There are two types of members here. Those that made claims that they can win in Baccarat and those that don't believe it can be done. We can settle this once and for all. Those who can beat the challenge can having bragging rights. The ones who fail or don't dare to take the challenge should refrain from posting all the great results they claim their system can produce. Then the other half needs to stop harassing those who pass the challenge.
This challenge can be done without revealing your system so no don't use that excuse. I can setup a computer for the challenger to play on the Wizard's site. Anyone here for the challenge?
I don't want to waste my time posting the challenge until someone is interested.
It would be great to have everyone play at designated time on-line at a live casino.
One or two or three or 5 shoes cannot and would not showcase anyone's skills or playing abilities.
If you are after strictly a tournament or a competition for a handful of shoes, of course---and it would be just that, who did the best on that day.
If you are strictly talking about a system, which is a whole other story---that is fine too.
If you are referring to progressions to recover and make a small number of units and then stop, that is artificial and will probably prevail. Has no bearing on what that same progression will do tomorrow or in Vegas rather than A.C. or in Mississippi rather than Southern California, etc.
There are numerous players here on the board and numerous 'rookies', 'newbies', 'inexperienced', etc. Usually most have something to contribute and new ideas that might have not been heard or read prior, or still, worthy. Even if they are deemed non-worthy by some, others might find avenues to explore or tips or something else of value. Your competition to pit one against the other would (IMO) chase people away for numerous reasons. One person's play might prevail a certain number of times over someone else's and then vice-versa as well. Cannot prove a definitive winner in the classic sense of the venue, except who won a tournament.
With all due respect, sincerely--why attempt to censor a free-speech newspaper with a hierarchy of rules set by those that win a challenge? Although they were not the trend setters and role-models but people like O.J. Simpson, Amy Fisher, Bill Clinton, Ted Kaczynski, John N. Mitchell, Ted Bundy, Jack the Riper, Spiro Agnew, Jesse Jackson Jr., John Dean, John Ehrlichman and for the short list--let's also add Bill Cosby, Anita Faye Hill and to be racial non-biased, Clarence Thomas, etc., have interesting defenses and life stories that offer alternative frame-of-minds to some or a possible counter balance to the preaching done by someone standing in front of a podium in the classroom. For instance, if my chosen field was being a criminal prosecutor or a criminal defense attorney or an investigator, those people's thoughts and stories sure would be informational rather than being censored or having them embarrassed to offer their sides of the coin in the public and private media. Oh yeah---I almost forgot, rather than myself trying to summarize it, I rather copy and paste it from a Google; "Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) drove his car into the channel between Chappaquiddick Island and Martha's Vineyard, killing passenger Mary Jo Kopechne. Kennedy pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and received a suspended sentence of two months (1969)".
Baccarat is truly winnable to various players using various 'playing methods' they chose, guess at, invent, copy or even purchase. The longevity of those wins is another story in itself. But the bottom line is, there are many ways to win and those players that seem to have less 'same betting method' type of play appear to prevail a larger amount of times. A competition that pits one against another will only prove who won the 'Sunday Race' at the lake.
Quote from: alrelax on June 06, 2017, 12:20:11 PM
One or two or three or 5 shoes cannot and would not showcase anyone's skills or playing abilities.
If you are after strictly a tournament or a competition for a handful of shoes, of course---and it would be just that, who did the best on that day.
If you are strictly talking about a system, which is a whole other story---that is fine too.
If you are referring to progressions to recover and make a small number of units and then stop, that is artificial and will probably prevail. Has no bearing on what that same progression will do tomorrow or in Vegas rather than A.C. or in Mississippi rather than Southern California, etc.
There are numerous players here on the board and numerous 'rookies', 'newbies', 'inexperienced', etc. Usually most have something to contribute and new ideas that might have not been heard or read prior, or still, worthy. Even if they are deemed non-worthy by some, others might find avenues to explore or tips or something else of value. Your competition to pit one against the other would (IMO) chase people away for numerous reasons. One person's play might prevail a certain number of times over someone else's and then vice-versa as well. Cannot prove a definitive winner in the classic sense of the venue, except who won a tournament.
