+ Register

[HunchBacShrimp]

My apologies Soxfan for getting way off topic.


I've read this before, and it is a very interesting read. It does appear to be (to me anyway) some sort of marty. I think it resembles the Great Grandfather of Martys.

Trying to play off of your W/L string. I never understood the reason to keep betting one unit until a single win, and then put down a massive bet. Better to just wait for a single virtual win and then place the wager. Which would be much smaller cause the draw down was limited.
I know some people think that virtual losses don't matter unless you actually put money down. Maybe he adheres to that school of thought. I'm surprised it wasn't a revised version, to cut down on the necessary spread. 1-2500? That's just ridiculously massive.

I'm unaware of any advantage in trying to capitalize on the Double Win. Yeah, it's pretty common. But the same method could have been set up against a single loss, which is more common than a double win. In a casino environment, with less than 50/50 odds, one could argue that the single win is more common than any other occurrence. This, in my opinion, would be a better target, or perhaps the double loss?

HBS

[Jimske]

One thing that always botherd me about Seth stuff is his comment that no real player would sit through a horrendous losing streak.  Some how he uses that point as one reason his methods are viable.  As if that should make a difference.  Why would it?

Seth's 5000 subset example of losses in a row (LIAR) seems to be significantly different than ImSpirit's study using  multiple bet selections.  That's a curious thing and seems to suggest that Baccarat is not the 50-50 proposition we assume but has statistical limitations which promise a win if played properly.

Seth also ignores bet selection as meaningless.  This is likely true with over all W/L numbers but different selections will achieve different nemesis patterns which can possibly be exploited by educated guesses and virtual loss concepts.

Even though I personally achieve more wins than losses over what I consider a significant number of trials I still believe that increasing ones bet (progressive betting) is the key to winning.  However, an alternative to deep progressions may be keeping bet units tight in a 50-50 game which allows for moderate increases which are more easily able to recoup losses as long as you don't go too deep.  In my trend play I generally bet no more than 2 units with a max goal of 4 units.  But I recognize at rare times and under the appropriate circumstances I have to go deeper than that and do.   

Some time ago I taught myself to play Turnaround.  It wouldn't be easy live but doable I'm sure.  The hard part was doing the % math in your head quickly to ascertain the proper bet.  Not impossible though.  I haven't learned and compared Target 3 Player yet.  The obstacle for me is simply risk aversion.  Instead I studied Stetson Bailey's Win $1k a Day at Craps which looks at the flaw of D'Alembert and has a lot of similarities to Turnaround.  Another good read for principles of betting in a guessing game.   I still use some of both Seth and Bailey concepts.  Particular the ideas of locking up a profit after most wins and using a cut back in unit size when the going gets too rough.

Seth writes: "Stop-loss limits seem oh so sensible in theory, but in truth, scared money never wins."  Certainly scared money will alter your game for the worse but I still believe that appropriate stop losses (and wins) within a closed shoe makes sense as long as they are tied to a specific bet criteria.  Again, statistical realities exist just as in progressive betting.

Experienced players obviously win using concepts differing from Seth's formulation but not so much different than the principles he is applying.

J

[TheLaw]

It should also be noted that if Seth (the author) had been successful with this system, he would be extremely wealthy, and be able to show proof of using his system for long-term profit by now many times over.

Perhaps he just want to be right instead of actually having a winning system..................seen this too many times...........all hat, no cattle.

[soxfan]

Seth claims to have been winning since 1989, and I believe him. He seems like a straight shooter and he used to make his sports bet picks available for all to see and showed how he won using his target style betting sports in real times, hey hey.

It should also be noted that if Seth (the author) had been successful with this system, he would be extremely wealthy, and be able to show proof of using his system for long-term profit by now many times over.

Perhaps he just want to be right instead of actually having a winning system..................seen this too many times...........all hat, no cattle.

[TheLaw]

Seth claims to have been winning since 1989, and I believe him. He seems like a straight shooter and he used to make his sports bet picks available for all to see and showed how he won using his target style betting sports in real times, hey hey.

Ok.

So let's say his system works for Roulette.

