to move to Someday Isle. All you ever say is *someday I'll do this" and *someday I'll do that*
Pure bloviatiion.
Sam
You started this thread? So you are Mattymatz too are you? Bloviation is not my game. Beating roulette is. When I defeat Bayes RNG. And turn more than a few minds around. I wont have to suffer ridicule from people who think they know too much Sam. The respect is on the way. Bayes comes back from his two day hike. Loads up his incarnation of an RNG. And all will see what ive got coming.
I must say that I agree with JohnLegend. PATTERN BREAKER should be played as JL advises. However, I have faith in PB doubles losses and wanted to see if TwoCat wanted to take this journey. Will I stop playing PB if our business venture were not to succeed, a loss within 7 games, or two losses within 12 games after Jl has generated a 111/1 strikerate ? No, PB has too many elements.
Again I have to say that this is not how to play roulette, this is a one time thing I feel should be played with any solid method once.
Quote from: amk on Jun 22, 06:22 PM 2012
I must say that I agree with JohnLegend. PATTERN BREAKER should be played as JL advises. However, I have faith in PB doubles losses and wanted to see if TwoCat wanted to take this journey. Will I stop playing PB if our business venture were not to succeed, a loss within 7 games, or two losses within 12 games after Jl has generated a 111/1 strikerate ? No, PB has to many elements.
Again I have to say that this is not how to play roulette, this is a one time thing I feel should be played with any solid method once.
I'm always open for improvement and criticism AMK if its not malicious and is constructive. Now I've had great success playing PB the way I do. And I know the way you play it will also yield positive results. I had pattern 4 you gave us the great CODE 4 then Warrior being Warrior took CODE 4 and married it to Divide and Conquer. And gave us Hybrid DC4. Which is even stronger.
And so it goes on. PB has worked well for me. But could it be better??? Of course. I'm always pressing for perfection. I'm in a boastful mood with PATTERN 7. But I will say this now. Its going to impress a few people. I don't know of anything better I really don't. And its working because its allowing random to do what it will do whether we bet or not. Its just highlighted a beautiful and very consistent breakdown in randoms formation of those 8 possible patterns.
Hybrid DC4, what a name.... Thanks warrior!
What's the word on PHASE 3?? ( sorry GLC :) )
PHASE 3 is very good in hit and run you dont sit there and wait to lose. But its 45 units a game. Im looking for the closest thing to a holy grail for less than 100 units. I will simply wait for bayes now. Sam needs proving wrong as do quite a few. They say you cant teach an old dog new tricks but you never know.
No, I'm not MM. I made a mistake.........
John, you might want to trace your heritage. I would not be surprised to find you can trace your linage to the Gonnados. They were gonna do this and gonna do that, but they really only talked.
And talked.......
Sorry MM. I hijacked your thread!!
Played way too much baccarat today.
Lord, did I say the "B" word?
Sam
Sam in a week or so the talking stops and the showing starts. And as for you backing out of your little venture with AMK. Now you know the reason I insisted on showing people first before passing it on. STAYING POWER, serious conviction to get it done is seriously lacking on this forum aside from a handful of members, Thatts why I have to illustrate what it takes to beat this game in the long haul, Few can stay with a method for any great length of time,
John
So you think what? I backed out because I was afraid of winning? If I backed out--and I'm not sure I did--it was because I will not sit for hundreds of spins waiting for an opportunity to bet.
You speak of people not getting it. You are the one who doesn't get it. I would far rather prove your system a winner--as I would any system--and use it to make money rather than prove it a loser. But you cannot overcome math and logic.
When I have waited for--God only knows how long--for the h/l column to produce a virtual loser, give me one logical reason why betting on the o/e column has any greater chance to win in three bets than it would if I had played it from moment I sat down. There is no reason.
What you are doing is creating systems that take so long to play, no one can say for sure if they win or lose. Even you said the Bayes test could take a year.
I will not accept amk's money, but I am seriously considering having a bot created to play your PATTERN BREAKER at Dublin. I am just debating whether or not I want to spend 100 Euro to shut you up.
Already I can hear you blaming the bot and how it's not playing right.
Still, I am considering it......
