You can't sign up for any ponds. You say you can? OK, sign up for some and post the pond here so we can see.
I was accused many times and by many people. Always by inept people who don't know how ponds are played though. YOU have now accused me of cheating. I want you to provide more information. Where did I cheat?
tenuki: Nice story, and it even has a happy ending. Too bad that it is not based on a true one. The point is that if you used the “security number given by a proportion of the gap amongst the player who felt and the one who was saved”, the two bets in Round 22 and 21 in this pond would be DIFFERENT. 1700 is not the same as 2709, therefore your “security number” would not be the same either.
Czuch Chuckers: ratings are ether...they can hardly tell you the real skills of the players neither is the list of winners..the table that MikeUK showed us several time is the only relevant measure, I believe.
Czuch Chuckers: I don't do it routinely either. Almost never check ALL the profiles (this prize pond that is running right now is an exception), just some that I have seen in the past missing a move..., i.e. dexter, skittles, ryan, etc.
Everybody, I repeat and underline, EVERYBODY, who comes to this site to play pond games, have the possibility to check other players' profiles. There is no way playing like this could be considered unfair.
1. Ponds are not sabotage.
2. You have finished 175 ponds and won only 7 of them. I don't understand how a person with SUCH a potential can have such a poor record. If I knew of something that would grant me 96% win ratio, I'd go for it!!!
3. What you're saying reminds me of Trice. He also claims to have a strategy (or whatever he calls it) with which you can win every pond you enter. But, for some reason, just like you, he has never showed us how it works.
4. You can study as many ponds as you wish, the game is so dynamic that it will never give you any significantly exceptional results.
5. Sabotage is not ponds.
6. Ponds are not sabotage.