With all due respect, sincerely--why attempt to censor a free-speech newspaper with a hierarchy of rules set by those that win a challenge? Although they were not the trend setters and role-models but people like O.J. Simpson, Amy Fisher, Bill Clinton, Ted Kaczynski, John N. Mitchell, Ted Bundy, Jack the Riper, Spiro Agnew, Jesse Jackson Jr., John Dean, John Ehrlichman and for the short list--let's also add Bill Cosby, Anita Faye Hill and to be racial non-biased, Clarence Thomas, etc., have interesting defenses and life stories that offer alternative frame-of-minds to some or a possible counter balance to the preaching done by someone standing in front of a podium in the classroom. For instance, if my chosen field was being a criminal prosecutor or a criminal defense attorney or an investigator, those people's thoughts and stories sure would be informational rather than being censored or having them embarrassed to offer their sides of the coin in the public and private media. Oh yeah---I almost forgot, rather than myself trying to summarize it, I rather copy and paste it from a Google; "Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) drove his car into the channel between Chappaquiddick Island and Martha's Vineyard, killing passenger Mary Jo Kopechne. Kennedy pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and received a suspended sentence of two months (1969)".
Baccarat is truly winnable to various players using various 'playing methods' they chose, guess at, invent, copy or even purchase. The longevity of those wins is another story in itself. But the bottom line is, there are many ways to win and those players that seem to have less 'same betting method' type of play appear to prevail a larger amount of times. A competition that pits one against another will only prove who won the 'Sunday Race' at the lake.
English might be my second language but I don't believe that I suggested any competition among members. I was merely suggesting a way for people to showcase, whether one claims they can win $60, $200, $2000 or x amount of units per session. I thought you would be first for it. Don't you think the boasting and attacks getting old? If there is anything that will drive people away from the site is the same old posts, often with no content.
Will agree that you can learn from others even if an idea might seem silly at first. As I have mention in other posts, I derived my system from some ideas here. Some I even thought were silly at first. No don't intend to stop anyone from saying what they want to say but I figure if one can't show what they claim they can't do that they would be embarrassed to continue making those claims.
It will involve about 160 shoes. I know someone will say that is not the long run but I think many will agree that the system holds up pretty well it can last that many shoes.
I have come across many people outside of the casino and on forums claiming such and such but anytime I suggest going or meeting at the casino, they never show up, never seen around or always has excuse not to be there. Guess there's no takers.
Silenccccceeeee
Quote from: Babu on June 06, 2017, 06:21:47 AM
This challenge can be done without revealing your system so no don't use that excuse. I can setup a computer for the challenger to play on the Wizard's site. Anyone here for the challenge?
Set it up Babu and I will have a go. 👍
Quote from: Bally6354 on June 07, 2017, 05:53:52 AM
Set it up Babu and I will have a go. 👍
Thanks Bally! I didn't think anyone would make an attempt. I am not familiar with everyone but I didn't get a chance to read through some of your posts. My computer is currently in pieces but once it's ready I will get back to you and get this going. Just to let you know, I will try to do a screen capture of it. Hopefully it is not too slow or eat up too many hard drive space.
I think you're still experimenting with systems if I get read everything right. It does not matter if your bet selection or bet management is random or not. In the past, I have come across people who claim a certain progression works and when time comes, they would deviate and do out of control Marty bets.
Just remember this challenge is not to ridicule anyone.
For the record, write a brief description of:
1. Your system or approach
2. Bankroll
3. Daily winning goals, stop losses, approximately how many shoes you play per day. (If you have any)
4. Where do you reside.
5. Days and times you can do this as we are all in different time zones.
6. Do you have Windows platform computer?
This is all I can think of at the moment. We can coordinate further.
Hello Babu,
Thanks for your reply. To answer your questions.