How much would he be worth now conservatively? Tens of millions? More?

Remember, he has a full-proof system that wins consistently over a long period of time that can be easily executed at any live wheel without any extra attention. Why wouldn't hedge fund managers be using this to make billions with teams of players?

Here's my problem with his whole presentation: He clearly wants to prove that the game can be beaten................so why not do just that instead of posting charts and simulations. Don't get me wrong, those are great, but why not actually show proof of winning just a million...........that's all it would take. Just imagine if he posted deposit receipts from dozens of casinos totaling over a million in winnings.............that would definitely be a first for this or any other Roulette forum.

We have yet to see anyone show proof of a system long-term, and as Seth presents it on his blog, the method fails............I know because I used live spins from Spielbank to see for myself. It looks really impressive until that certain pattern hits, and then it's just a Martingale........nothing more.

I think the system might work on other games, and Seth may even have won on those, but on Roulette it tanks.

From the TargetBettingblog :

"Whenever you feel uncomfortable or threatened in a given location, move and take your NB/LTD numbers to a new layout ("the math" will be unaffected).".

"Anyone who has ever gambled in a casino for more than an hour or two knows the value of taking a break when a prolonged losing streak sets in, and listening to a combination of experience and gut feelings that signal when a change of scene is needed."

............so yet again Faith rears it's ugly head in the face of reason/evidence. Might as well pull out the Tarot Cards!!!

One last red flag about the blog: notice how much time he spends waxing poetic about the fact that that game can be beat, but never takes the opportunity to put the system into action over a long period of time. Look at the massive amount of space given to his opinions vs the actual proof.Man who talks loud.........says nothing

[soxfan]

Seth has proved his style. He used to make his cake at the blackjack but now he seem to concentrate on the horses racing and betting sports. And he did say to avoid roulettes cuz of the large house bite and the zeros, hey hey.

[Jimske]

@Law: I also had a problem with the rationale of leaving "bad tables" as making any mathematical difference but in fairness I don't think he is making that as a mathematical claim as part of his method.  He introduces it as psychological "protection" for real play.  It is interesting that he also refutes stop losses as meaningful yet leaving a situation from a bad run is exactly that, isn't it? 

My personal viewpoint is that leaving a situation in a closed game like Baccarat has merit.  Sure it's a guess that the next shoe will be better but in a 50-50 game deep re-occurring losses in a single shoe is pretty rare so the "probability" of the next closed game being even a tad better is great IMO.

Finally, Law, we should be careful about assuming that just because one has not accumulated a fortune means the method is invalid.  Making a substantial income at the casino as ones life work can be awfully draining, unsatisfying and boring leading to all manner of pitfalls both physical and psychological.  Perhaps Seth plays just enough to meet his own interests.

(sidebar)What I'd like to see Seth do is make a comparison between the outcomes of several bet selections in the same manner that ImSpirit did to ascertain whether or not different selections actually perform  differently.  I accept that Seth has problems with Dave's results but I do have confidence in Dave's results when comparing the different methods.

J

[Garfield]

This is what I believed.

To win at baccarat you must :
1. Have more wins than losses.
2. If your bet selection couldn't do that, progression is your back up plan.

I prefer numero uno. 

[TheLaw]

@Law: I also had a problem with the rationale of leaving "bad tables" as making any mathematical difference but in fairness I don't think he is making that as a mathematical claim as part of his method.  He introduces it as psychological "protection" for real play.  It is interesting that he also refutes stop losses as meaningful yet leaving a situation from a bad run is exactly that, isn't it? 

My personal viewpoint is that leaving a situation in a closed game like Baccarat has merit.  Sure it's a guess that the next shoe will be better but in a 50-50 game deep re-occurring losses in a single shoe is pretty rare so the "probability" of the next closed game being even a tad better is great IMO.

Finally, Law, we should be careful about assuming that just because one has not accumulated a fortune means the method is invalid.  Making a substantial income at the casino as ones life work can be awfully draining, unsatisfying and boring leading to all manner of pitfalls both physical and psychological.  Perhaps Seth plays just enough to meet his own interests.

