+ Register

[stephen tabone]

From all the gamblers I've ever met – and I've met many over the years – who have tried to win at the game of Baccarat, I have never known any one single person who wins regularly at the game and moreover a gambler who can honestly claim to be in profit from playing the game. That was until I wrote my book. I often receive emails and facebook messages from all over the world from people stating that they are winning.

But before I published my book many told me they win, they are up (in profit), but when I watched them play and I found that the very opposite was true; that they were in fact losing. In short they had been losing for so long that they'd adopted a winning stance because they were in denial about the true reality of their years of losing. When you really get to know such people, they eventually open up and admit that they can never win and have lost a lot of money over the years.

So what had gone wrong with such gamblers who set out trying to win playing Baccarat but never do? Maybe they were just having a bad day when they lost and there will be better days perhaps... But when I watched them play on other days and history repeated itself and they ended up losing, certainly overtime anyhow. That's not to say that they never at some point in the game went into profit. But even at the times when they did go into profit, on the whole they could not tell me why because most don't even follow a strategy and are probably only winning, when they are winning based on luck and or mistakes or irrational / emotional decision making.

When I write 'mistakes', what I mean is they have a rough idea of a way they play, the decisions they make, it's not a strategy they could explain, as you'll find in my book, 'The Ultimate Bullet Proof Winning Strategy'.
They just have a loose idea of a method, and they even go against it because it does not work for most of the time, and they end up winning some hands by sheer luck on the basis that they went against their own idea of how to win at the game of Baccarat. In essence their way of playing is on the whole fairly random and in order to win you'll need to adopt a more scientific formula.

All the regular Baccarat players I used to meet were simply just losing. Most big players i.e. players who stake large amounts of money, are business people who have regular incomes. Though they try their hardest to win at the game, they fail and are losing a lot of money betting in the hundreds and even thousands. They don't really care that much since their regular income means that they will always have money to feed the casinos! And the casinos love these VIP types of gamblers. They treat them with complimentary restaurant food, drinks and VIP comps to keep them coming back as they do because they are made to feel so welcome.

Then you have your semi regular Baccarat gambler who will lose all of his money and return at a later date with more funds only to repeat history and leave the casino a loser. Sometimes he might win, and even leave in profit, but on the whole he will leave a loser. He might even have a not too bad way of playing the game. A way that might mean that at some point in the game he goes in to profit, yet since he does not take that profit and leave up he ends up losing. He will be another type of casino feeder. He will probably be a better player than the rich businessman or the man or woman who has come into some money and since they feel so rich don't mind so much when they lose since they have so much more money to fall back on. That is until it's all gone.

The semi regular Baccarat gambler is stubborn. He develops a strategy that does not work over time. Though he keeps losing he sticks to it. From time to time he may develop another losing strategy. Again he loses because what all his strategies have in common is that they are based on greed and not on fair unit wins.   

What type of gambler are you?

[Jimske]

From all the gamblers I've ever met – and I've met many over the years – who have tried to win at the game of Baccarat, I have never known any one single person who wins regularly at the game and moreover a gambler who can honestly claim to be in profit from playing the game. That was until I wrote my book. I often receive emails and facebook messages from all over the world from people stating that they are winning.

But before I published my book many told me they win, they are up (in profit), but when I watched them play and I found that the very opposite was true; that they were in fact losing. In short they had been losing for so long that they'd adopted a winning stance because they were in denial about the true reality of their years of losing. When you really get to know such people, they eventually open up and admit that they can never win and have lost a lot of money over the years.

So what had gone wrong with such gamblers who set out trying to win playing Baccarat but never do? Maybe they were just having a bad day when they lost and there will be better days perhaps... But when I watched them play on other days and history repeated itself and they ended up losing, certainly overtime anyhow. That's not to say that they never at some point in the game went into profit. But even at the times when they did go into profit, on the whole they could not tell me why because most don't even follow a strategy and are probably only winning, when they are winning based on luck and or mistakes or irrational / emotional decision making.

When I write 'mistakes', what I mean is they have a rough idea of a way they play, the decisions they make, it's not a strategy they could explain, as you'll find in my book, 'The Ultimate Bullet Proof Winning Strategy'.
They just have a loose idea of a method, and they even go against it because it does not work for most of the time, and they end up winning some hands by sheer luck on the basis that they went against their own idea of how to win at the game of Baccarat. In essence their way of playing is on the whole fairly random and in order to win you'll need to adopt a more scientific formula.