TCS
Sam I overcame them long ago, Your problem is a common one, YOU DWELL ON WHAT YOU THINK IS WRITTEN LAW with this game, In other words a mathematician tells you something and you say well that's the whole story then, ain't no point in going any further, How do I know those who say a game of negative expectancy can't be overcome are wrong? I know because I proved it to myself, I took no one elses word for it, that's what too many people are guilty of, Sheep mentality exists in all endeavours in life, that's why over the next year I'm going to show how Einstein and his stable didn't know what they were talking about when it comes to this game, Maths alone simply can't anwser the question,
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Jun 23, 01:39 AM 2012
John
So you think what? I backed out because I was afraid of winning? If I backed out--and I'm not sure I did--it was because I will not sit for hundreds of spins waiting for an opportunity to bet.
You speak of people not getting it. You are the one who doesn't get it. I would far rather prove your system a winner--as I would any system--and use it to make money rather than prove it a loser. But you cannot overcome math and logic.
When I have waited for--God only knows how long--for the h/l column to produce a virtual loser, give me one logical reason why betting on the o/e column has any greater chance to win in three bets than it would if I had played it from moment I sat down. There is no reason.
What you are doing is creating systems that take so long to play, no one can say for sure if they win or lose. Even you said the Bayes test could take a year.
I will not accept amk's money, but I am seriously considering having a bot created to play your PATTERN BREAKER at Dublin. I am just debating whether or not I want to spend 100 Euro to shut you up.
Already I can hear you blaming the bot and how it's not playing right.
Still, I am considering it......
TCS
Forget PATTERN BREAKER. Its good and has served me well. If you really want to put some time and effort into shutting me up. Wait for PATTERN 7. How good is it? Its VERY GOOD. Thats why ive got to show you first. There cant be any excuses from you then. No Sam doesnt get this because it doesnt fit into the brainwashing you had about math and logic years ago. The results will shout for themselves. Then the smart wont need pushing. Theyll jump onboard.
Its even survived 30 games on a real money RNG so far. Early days. But considering no other method ive played on a real money RNG could make 10 wins. Theres something going on here. A live wheel hasnt even challenged the progression. We wait for Bayes then minds start changing.
Quote from: Johnlegend on Jun 23, 06:50 AM 2012
We wait for Bayes
Let's just hope he does not run into any unruly goats up there on them hills!!
[attachimg=1]
Quote from: flukey luke on Jun 23, 06:59 AM 2012
Let's just hope he does not run into any unruly goats up there on them hills!!
[attachimg=1]
Lol funny. Or worse a grizzly with his name on its menu lol. Love this.
Quote from: Johnlegend on Jun 23, 04:26 AM 2012
Sam I overcame them long ago, Your problem is a common one, YOU DWELL ON WHAT YOU THINK IS WRITTEN LAW with this game, In other words a mathematician tells you something and you say well that's the whole story then, ain't no point in going any further, How do I know those who say a game of negative expectancy can't be overcome are wrong? I know because I proved it to myself, I took no one elses word for it, that's what too many people are guilty of, Sheep mentality exists in all endeavours in life, that's why over the next year I'm going to show how Einstein and his stable didn't know what they were talking about when it comes to this game, Maths alone simply can't anwser the question,
Yeah John. D same tiring mantra as always from u. U should realize once n 4 good that people questioning yr methods r not d ones that think that roulette is unbeatable. On d contrary but not with YOUR STUFF. Have u ever posted a method that was not successful at least in yr mind?
Phase 3, Street 7? U mention them once in a while. Hello.... anybody still plays them except u? Chauncey 47 maybe? Once in a week maybe in last 2 or 3 months. ;D We did not get any single long term data from other members of d forum confirming yr numbers. Bettor posted 100/1 strike rate 4 Code 4 played hit n run - far cry from yours 300/1. And u had 600/0 at some point. :D But i guess he was barely making profit in 900 games that he played so it was ok.
Bayes approach is a waste of time. It would take few members just few minutes with pen a paper given its not of course hit n run method to test yr method. We did it with Reversed Code 4 whatever... Just average results. D same would happen with Code 20, Pattern 7 and others new gems. Pattern breaker was already tested by MM and... Any comment on this? Especially with strike rate after first loss with 7/1 method.. 200/1? ;D And new Pattern 7 3000+/0?