1. I would use a VDW (arithmetic progression) approach. I have pretty much spent the last 6-9 months studying this hardcore. I know what works best, why it works and probably more importantly when it doesn't work and why it doesn't work.
2. In the test, I would use Lanky's divisor MM. A bankroll of a few hundred units should suffice. It's the only MM I would ever use.
3. Playing 5 shoes a day would get through 150 in a month which is a good enough sample IMO. The variance is low with VDW/AP because of the non-random approach. I don't like to set predetermined targets.
4. I reside in the UK.
5. I can do a few hours in the morning and a few more at night. Say... 08.00am GMT-10.00am GMT and 10..00pm GMT- 12.00am GMT.
6. I am running windows 10 at the moment.
I am happy to accept the challenge. Maybe a few others will as well with different approaches and MM. Hopefully that answers most of your questions Babu.
Thanks.
Quote from: Bally6354 on June 07, 2017, 04:23:47 PM
Hello Babu,
Thanks for your reply. To answer your questions.
1. I would use a VDW (arithmetic progression) approach. I have pretty much spent the last 6-9 months studying this hardcore. I know what works best, why it works and probably more importantly when it doesn't work and why it doesn't work.
2. In the test, I would use Lanky's divisor MM. A bankroll of a few hundred units should suffice. It's the only MM I would ever use.
3. Playing 5 shoes a day would get through 150 in a month which is a good enough sample IMO. The variance is low with VDW/AP because of the non-random approach. I don't like to set predetermined targets.
4. I reside in the UK.
5. I can do a few hours in the morning and a few more at night. Say... 08.00am GMT-10.00am GMT and 10..00pm GMT- 12.00am GMT.
6. I am running windows 10 at the moment.
I am happy to accept the challenge. Maybe a few others will as well with different approaches and MM. Hopefully that answers most of your questions Babu.
Thanks.
Thanks Bally! I am not doing this for me. I think it will be good for the site as it will bring back productivity. I do know people who has won overall at this game even though it is not daily or life changing winnings. I'll try to wip up the computer, put it in a separate network and get it ready as soon as I can. Hopefully it can will work well as it will be play remotely and adding screen capture. Not even sure my fastest computer can handle it. If not, hopefully someone with a fast computer and fast internet connection can help.
Thanks Babu, I will look forward to it.
Yes for sure, people win and win consistently. The VDW approach has worked great for me so far and I see no reason why that should not continue. It is a really strong approach combined with the divisor. What more can someone ask for.....a low variance strategy and a good MM which can keep the bets low even when you do hit the odd rough patch. It's manageable and can be employed for real at a Bricks and Mortar Casino. My aim isn't to become rich but I certainly am not going to be happy playing online for pennies after all the time and research I have dedicated to studying casino games. So a test like this which can show positive results within realistic parameters which anybody could replicate is a worthwhile aim.
cheers
Quote from: Bally6354 on June 07, 2017, 05:04:41 PM
Thanks Babu, I will look forward to it.
Yes for sure, people win and win consistently. The VDW approach has worked great for me so far and I see no reason why that should not continue. It is a really strong approach combined with the divisor. What more can someone ask for.....a low variance strategy and a good MM which can keep the bets low even when you do hit the odd rough patch. It's manageable and can be employed for real at a Bricks and Mortar Casino. My aim isn't to become rich but I certainly am not going to be happy playing online for pennies after all the time and research I have dedicated to studying casino games. So a test like this which can show positive results within realistic parameters which anybody could replicate is a worthwhile aim.
cheers
So, you have yet to play bac in a casino? Am I reading that correctly?
Quote from: alrelax on June 07, 2017, 05:41:49 PM
So, you have yet to play bac in a casino? Am I reading that correctly?
Al, I mix my play up between live and online casinos. I wrote above in the message you quoted that my way of play is manageable in a live casino. I am talking from experience.
