This made my day at 2:04PM, a huge cup of coffee and 2 after lunch donuts for this one!

From Gizmo:  "I don't mind people disagreeing and even embarrassingly taking turns to defensive expressions if they lose it. I like watching people losing their cool. It means that they have lost their capacity to back up a position. Like it or not they are taking a position."

Which just happened within this thread, 110%!

Okay, I am leaving anyway.   

Quote from: Xander on June 01, 2018, 06:42:06 PM
Ok, I get it.  Some of you aren't "mathboyz.". Going out on a limb though, I'm going to assume that at least some of you that aren't "mathboyz" are hopefully at least "literate boyz.". If you are, then why do you assume that all of the experts and mathematicians are wrong, based on what they've written?  After all, they comprehend the math and basic probability, but you guys don't since you're not one of the "mathboyz!" 

If I were you, I think I'd make an effort to learn the math and basic probability, rather than trying to make it cool to be ignorant.   

Gizmo,

Either you have the edge or you don't.  You can't beat a negative expectation game in the long run for the same reason that you can't multiply a negative number times a positive number and produce a positive outcome.  Money management, gaming discipline don't make a dent in the long run expectation.

Sorry, just the facts

-Xander
Literate and I don't suck at math!

you're actually quite correct. The problem is the people who are winning, like me, I'm not winning because I have an edge that cannot be discerned by mathematics. We are guessing. But we are guessing based on signatures AND property betting techniques.  MM is part of that.  At least that's how I do it.

Today I only won 44 hands out of 92- 47.8% but still had a pretty good profitable day.  I was explaining the way I bet and where I bet to a guy sitting next to me. I was telling him that what I look for is consistency.  They were difficult to choose because the consistency didn't last that long and when that happens you got to change and be careful how you bet because the change may just end up going south. But generally we get enough consistency to make a profit if we're betting properly.

I know there's people in here that talk about triggers. In my mind a trigger is something that precipitates a future outcome. If you can do that and have a trigger then it's up to you to show it and prove it. If you can't then of course it's nonsense and just guessing. Gizmo said one time what's wrong with guessing? Well, nothing.

Quote from: alrelax on June 01, 2018, 03:01:56 PM
I used to watch the Apprentice with endorsement of Donald!  The show was not about him, was it?

Actually my cousin worked for Donald for 20 years at the Taj or so and when he cleaned out his desk a little bit ago (a couple of years back now) he gave me the original and one of 3 copies of the book that built the Taj.  I also have a Silver & Gold belt buckle Donald gave me by in the early 90's at a baccarat tournament (those great old bac tournaments in AC and Vegas that went by the way side). 

It is not about me!  It is about sharing, something you seem to forget about also.

Here, I will share:  https://betselection.cc/alrelax's-blog/trump-taj-atlantic-city-and-donald-trump/msg57352/#msg57352

What's wrong with Trump?

where to begin? First of all I think you have to be pretty obtuse not to realize that the show Apprentice was not about Donald Trump. The master deal maker lording over all these little apprentices trying to be like him and he having the ultimate "you're fired" authority sounds to me that it's all about him. LOL. 

Trump is an authoritarian who leans toward fascism.  Sure a lot of people agree with that kind of authoritarianism.

On a personal level there is really no argument that he is a consummate liar, a bully, a misogynist and has a high degree of narcissism.

You have a lot in common with him I'm sure. You're like a little Trump wanna be always talking about yourself, bragging, trying to control the narrative.  Think about it.  How many gambling sites have you left or been asked to leave because people can't stand your rhetoric and your BS.  You should really look in the mirror and ask yourself why people don't like you.

(The above is from Jimske)
*******************************************************************************************************
This is my response:

Sure there are some people that don't like me, I am outspoken, been there and done most of that type of guy, so what.  I have plenty that do like me, we are not in a friendship contest or popularity contest here as far as I know.  We discuss gambling and casinos, shoot--most husbands and wives cannot even have a decent conversation about money. 

You are pretty much exactly right.  I was joking about the show, you took the line  throw out there, hook--line and sinker 1,000%.