This will raise few eyebrows even 4 newbies. Please John dont comment on this. Numbers r just numbers n virtues of mind,patience and being open minded do not apply. And leave Albert Einstein out of this ;D He was just joking. Anyway i would not dismiss his opinion that easily ;D
;D
[attachimg=1]
LOL! :)
Actually, I'm really looking forward to PATTERN 7 and DOUBLE STRIKE systems from JLegend.
BTW, John... How's the new MATRIX code idea coming along?
A.
Hello Robenhuut,
Sorry to bring up Einstein but his name does seem to be connected to roulette. If we listen to Einsteins conclusion then it does not make any sense to play or research roulette and by that logic the nature of the universe. I for one believe that Einsteins theory will not be upheld anymore within the next few years or even months. Is it not strange that only a few great minds are promoted by the system? We have never seen Nikola Tesla being promoted by the system except as a name for a car, which is really a slap in our faces. Nikola Tesla is not promoted because the world will change for the better. It is best to keep us at Einstein level so to keep us in place.
Is the universe random, I don't think so due to the phi ratio. Is roulette random? Can we discover something new about roulette and its randomness that has been overlooked by even a great mind such as Einstein?
John
Don't recall I've ever said that roulette can't be beaten. Like Rob, I question your methods.
If I told you all I had to do to win was walk the dogs exactly a mile, drink one bottle of water and bet red as soon as I could log on--would you think red had a better chance of winning. That is how dislocated you ideas are from each other.
I'm certainly waiting with eager anticipation for PATTERN7, but I'll not try to bribe you for an early peek.
Sam
Quote from: amk on Jun 23, 07:41 AM 2012
Hello Robenhuut,
Sorry to bring up Einstein but his name does seem to be connected to roulette. If we listen to Einsteins conclusion then it does not make any sense to play or research roulette and by that logic the nature of the universe. I for one believe that Einsteins theory will not be upheld anymore within the next few years or even months. Is it not strange that only a few great minds are promoted by the system? We have never seen Nikola Tesla being promoted by the system except as a name for a car, which is really a slap in our faces. Nikola Tesla is not promoted because the world will change for the better. It is best to keep us at Einstein level so to keep us in place.
Is the universe random, I don't think so due to the phi ratio. Is roulette random? Can we discover something new about roulette and its randomness that has been overlooked by even a great mind such as Einstein?
Hola Amk
If i remember correctly Jl brought him up first as an example that even great minds can be sometimes wrong n of course there is this AE's famous line about stealing chips as an only way 2 beat roulette which should not be taken seriously. Anyway i don't think I'm much out of line criticizing Jl methods. I do it whenever i please n when i think that I'm right. But it happens John is d one who posts most so he should get used 2 it because of d volume of his output here ;D
Regards
I just look at it like this.
If a trusted friend told me they had been playing several methods with great success for several years I would say thanks for sharing that with me. I would not discredit him or her. I would seriously consider playing as they advised. Might I not have the same success ofcourse, nothing is for sure but it will most likely give me the best chance for success.
There are several players on the forum who have shared their winning methods, even though a million spin test might show their method to fail. They don't seem to care and the months keep passing by.
Hows your EC method going warrior? can you drop us any hints?
amk
If it weren't for you and Warrior and a few others who seem to be fair and rational people, I wouldn't even consider that any JL method or matrix might work. If I had a trusted friend who told me something I would listen.
winkle was a man who could teach for hours and never change a word in his original thesis. No tweaks; no new-and-improved version. Just taught the same old stuff.
With systems posted today, you read the original rules and go away for a month to play. When you get back, you find you were playing by the wrong rules and here are the new ones.
Mistakes happen, like flukey's 12 street not being explained, but most systems are almost 100% different from the first idea.
You are such a good representative of PATTERN BREAKER that I find it hard to let the idea go.
That is a compliment.