Cheers
Quote from: Bally6354 on June 08, 2017, 08:05:36 AM
Al, I mix my play up between live and online casinos. I wrote above in the message you quoted that my way of play is manageable in a live casino. I am talking from experience.
Cheers
Yes, that is what I thought, but somehow i read you were study, "with all the time spent studying/researching", etc. My bad, probably a tad bit too much Sriracha for me, huh??
anytime, bring it on! those who don't believe is systems I say this, you're living in one, the solar system !! I'll prove my system works which is why I'm a best seller in baccarat category
If you can to work with systems it will help you every time you playing. Stop afraid it!
Quote from: stephen tabone on June 08, 2017, 09:19:58 PM
anytime, bring it on! those who don't believe is systems I say this, you're living in one, the solar system !! I'll prove my system works which is why I'm a best seller in baccarat category
I purchased the Kindle version of your book. After testing your system on fifty of the real card shoes I have on record, your system ended up losing twelve units, not counting commissions, and lost twenty of those fifty shoes.
For comparison, betting Banker exclusively to the end of each shoe, would have yielded 118 units on those same fifty shoes.
Quote from: Eight Iron on June 10, 2017, 08:43:27 AMFor comparison, betting Banker exclusively to the end of each shoe, would have yielded 118 units on those same fifty shoes.
Thanks for sharing. A few questions:
- This is flat betting Bank start to finish?
- Flat betting?
- Any notes on max draw down during the course of play. That is, you run across a series of shoes in a low number of shoes that are Player cut (dominated by Player).
Thanks!
Quote from: 21 Aces on June 10, 2017, 10:30:30 AM
Thanks for sharing. A few questions:
- This is flat betting Bank start to finish?
- Flat betting?
- Any notes on max draw down during the course of play. That is, you run across a series of shoes in a low number of shoes that are Player cut (dominated by Player).
Thanks!
Yes. Consecutively played shoes. Not 'hand picked'. All flat betting Banker only on every hand start to finish.
Biggest drawdown was 22 units after losing three consecutive shoes. Betting Banker only won 31 shoes out of fifty.
This is the running unit count: -3,2,3,13,14,13,14,12,10,26,42,37,39,26,29,30,28,22,22,36,35,45,50,53,54,55,65,74,83,99,98,96,98,95,99,116,123,123,131,126,112,109,121,120,
129,119,136,126,119,118
Total units won by shoe 100 = 168 units, minus approximately 150 units in commissions.
clearly you are doing something wrong. you misunderstood the strategy and or had not stopped when three up. I do not know if your shoe results are real or made up, i have no way of knowing can oly take your word for that. But clearly if your shoe results are real, you are not applying the strategy correctly
Quote from: Eight Iron on June 10, 2017, 08:43:27 AM
I purchased the Kindle version of your book. After testing your system on fifty of the real card shoes I have on record, your system ended up losing twelve units, not counting commissions, and lost twenty of those fifty shoes.
For comparison, betting Banker exclusively to the end of each shoe, would have yielded 118 units on those same fifty shoes.
Also clearly you are going against my strategy because I do not recommend playing 50 shoes in one go! I advise winning 3 units and leaving.
Personally speaking, I don't see what difference it makes if someone tested it on 50 consecutive shoes.
Player A goes to the table and gets up 3 units and leaves.
Player B comes to the table straight after player A and wins 3 units as well.
How do the cards know that player A and player B are two different people. Obviously they don't. So the logic doesn't add up otherwise what you are implying is that player B has less chance to win than player A. How can that be?
Win goal of 3 units and loss limit of 6 units per day means you are playing a partial shoe per day. 50 shoes represents 50 days. Mathematically, you will win 3 units on 33.33 days and lose 6 units on 16.66 days resulting in 0 units for 50 days, without taking into account the vig. The vig per shoe is 0.9 units and vig for a partial shoe will be about 0.4 units and the loss for 50 shoes will be about 20 units.
This is a mathematical certainty.