(sidebar)What I'd like to see Seth do is make a comparison between the outcomes of several bet selections in the same manner that ImSpirit did to ascertain whether or not different selections actually perform  differently.  I accept that Seth has problems with Dave's results but I do have confidence in Dave's results when comparing the different methods.

J

My issue with anyone claiming a winning system is simple - With a foolproof winning method you now have access to massive amounts of money.

Now you can choose to just take a little here and a bit there, and leave the rest. But when you claim to have something that has never been proven in over a hundreds years of play, not to mention over a decade of online forums............great claims require great evidence.

This is the real problem with any method presented to the public...................proof. But every time............yes....every time.........someone has an excuse.
So now it's- "perhaps he's not in it for the money". The same guy who figures out how to beat the "unbeatable" game, is not interested in money?

I think he's run the numbers using simulations, and comes out ahead. So why not put this to rest? How about just taking a small bankroll and doubling it several times.........or better yet, why not take say 5000 units and turn it into 100,000 units? That would shut people up faster than any "simulation chart".

Seth could prove the system easily if that was his goal, but it's not. He just wants to glory without the risk.

[gr8player]

Gotta admit, I'm with TheLaw on this one.

Look, Seth's method, while looking absolutely wonderful "on paper" and "in sims", is, for all intents and purposes, rendered unplayable in real casino time.

Simply ask yourself this question?:

Who, in their right mind, will bet upwards of hundreds of times their base bet on any even chance outcome?

[AsymBacGuy]

This is what I believed.

To win at baccarat you must :
1. Have more wins than losses.
2. If your bet selection couldn't do that, progression is your back up plan.

I prefer numero uno. 

I like many other replies but this is my preferred one.

Of course having more W than L would be to play an EV+ game, a pure contradiction in terms.
The game remains an EV- game. Wholly considered.
Actually and imo baccarat provides some EV+ situations dispersed along the way.

We could use many tricks to raise the W/L ratio, of course we know that itlr the final ratio will be W=L, more or less of course as some patterns will have a higher probability even if this one will be erased and inverted by the vig.
Fortunately we know that many patterns and the distribution of such patterns are limited in some way in a direction or another.
It's a sure statistical fact that the SD of many patterns will be more contained than other simpler opposite events as the B/P ratio, for example. But we ought to let the time working for us and not acting in the exact opposite way.

The use of a progression should be a second step tool, that is after having assessed that in some situations the SD will be more contained and we could evaluate such deviations by many ways.

Nothing wrong if some players wish to take advantage of short term deviations, always considering that a large portion of shoes won't get the player any valuable hint.

as. 

 



   

[TheLaw]

Gotta admit, I'm with TheLaw on this one.

Look, Seth's method, while looking absolutely wonderful "on paper" and "in sims", is, for all intents and purposes, rendered unplayable in real casino time.

Simply ask yourself this question?:

Who, in their right mind, will bet upwards of hundreds of times their base bet on any even chance outcome?

......and that's not even the half of it!

Seth presents a Martingale (called LossToDate on the blog) up to 5000 units x your base bet..............and then............keep betting the 5000 units until you're ahead!

[Jimske]

Gotta admit, I'm with TheLaw on this one.

Look, Seth's method, while looking absolutely wonderful "on paper" and "in sims", is, for all intents and purposes, rendered unplayable in real casino time.

Simply ask yourself this question?:

Who, in their right mind, will bet upwards of hundreds of times their base bet on any even chance outcome?

I'm not advocating Seth's methods.  Dismissing deep progressions out of hand is a narrow viewpoint.  There are lots of ways to approach and there are people who would and do entertain deeper risks than most would.  Also, as Seth mentions there is room for reduced escalation.

All progs have ways to reduce escalation.  Of course such reduction also reduces profit but progs like Seths reap pretty big returns at the higher bet levels which allow for reductions in bet size and still provide reasonable profit.  BTW, there is also room for increased escalation after wins.

Gr8, even with your play you also reduce and increase escalation by reducing a bet after a win and parlay after a win.   So the % are different but the concepts are the same.