Sam
Quote from: amk on Jun 23, 07:41 AM 2012
Hello Robenhuut,
Sorry to bring up Einstein but his name does seem to be connected to roulette. If we listen to Einsteins conclusion then it does not make any sense to play or research roulette and by that logic the nature of the universe. I for one believe that Einsteins theory will not be upheld anymore within the next few years or even months. Is it not strange that only a few great minds are promoted by the system? We have never seen Nikola Tesla being promoted by the system except as a name for a car, which is really a slap in our faces. Nikola Tesla is not promoted because the world will change for the better. It is best to keep us at Einstein level so to keep us in place.
Is the universe random, I don't think so due to the phi ratio. Is roulette random? Can we discover something new about roulette and its randomness that has been overlooked by even a great mind such as Einstein?
Beautiful post AMK. I could never have written that any better. Next few months absolutely. Im ready.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Jun 23, 07:43 AM 2012
John
Don't recall I've ever said that roulette can't be beaten. Like Rob, I question your methods.
If I told you all I had to do to win was walk the dogs exactly a mile, drink one bottle of water and bet red as soon as I could log on--would you think red had a better chance of winning. That is how dislocated you ideas are from each other.
I'm certainly waiting with eager anticipation for PATTERN7, but I'll not try to bribe you for an early peek.
Sam
Sam will you please drop the bribe line already. Its getting old. I don't believe my ideas are dislocated. I believe some peoples minds are too steeped in math law to allow for them to really go for them with an open mind. That's where I differ from you Sam. Everything you do has to have a reason. Random has no reason it just is. And what I've been saying since day one. Is the only two ways you truly beat this game. Are to A, identify a virtual Limit. something random is poor at performing. And B, maximizing that finding with a multi-level staking plan.
That's all there is to it Sam, no fancy math equation or code supreme to unlock the mystery of random. What maths did in my opinion was confuse and over-complicate the whole business of beating this game. Its like too many people are trying too hard. When the two afforementioned aspects of winning are what you REALLY need to focus on. I've identified recently two things that random really can't do. It doesn't want to know. That's all. And I've forged them into playable methods that's all. And I'm ready to show them in action.
John
I sincerely hope you beat the test. I doubt there's a soul on the forum who's truly against you.
Someone drag Bayes out of the hills and make him get to work.
Sam
JL,
my doubts aren't "steeped in math" but the fact that it takes forever to even get a trigger (atleast with PB). And I hear you always saying you must be patient, which is fine, but you'd be at the casino all day just to place 1 bet... that might lose!
MM
Quote from: mattymattz on Jun 23, 11:27 AM 2012
JL,
my doubts aren't "steeped in math" but the fact that it takes forever to even get a trigger (atleast with PB). And I hear you always saying you must be patient, which is fine, but you'd be at the casino all day just to place 1 bet... that might lose!
MM
Matty I take it you can't bet online?? Well I don't wait for a losing trigger. I don't have AMKs patience. But I have enough. I play High and Low and Odd and even SIMULTANEOUSLY. If the first one loses. I treble stakes on the second that's ALL. Playing hit and run my overall strikerate is anyway from 10/1 to 12/1 at any given time in the month. The rock solid double loss rule boosts the profit margin.
Another thing you guys aren't thinking about is tracking. I don't track virgin spins never have. I walk into a casino or go online. And the first thing I do is write down all the numbers on the marker board. Form them into matrices for my various methods. And get to work. So I can have for example 4 patterns for Pattern breaker INSTANTLY. All this talk of waiting all day. Is over-exaggeratted. Get on with it.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Jun 23, 11:18 AM 2012
John
I sincerely hope you beat the test. I doubt there's a soul on the forum who's truly against you.
Someone drag Bayes out of the hills and make him get to work.
Sam
That's the best thing youve said in ages Sam. Yeah get that Bayes back here NOW LoL.
QuoteThat's the best thing youve said in ages Sam. Yeah get that Bayes back here NOW LoL
LOL, agreed, good man Sam ..... Bayes is on his way home, where's your patience now? ROFLMAO
Lol it left town with Bayes, Superman,
I said to the Lord, "Give me patience--right now!"
I got Johnlegend instead....
>:D
You da boogeyman, John..
TCS
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Jun 23, 04:58 PM 2012
I said to the Lord, "Give me patience--right now!"
I got Johnlegend instead....
>:D
You da boogeyman, John..
TCS
Thanks three times the charm Sam.