As far as the other sites, Sonya is a huge pig and it got very personal with her after I fueled war chests and done numerous other tasks and extra curricular activities with and for her.  She is a pig and nothing but.  She gave me a settlement to go away and part friends.  I went away but she is a pig--did I say that already?  I have my reasons.  IMO and my experience, nothing to do with BetSelection, etc.  As far as Andrew, AKA Shifter, I gambled with him and knew him from Sonya's board along with Rich from California.  Andrew is young and there are lots of personal and business problems on his end during this time we knew each other and meet a couple of times in Vegas with or without Rich (VegasBJ), about the time he started his own board that he shut down, etc.  As far as WoV, I am not even going to get into it, purely consumer'ish, non technical, chit chit pass the breeze stuff,  but Axelwolf and The Wizard, etc.  It is okay, no problem.  I was recently invited to go on BeatTheCasino and copied and pasted some articles from here around the time Vic was bringing this board down.  One of Keven's close members squared off on me and the others joined, but anyone that doesn't immediately join their $50.00 a month exclusive club is pushed into the corner and ridden.  I demanded with 3 maybe four cell phone texts to Kevin to remove my 5 postings on his site and he attempted to have his local police department issue a warrant fro my arrest for threats, harassment and other criminal charges, etc.  Anyone with any knoweldge of the game of baccarat that goes on that site and does not subscribe will not last.  But I found one his members that colludes with him was previously colluding with another person and another board and that other person now has in excess of $500,000.00 of casino markers unpaid in Vegas as several properties.  Great, what's the problem?  Oh, let's teach you how to run with the real professionals, pay us only $50.00 a month and we will fuel you up, etc.  But if you know whom the people are and some of their past, someone with the knoweldge is very dangerous to them.  What else?  You have any other problem yourself? 

And in reality, I do nothing different than you and Mike and Blue Angel do to people in a way.  I just do it to their face and do it while the lights are on and they are awake.  Not, when the lights are off, in the back door, PM's and Emails, rumors and acting like the almighty intellect that is a master of mathematics and other subjects with years and years of study, research and sworn to secrecy with holy grails, that can never be divulged but are known to a certain few, etc., etc.   And yet, even when you guys do not agree or enjoy the member or poster, you still read all of his posts and chase him around to get in every belittling, chastising, humiliating and degrading comment, statement or innuendo you can--then flip the tables and say, hey it is you and no one likes you, etc.  Why do you even read my stuff or respond?  You would not pick up a book you dislike the author, keep reading and waste your time--would you? 

Quote from: Xander on June 01, 2018, 06:42:06 PM
... If you are, then why do you assume that all of the experts and mathematicians are wrong, based on what they've written?  After all, they comprehend the math and basic probability, but you guys don't since you're not one of the "mathboyz!" 

If I were you, I think I'd make an effort to learn the math and basic probability, rather than trying to make it cool to be ignorant.   

Gizmo,

Are you really going to pass this off as proof of ignorance? Xanadu?  Although we are having a proper and lively discussion, you have not proved anything. Why, mathematically, must anyone have an edge in order to win? The question still stands. It didn't go away because you sweep up the dust in front of some math wiz's chalkboard. You should know that I wrote the first Blowfish encryption algorithm for the Transcript programming language. It's a 32 bit block cipher that uses bit wise operations with a very unique cipher block chaining front end that utilizes the mod function of the language. It's still illegal for an American to export it. I had to figure out the math. Funny how the dweebs that can predict the future with probability use that grand achievement to impress little minded groupies like you. Are you getting the trend yet? I think you are faking it.


So please prove that I haven't confounded your excuse for not actually addressing the issue. Is that literate enough for you? Prove it.

Xander is absolutey right, but I'd change his words in "nobody CAN'T DEMONSTRATE to win itlr without an edge".

If anybody can demonstrate to win at games without a mathematical edge he would be millionaire without placing a dime on the felt.
The problem is to present a valid scientific evidence of such claim.