Quote from: Stephen Tabone on June 10, 2017, 10:01:02 PM
Also clearly you are going against my strategy because I do not recommend playing 50 shoes in one go! I advise winning 3 units and leaving.
Please tell me you misspoke here? You advise leaving after 3 units? That's the secret sauce? Who knew?
No time to see you, Jimskie!
Welcome back!
as.
Every approach to the game either builds in variance/ gut feel/ levels stop strategy or not. If it doesn't, then you would just play as much as possible.
Quote from: Eight Iron on June 10, 2017, 08:43:27 AM
I purchased the Kindle version of your book. After testing your system on fifty of the real card shoes I have on record, your system ended up losing twelve units, not counting commissions, and lost twenty of those fifty shoes.
Ran 50 shoes through the testing sheet. Easy enough to program.
23 losing shoes. 27 winning shoes. A finishing net of -16 gross units.
Hopefully you've figured out the killer event after 50 shoes. (Which all mechanical systems must have, not just this one).
AD
Still trying to coordinate with Bally but our schedule is making it a bit hard. I guess I started this challenge on impulse.
Stephen Tabone declined challenge - Say he doesn't play online free or not because he doesn't want to lose time. I guess he accepted the challenge impulse as well.
Quote from: Babu on June 14, 2017, 05:15:19 PM
Still trying to coordinate with Bally but our schedule is making it a bit hard. I guess I started this challenge on impulse.
Stephen Tabone declined challenge - Say he doesn't play online free or not because he doesn't want to lose time. I guess he accepted the challenge impulse as well.
I didn't know what you were offering me. You did not explain. I thought you were trying to hack into my computer. Sorry that's the way it came across.
Quote from: Bally6354 on June 10, 2017, 10:37:19 PM
Personally speaking, I don't see what difference it makes if someone tested it on 50 consecutive shoes.
Player A goes to the table and gets up 3 units and leaves.
Player B comes to the table straight after player A and wins 3 units as well.
How do the cards know that player A and player B are two different people. Obviously they don't. So the logic doesn't add up otherwise what you are implying is that player B has less chance to win than player A. How can that be?
winning and losing goes in waves thus when you're up leave with winnings, otherwise you might o from up to down or from down to up and back down, whatever. remember the day trader, he makes his money and his off. he can do his research but there are no real signs when he trades micro every few seconds, the game of baccarat is like this and to win you must thus view it as such. Trying to go with B is madness in my view. Stick to A and be smart. Don't be a slave to the table let the table pay you.
Well, everyone has their own way of playing, so I wish you good luck with it. Like ADulay said.....there are a lot of experienced 'old heads' on here. You never know, hopefully you can learn some new stuff as well and improve what you already have. But I have to be honest, I have turned table games upside down looking for even the slightest of edges and after god knows how many years, I have given that idea up! So I am skeptical regarding your claims relating to your upcoming 3rd edition. It's my personal opinion that the best anyone will be able to achieve (notwithstanding advantage play) is to pick segments out of the permanence / run of cards where you can attack the short term volatility and even that's definitely no exact science.
cheers
Quote from: ADulay on June 11, 2017, 02:07:13 AM
Ran 50 shoes through the testing sheet. Easy enough to program.
23 losing shoes. 27 winning shoes. A finishing net of -16 gross units.
Hopefully you've figured out the killer event after 50 shoes. (Which all mechanical systems must have, not just this one).
AD
Adulay i respect your test but when you code and run your simulation - was it all in where you won +3 units or hit -6 units loss limit with no other options.
He mention that if you don't win and break even or make a small lose into half the shoe you aim to break even or accept small loss - i reckon that he put it like that.
So you can build up a method based upon reversals where you get at average 2 reversals every 100 placed bets, so that mean if you win 1 or 2 units but don't reach +3 units and break even after that you can try again to win +3 units - but if you now end up in the negative zone then you know that you will get back to zero or with positive result a second time - one reversal.