All the regular Baccarat players I used to meet were simply just losing. Most big players i.e. players who stake large amounts of money, are business people who have regular incomes. Though they try their hardest to win at the game, they fail and are losing a lot of money betting in the hundreds and even thousands. They don't really care that much since their regular income means that they will always have money to feed the casinos! And the casinos love these VIP types of gamblers. They treat them with complimentary restaurant food, drinks and VIP comps to keep them coming back as they do because they are made to feel so welcome.

Then you have your semi regular Baccarat gambler who will lose all of his money and return at a later date with more funds only to repeat history and leave the casino a loser. Sometimes he might win, and even leave in profit, but on the whole he will leave a loser. He might even have a not too bad way of playing the game. A way that might mean that at some point in the game he goes in to profit, yet since he does not take that profit and leave up he ends up losing. He will be another type of casino feeder. He will probably be a better player than the rich businessman or the man or woman who has come into some money and since they feel so rich don't mind so much when they lose since they have so much more money to fall back on. That is until it's all gone.

The semi regular Baccarat gambler is stubborn. He develops a strategy that does not work over time. Though he keeps losing he sticks to it. From time to time he may develop another losing strategy. Again he loses because what all his strategies have in common is that they are based on greed and not on fair unit wins.   

What type of gambler are you?

blah, blah, blah.  What a load of shite, this made up story about all the gamblers he knows that revealed this or that , etc.  Let's cut to the chase.  What I got after reading every word was:

as you'll find in my book, 'The Ultimate Bullet Proof Winning Strategy'.

Give it a rest.

[stephen tabone]

I get the sense you're very angry 
But I can't see why save that you asked me on another thread how much I paid for NOR and I wrote I sourced the information via youtube. Then you come ere and display vindictiveness. Isn't it better that you keep your cool  :thumbsup:and add to the debate?

[Jimske]

I get the sense you're very angry 
But I can't see why save that you asked me on another thread how much I paid for NOR and I wrote I sourced the information via youtube. Then you come ere and display vindictiveness. Isn't it better that you keep your cool  :thumbsup:and add to the debate?

Ya got me all wrong.  Don't jump to conclusions.  I'm not angry.  I enjoy participating in discussions about Baccarat and I also enjoy pushing back on posers who have ulterior motives.  Be honest.  There is only one reason you are here.  Look at the last post that I commented on in a forthright non-vindictive way.  You present this whole diatribe just so you can put in a plug for your book!  LMAO.  Sorry, ya can't bullshite a  bullshiter.    (Andy you missed that one )

Let me not beat around the bush about that question anymore.  You tried to dodge it I know.  Nice try but sorry, answer the question!  You know and I know that you didn't purchase NOR which is a copyrighted method from my long time friend Ellis.  Yet you got the unmitaged gall (I kind of like that expression) to expect others to respect your own copyright.   (starting to like mojis)

Just a debate, nothing personal.  You're probably an all right guy and I realize that it takes an awful lof of time and energy to put a book together.  I got no issue with you selling the book.  In fact I think  it is a good way to make some money if one is so inclined.  But please let's not pretend that you are debating Baccarat.

Dude - you ae making fantastic claims that you admit you cannot back up!  So you get the Pinnochios!!!!  Sorry bud, you're a fake, a phony, and a fraud.   And whle I'm at it:  Hiking up the price of the book someone said.  Not exactly a class act!  Why sugar coat it?  Man up, own it!

J

PS - so anoying not to ahve spwell chek.  !!!

[stephen tabone]

Ya got me all wrong.  Don't jump to conclusions.  I'm not angry.  I enjoy participating in discussions about Baccarat and I also enjoy pushing back on posers who have ulterior motives.  Be honest.  There is only one reason you are here.  Look at the last post that I commented on in a forthright non-vindictive way.  You present this whole diatribe just so you can put in a plug for your book!  LMAO.  Sorry, ya can't bullshite a  bullshiter.    (Andy you missed that one )

Let me not beat around the bush about that question anymore.  You tried to dodge it I know.  Nice try but sorry, answer the question!  You know and I know that you didn't purchase NOR which is a copyrighted method from my long time friend Ellis.  Yet you got the unmitaged gall (I kind of like that expression) to expect others to respect your own copyright.   (starting to like mojis)

Just a debate, nothing personal.  You're probably an all right guy and I realize that it takes an awful lof of time and energy to put a book together.  I got no issue with you selling the book.  In fact I think  it is a good way to make some money if one is so inclined.  But please let's not pretend that you are debating Baccarat.