Every other attempt to say "hey, I'm consistently winning" without scientifically proving it is a total mere bighornshit. No matter how good or smart will appear the author or the hypothesis involved at the start. 
Especially whether such winning players are placing red or, rarely, green chips.

A final world: Glen hadn't written worse ideas than anybody else and, hey, he's not wagering red or green chips at the table. So i would use more respect for him.

as.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 01, 2018, 09:11:36 PM
Xander is absolutey right, but I'd change his words in "nobody CAN'T DEMONSTRATE to win itlr without an edge".

If anybody can demonstrate to win at games without a mathematical edge he would be millionaire without placing a dime on the felt.
The problem is to present a valid scientific evidence of such claim.

Every other attempt to say "hey, I'm consistently winning" without scientifically proving it is a total mere bighornshit. No matter how good or smart will appear the author or the hypothesis involved at the start. 
Especially whether such winning players are placing red or, rarely, green chips.

A final world: Glen hadn't written worse ideas than anybody else and, hey, he's not wagering red or green chips at the table. So i would use more respect for him.

as.

And you are 'almost' exactly correct, I can't agree 100%, lets just say 99.75% (LOL). 

I wager red chips for the dealers, LOL.  I wager stacks of green at a min., the ajority fo the times.  Anyways, I win a heck of a lot greater than I lose and when I lose it is always replaced with wins and I have all kinds of funds that are from my tangible reward from the risk.  I am writing a piece on that as a final thought on it since some people here cloud the air with their twisting and turning of words written or expressed.

Quote from: Jimske on June 01, 2018, 08:27:27 PM
where to begin? First of all I think you have to be pretty obtuse not to realize that the show Apprentice was not about Donald Trump. The master deal maker lording over all these little apprentices trying to be like him and he having the ultimate "you're fired" authority sounds to me that it's all about him. LOL. 

Trump is an authoritarian who leans toward fascism.  Sure a lot of people agree with that kind of authoritarianism.

On a personal level there is really no argument that he is a consummate liar, a bully, a misogynist and has a high degree of narcissism.

That's a very good description of a selfish, self serving personality. Like I just said a while ago, people like the facts that they get and from whom that they get them. From those kind of facts comes conclusions that make perfect sense too.


But what I want to know is, have you ever started a business or run your own business before? Have you ever been responsible for making payroll to a lot of employees every week? Have you had to jump through bureaucratic hoops in order just to stay in business or operate a business? My guess is that you never had that responsibility or expense before. I would be surprised if you did have that experience. Have you ever read 'Atlas Shrugged?' There are a lot of us that know what Trump has done is to turn the tables on the government looters and takers. This is not about degrading people. What you are seeing is the forgotten people fighting back while they still can. Trump stands up to City Hall. It just so happens to be his trademark. Trump haters are just people that think they know the truth. But to me they couldn't run a lemonade stand. Just remember this. It's people like Trump that make out the paychecks. You can only beg for more and hope that you get it. Only a loser settles for mediocrity and then demands crumbs. You will never know how pathetic the demand's of employees tug at the hearts of risk takers. You are expendable and always will be if all that you can aspire to is being an employee. Group think -- blah! It's just a bunch of wishful thinking nags. Without powerful looters some of you are going to be fired. Drain the swamp.

Ok Al, a 0.25% mistake is quite acceptable :-))

as.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 01, 2018, 09:24:40 PM
Ok Al, a 0.25% mistake is quite acceptable :-))

as.

Only because  my great grandmother comes from that town in between Naples and Sorrento, Torre Annunziata where they used to have like 100+ pasta factories before the war and now there is like only 2 left.  I forgive you.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 01, 2018, 09:11:36 PM
Xander is absolutey right, but I'd change his words in "nobody CAN'T DEMONSTRATE to win itlr without an edge".

If anybody can demonstrate to win at games without a mathematical edge he would be millionaire without placing a dime on the felt.
The problem is to present a valid scientific evidence of such claim.