But the question is if you hit -6 and have to quit or if you hit -3 -4 -5 and then climb up towards even again.
So there is a element where you can feel how the outcome or variance or wave is with you or against you and base decision based upon that wish would change the results for 50 shoe testing.
Where a certain amount of shoes would be break even territorium.
Do you agree ?
Cheers
Quote from: Sputnik on June 14, 2017, 05:55:27 PM
Adulay i respect your test but when you code and run your simulation - was it all in where you won +3 units or hit -6 units loss limit with no other options.
He mention that if you don't win and break even or make a small lose into half the shoe you aim to break even or accept small loss - i reckon that he put it like that.
Sputnik,
As I already had an Excel sheet programmed for something almost exactly like the TUBS play, it took about 20 minutes to make it adhere to the author's specific instructions.
A +3 at any time was a shoe win requiring an exit from the shoe.
A -6 was a shoe loss requiring an exit from the shoe.
Anything else continued play until the end of the shoe.
As the 50 test shoes I ran were all LIVE DEALT shoes merely transposed into the spreadsheet, I would say I followed the meaning and intent of the book.
I used shoes 800-850 for the test run as they were relatively recent.
I'll run another batch if anyone would like it, just pick a starting number between 1 and 900. (Shoes are numbered chronologically backdated to the beginning of time.) :scared:
But that's about as much time as need be "expended" on this for now. I'm sure Version 3.0 will be vastly superior to this one. (/sarcasm font off)
AD
Quote from: Stephen Tabone on June 14, 2017, 05:22:11 PM
I didn't know what you were offering me. You did not explain. I thought you were trying to hack into my computer. Sorry that's the way it came across.
No worries Stephen. The test will just give other members a sense of what your system can do. If anything, it can help the sales of your book and save you a ton of time. If anyone wants to see how well it can do, you can just point them to the videos.
That's all it is. I don't hack into people's computer anymore.
I'll run another batch if anyone would like it
Quote from: Babu on June 15, 2017, 05:34:18 AM
No worries Stephen. The test will just give other members a sense of what your system can do. If anything, it can help the sales of your book and save you a ton of time. If anyone wants to see how well it can do, you can just point them to the videos.
That's all it is. I don't hack into people's computer anymore.
lol,
okay but remember my advise re when to exit a show, half way break even, that way you skip bad shoes, and where the worse case, you go down, try and exit 3- that way you get to survive for that day with TWO bad shoes = 6- down, so in a day, you should get your 3+ unit wins, if you do not, don't chase, take the hit (keep stats records of winnings and loses) and live another day, as i write in my book, to win you have to look at the long term not just a day or playing shoe after shoe after shoe! And remember check results against EAL shoe results not computer generated, moreover computer programs connected to real online play, they pull you in then wipe you out! I am not affiliated with any online gambling as I state in my book. While it suits the causal online player for a bit of fun, it is not for the pro n my mind. Others might disagree, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. Last year, I played online, won big, next day played again and the company kept on closing down window so that I missed chance to play my bet When I tried to cash out they withheld my funds and put me through a lot in order to withdraw my 4k winnings. I had been a member for 9 years, but as soon as i played big and won, they started their tricks. I have not played online since. I always play for real in real casinos.
A pro bets in a casino, a non pro or those having fun bet online. my book is aimed at the pro
Quote from: Stephen Tabone on June 17, 2017, 12:18:13 AM
A pro bets in a casino, a non pro or those having fun bet online. my book is aimed at the pro
As long as you are playing with real money makes you a pro. I thought you wanted to validate your system. I guess not. No one was forced to. It was strictly voluntary.
Many of us here plays with real money, whether at a B&M or online. Perhaps many more hours and years more than you have.
Flat betting Banker only, every hand, from start to finish is the standard against which to test any system. If it can't beat Banker only, don't bother.
Tested another fifty real card, hand shuffled and hand dealt shoes using TUBS.
All results are before commissions.
Results after 100 shoes = + 8 units. Won 66 shoes, lost 34 shoes.