Dude - you ae making fantastic claims that you admit you cannot back up!  So you get the Pinnochios!!!!  Sorry bud, you're a fake, a phony, and a fraud.   And whle I'm at it:  Hiking up the price of the book someone said.  Not exactly a class act!  Why sugar coat it?  Man up, own it!

J

PS - so anoying not to ahve spwell chek.  !!!

I don't know whether to laugh or cry  So many put down words you use, it's difficult to find the words to express my surprise. Then you're bigging up your friend NOR...Oh now we now, this the reason for you putting me down...Oh I get it now. Well, 1. your words re I'm a fake etc don't stand up because the strategy is in my book and other books to come. I sense that you feel NOR has competition. Well I don't sell workshops for x amounts of money. I don't make a lot of money on sales, 350$ thus far thus no big deal, have made a lot more of gambling at baccarat over the last 3 months. But now I know why you came across angry and still are despite your attempts to claim that you're not. 2. Re price of my book, I don't have control over that my publishers do, I have already written about this on another thread and as I understand it's on offer anyway via amazon.  No one is forcing anyone to buy it. I'm trying to add to this forum in terms of debate about gambling in general but you don't seem to be interested in joining in. Rather intent on protecting NOR. You really should read what you wrote, then I wrote and see that your notions do not prove anything.

you wrote: "Let me not beat around the bush about that question anymore.  You tried to dodge it I know.  Nice try but sorry, answer the question!  You know and I know that you didn't purchase NOR which is a copyrighted method from my long time friend Ellis.  Yet you got the unmitaged gall (I kind of like that expression) to expect others to respect your own copyright.   (starting to like mojis)"

Go back and read what I wrote. I NEVER claimed to have purchased NOR. If you can show where I did write that I had purchased NOR I'll write you a check for 10k$ AGAIN, for the third time, I wrote that I watched a tone of videos about NOR on Youtube last year!   

[Sputnik]

Jimske Stephen Tabone is sponsor of this forum board and have the right to talk about he book and opinions.
The issue i have and i don't know if Stephen Tabone have overcome this or not.

When i test variants of my method i make a list of 100 sessions all flat betting and try to get winning sessions to overcome losing sessions.
At the end of the 100 session i am even with most of my different methods.

I don't feel is hard to flat betting and win +2 units on regular basis, but at some point you give it all back and end up even.
It has to be the same for Stephen Tabone with his method.

I read he aim to win +3 units and have a loss limit of -6 units.
Then the minimum is winning two session out of three to break even.

Now if Stephen Tabone would claim that he could win more then two session out of three using his methodology flat betting, then i would considering to buy his book.
But other members from this forum board have made some testing and not getting similar results towards that.
Should also mention that the testing from forum members has not been 100% correct as they aim to win +3 units or lose -6 units without counting all shoes where  you would break even (does would make the -6 result less) as Stephen Tabone mention that if he lose some and win some and not reach his win target during half the shoe he aim to quit and break even.
The members who test his method or mention that they did - did not include this option and therefor the results is not true picture of Stephen Tabone method.

Cheers

[Jimske]

Jimske Stephen Tabone is sponsor of this forum board and have the right to talk about he book and opinions.

No argument from me there.

The issue i have and i don't know if Stephen Tabone have overcome this or not.  When i test variants of my method i make a list of 100 sessions all flat betting and try to get winning sessions to overcome losing sessions.
At the end of the 100 session i am even with most of my different methods.

I don't feel is hard to flat betting and win +2 units on regular basis, but at some point you give it all back and end up even.

Add commision and it produces a loss.

It has to be the same for Stephen Tabone with his method.

I read he aim to win +3 units and have a loss limit of -6 units.
Then the minimum is winning two session out of three to break even.

Again - commission.  I always calculate commisin in my tests.

Now if Stephen Tabone would claim that he could win more then two session out of three using his methodology flat betting, then i would considering to buy his book.

Part of the problem is significant number of trials.  Correct me if I am wrong but he doesn't provide any numbers like average number of bets made per session.  Most guys don't expect a million trials.  But I think something on the order of 10,000 trials would be sufficient to begin a discussion. 

But other members from this forum board have made some testing and not getting similar results towards that.
Should also mention that the testing from forum members has not been 100% correct as they aim to win +3 units or lose -6 units without counting all shoes where  you would break even (does would make the -6 result less) as Stephen Tabone mention that if he lose some and win some and not reach his win target during half the shoe he aim to quit and break even.
The members who test his method or mention that they did - did not include this option and therefor the results is not true picture of Stephen Tabone method.

