+ Register

[21 Aces]

For 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!

[Eight Iron]

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. 

[stephen tabone]

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

[stephen tabone]

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.

[Bally6354]

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?

[james]

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.

[Jimske]

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?

[AsymBacGuy]

No time to see you, Jimskie!

Welcome back!

as.

[21 Aces]

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. 

[ADulay]

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

[Babu]

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.

[stephen tabone]

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.

[stephen tabone]

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.

[Bally6354]

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

[Sputnik]

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