Betting Banker only each hand start to finish = 168 units.
2nd flat bet strategy = 260 units
3rd FB strategy = 226 units (partial shoes)
First 25 shoes in Zumma tester:
TUBS = +1 unit
Betting Banker only start to finish = +75 units
A problem with comparing any approach that only plays a part of a shoe is that then you have to say well I can position to watch many tables at once and look for those conditions. Many players are watching all over while they play.
Quote from: 21 Aces on June 17, 2017, 05:31:23 PM
A problem with comparing any approach that only plays a part of a shoe is that then you have to say well I can position to watch many tables at once and look for those conditions. Many players are watching all over while they play.
Exactly! Same as saying they know when to catch a long streak. Maybe some people just have better guts than others. :))
i buy this system
i test
result no win long run
opp+stop+wait 3
(https://www.img.in.th/images/21f821bdfb28170eb5ded0f7779522a3.png)
Quote from: NoRegret on June 17, 2017, 07:21:38 PM
Exactly! Same as saying they know when to catch a long streak. Maybe some people just have better guts than others. :))
To clarify.
Approach A: Makes around 60 bets a shoe.
Approach B: Makes around 30 bets a shoe.
Approach C: Makes around 10 bets a shoe.
All based on identification of something. Well, the player using Approach C is most likely going to park where they can watch as many tables as possible and play them when the approach identifies what it is looking for. You can't compare that apples to apples to an approach like A or B.
Yeah, it really sucks turning around and seeing a long Bank or Player Dragon of 10++ clocking off a couple seconds away. Too many quiet players.
FREE follow Strategy to this forum
You follow player or banker when either reaches 3 in a row, continue to follow the run until it breaks. Join the next run when whatever player or banker reaches 3. So play for the 4th +
3 is the key, it's the trigger, the strong indicator that a run is likely.
if you want another FREE strategy let me know and I will post.
http://betselection.cc/stephen-tabone's/free-follow-strategy-to-this-forum/
Quote from: Bally6354 on June 07, 2017, 05:04:41 PM
Thanks Babu, I will look forward to it.
Yes for sure, people win and win consistently. The VDW approach has worked great for me so far and I see no reason why that should not continue. It is a really strong approach combined with the divisor. What more can someone ask for.....a low variance strategy and a good MM which can keep the bets low even when you do hit the odd rough patch. It's manageable and can be employed for real at a Bricks and Mortar Casino. My aim isn't to become rich but I certainly am not going to be happy playing online for pennies after all the time and research I have dedicated to studying casino games. So a test like this which can show positive results within realistic parameters which anybody could replicate is a worthwhile aim.
cheers
Is the divisor some sort of cut back or halfback? IOW, are you dropping back someplace in the VDW to recoup? I always beleive that these kind of cutbacks are good for variance reduction. But they also effect profit.
Quote from: Stephen Tabone on June 08, 2017, 09:19:58 PM
I'll prove my system works which is why I'm a best seller in baccarat category
Still waiting!
Quote from: Bally6354 on June 10, 2017, 10:37:19 PM
Personally speaking, I don't see what difference it makes if someone tested it on 50 consecutive shoes.
Player A goes to the table and gets up 3 units and leaves.
Player B comes to the table straight after player A and wins 3 units as well.
How do the cards know that player A and player B are two different people. Obviously they don't. So the logic doesn't add up otherwise what you are implying is that player B has less chance to win than player A. How can that be?
Exactly right. The old gambler's fallacy.
Andy, how many bets per shoe using TUBS?
Quote from: Jimske on June 18, 2017, 12:58:37 PM
Andy, how many bets per shoe using TUBS?
Jumske,
Running that shoe that Alrelax just posted had TUBS making nine wagers in the first 40 hands (to a loss) and then 9 more on the last 40 hands. Total loss was -8 over the 80 hands dealt.