Yes, perhaps the tests here not accurate.  I would generally accept Andy's test since I believe he understands the method.  But 50 shoes doesn't make a loser either. 

Stephen's unwillingness to provide some basic data (because it doesn't exist) and his insistence that book sales are proof positive taints every comment he makes.  Come on.  All he has to do is have someone run some numbers and post the results and he'd have tons of book sales!

J

[stephen tabone]

it is true if you exit from shoes at break even about half way through and take 3- loss of the worse shoes then the winning 3+ unit shoes will far outweigh the losing shoes and all taxes on the Banker bets. Some might refine my strategy by continuing to go beyond 3+ units when all is going well, as I state in my book, go for example, you win 4+ try for 5, don't win 5, stop 4+, you get the 5, try for 6 you get 6 try for 7 you don't get the 7 then stop at 6+ in this way you extend your winning. Even if it works out that you gain an extra 1+ overall doing this on average then that is all the better. but if you do do this and from 3 you go down to 2 you will have to consider do you carry on to get back to 3 or do you exit and stop at 2+, i would stop because though I'm losing 1, I'm still up and on other shoes will go, 4,5,6 etc. So average out at an extra 1+. If you stopped at 2+ and saw it go back to 3, and higher, 4-6 or more then don't worry just think about attacking other shoes, it's when you get angry of what you could have won is when you end up losing because you chasing wins. remember that to win at baccarat over time, you need to think about building units over weeks. Once you start you go into profits unit + wins over weeks then you can start to plan your flat stake increases over time as I state in my book. You should not jump for $20 stake t $40 so soon etc because if you hit some losing shoes on 40$ you will lose your mind and not see the wood from the trees,I write about this in my book giving examples. The game of baccarat is a game of control.

[Sputnik]

Stephen Tabone have you tested to win 1 unit each day or break even.
What a feeling placing 100 Euro units and know that you can quit and walk home with +1 units each day.
Is something magical about it.

I can stay ahead with my testing and being in front of loses, but i don't know for how long it will last.
This is RNG with La Partage Rule.

+17
-8

1. +1
2. +0
3. +1
4. -0.5
5. +0
6. +1
7. +1
8. +1
9. +0
10. +1
11. +1
12. +1
13. +0
14. +1
15. +0
16. +1
17. +1
18. +1
19. -1
20. +1
21. -1
22. +1
23. -2
24. +1
25. -2
26. +1
27. +0
28. -1.5
29. +0
30. +1

[alrelax]

           
To

[stephen tabone]

$100 unit stake flat betting 1+ unit win, walk is good if can control yourself and walk. and if 100$ is enough for you per day. 

[stephen tabone]

No argument from me there.
Add commision and it produces a loss.
Again - commission.  I always calculate commisin in my tests.
Part of the problem is significant number of trials.  Correct me if I am wrong but he doesn't provide any numbers like average number of bets made per session.  Most guys don't expect a million trials.  But I think something on the order of 10,000 trials would be sufficient to begin a discussion.  Yes, perhaps the tests here not accurate.  I would generally accept Andy's test since I believe he understands the method.  But 50 shoes doesn't make a loser either. 

Stephen's unwillingness to provide some basic data (because it doesn't exist) and his insistence that book sales are proof positive taints every comment he makes.  Come on.  All he has to do is have someone run some numbers and post the results and he'd have tons of book sales!

J

HERE IS THE NOR BOOK YOU WERE BANNING ON ABOUT https://www.amazon.com/NOR-Approach-Baccarat-Majin-Lupin-ebook/dp/B00MFY8FUQ/ref=zg_bs_4423_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=5H89NFV1Z2PHW3Z473NK

[stephen tabone]

My latest book is out!!! 2.1 edition which makes my Strategy, Silver Bullet Proof.

You just got to read this book people!!  Get the Kindle guys from here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0741PX6JK/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1500441816&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Ultimate+Silver+Bullet+Proof+Baccarat+Winning+Strategy+2.1

You can get the paperback too from here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1548900613/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1500441816&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=The+Ultimate+Silver+Bullet+Proof+Baccarat+Winning+Strategy+2.1

Amazing stop losses and when to bet again triggers and fantastic cleverly developed tweaks and new chapters on systems and mathematics etc. Happy reading.