AD
Quote from: Babu on June 06, 2017, 06:21:47 AM
There are two types of members here. Those that made claims that they can win in Baccarat and those that don't believe it can be done. We can settle this once and for all. Those who can beat the challenge can having bragging rights. The ones who fail or don't dare to take the challenge should refrain from posting all the great results they claim their system can produce. Then the other half needs to stop harassing those who pass the challenge.
This challenge can be done without revealing your system so no don't use that excuse. I can setup a computer for the challenger to play on the Wizard's site. Anyone here for the challenge?
I don't want to waste my time posting the challenge until someone is interested.
I can win at baccarat and I will take you up on the challenge.
I don't have a system that I'm selling and I believe mechanical systems don't work. I'm using the gods to help with my bet selection, so basically it's subjective which side I bet. Having said that I do have a mechanical system that I fall back on, but it will be switched in and out at my whim.
I have some requirements that I think are pretty reasonable...
1. The hand history is always displayed for the entire shoe.
2. The shoe is shuffled beforehand. I would think this is assumed by most, but what I'm saying is I don't want any of this continuous shuffle stuff. Whatever cards come were always going to come no matter what millisecond they come.
3. I have 20 seconds to make bets.
4. The dealer deals automatically. I don't hit any button to say I've made my bet.
5. The cards are dealt at a speed like a normal paced dealer, about 1 second per card, perhaps 2 seconds for the 3rd card if there is one.
6. There's a further 5 seconds or so for the bet to be taken or paid, before the next "place your bets" period.
I prefer 8 decks but I will play with 6 if you must.
I wish to start with 200 units. I will claim victory when I reach +400 units, and admit defeat at -400 units. I may bet up to 10 units but it would be rare-ish. I will be betting from 1 to 10 units.
I'm not sure how long I will play for, I expect it would be about 3 hours per day on days that I play. I'm not committing to any fixed hours.
I expect this might take 6 months for me to claim victory (or admit defeat).
Quote from: Babu on June 07, 2017, 03:31:30 PM
Thanks Bally! I didn't think anyone would make an attempt. I am not familiar with everyone but I didn't get a chance to read through some of your posts. My computer is currently in pieces but once it's ready I will get back to you and get this going. Just to let you know, I will try to do a screen capture of it. Hopefully it is not too slow or eat up too many hard drive space.
I think you're still experimenting with systems if I get read everything right. It does not matter if your bet selection or bet management is random or not. In the past, I have come across people who claim a certain progression works and when time comes, they would deviate and do out of control Marty bets.
Just remember this challenge is not to ridicule anyone.
For the record, write a brief description of:
1. Your system or approach
2. Bankroll
3. Daily winning goals, stop losses, approximately how many shoes you play per day. (If you have any)
4. Where do you reside.
5. Days and times you can do this as we are all in different time zones.
6. Do you have Windows platform computer?
This is all I can think of at the moment. We can coordinate further.
Just read this and I will respond to these...
1. I have a subjective system, choose bets and sides at my whim. Bets will be from 1 to 10 units. In reality I will likely be following a mechanical system until I decide to change it to its opposite.
2. I would like to start with 200 units.
3. I have no daily winning goals or stop losses. I would play 3 shoes a day probably, with breaks in between each shoe, possibly 1/2 hour, may be more or less.
4. I reside in Australia and use Australian Central Time.
5. I would generally be playing in my afternoons, from 2pm to 6pm, but it may vary.
6. I have a windows platform computer.
I find it very unlikely that I will be down after 160 shoes. If that's your only requirement then I'm ok with that. This is easier than my original goal of finishing up 400 units.
Baccarat is a simple game and roulette is my preference.
So when playing bac, I keep it simple by pitting banker/player against each other in a race to five.
I only bet when either is up to to four with one win to complete the five.
If both are at four I don't bet. I rule both off at three and continue the race to five.
If either race ahead to lead by four, I don't bet. I rule both off at zero, and continue the race to five.
Of course I use a very specific progression for this bet selection.
Good luck to you all.