I already did that. I wrote the foundation for an artificial intelligence algorithm that makes (big bet / small bet) bet selections for the software's perception of best risk and reward results. It even makes difficulty of session adjustments. So where is the million? An algorithm just happens to be a mathematical proof. But the real issue is that I wrote it from guessing and never from probability projections. And no, I don't want that level of proof to just drop into your hands. I don't care about a prize from people that are wrong. And I think of people like you the least. So you are going to be the last to see it. I just want to see your proof that you can't use guessing to win in the long run.

Quote from: Gizmotron on June 01, 2018, 09:37:32 PM

I already did that. I wrote the foundation for an artificial intelligence algorithm that makes (big bet / small bet) bet selections for the software's perception of best risk and reward results. It even makes difficulty of session adjustments. So where is the million? An algorithm just happens to be a mathematical proof. But the real issue is that I wrote it from guessing and never from probability projections. And no, I don't want that level of proof to just drop into your hands. I don't care about a prize from people that are wrong. And I think of people like you the least. So you are going to be the last to see it. I just want to see your proof that you can't use guessing to win in the long run.

You are taking the wrong side of what I've written. I've always liked your writings. But I fear you are crossing the line a bit.

Anyway, if you think that "guessing" would be a decisive tool to control the random world,
I'd suggest to present your algoriythm at MIT (my cousin works there, so I can easily accommodate your lecture as soon as you wish). Can't guarantee millions for your effort, but you will be the most notable gambling person the world had ever known in case you are right.
Think about how your "guessing" implications will be considered by NASA, for example.

as.

     

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 01, 2018, 10:05:15 PM
You are taking the wrong side of what I've written. I've always liked your writings. But I fear you are crossing the line a bit.

Anyway, if you think that "guessing" would be a decisive tool to control the random world,
I'd suggest to present your algoriythm at MIT (my cousin works there, so I can easily accommodate your lecture as soon as you wish). Can't guarantee millions for your effort, but you will be the most notable gambling person the world had ever known in case you are right.
Think about how your "guessing" implications will be considered by NASA, for example.

as.

First this: "Think about how your "guessing" implications will be considered by NASA, for example. "


I'm sure that they would want to first fly up Uranus. --- Sorry, couldn't resist.


My cousin got an undergraduate degree on a full boat ride and then went back for his Masters there too. I was at his graduation. Nice place.


Now please think about this for a moment. This is the place where the MIT gambling teams ran their operation from. Don't you think that some enterprising professor might want the scoop a little less exposed?


It's one thing to make an algorithm and another to execute the method in a real casino, you know, all that human nature stuff. Once I'm 100% sure, only then will I consider your perception of achievement. Truly it would be tempting.

Look, Giz, IMO you devised a brilliant idea to wisely consider outcomes by asymmetrical terms (dozens, etc). After all my nickname speaks for it.
Itlr 1-2 vs 3 or 1-3 vs 2 or 2-3 vs 1 equals to zero (adding the negative tax) but we have to expect some natural deviations that soon or later will show up. That is trying to take advantage of such fluctuations in a way or another.

And you are totally right about the difficulty to put in action those findings on real casinos.

Actually and I'm sure I'm not wrong, if your algorithm works (or my methods work) is because you have found out a possible defect of randomness of roulette results or that in some instances baccarat asymmetrical force will shift the results toward an univocal direction.

I mean that you can't be certain that your roulette samples are perfect random, if they were no one system in the world can beat them.

as.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 01, 2018, 09:11:36 PM
Xander is absolutey right, but I'd change his words in "nobody CAN'T DEMONSTRATE to win itlr without an edge".

If anybody can demonstrate to win at games without a mathematical edge he would be millionaire without placing a dime on the felt.
The problem is to present a valid scientific evidence of such claim.

Every other attempt to say "hey, I'm consistently winning" without scientifically proving it is a total mere bighornshit. No matter how good or smart will appear the author or the hypothesis involved at the start. 
Especially whether such winning players are placing red or, rarely, green chips.

A final world: Glen hadn't written worse ideas than anybody else and, hey, he's not wagering red or green chips at the table. So i would use more respect for him.

as.

This is how you evaluate what someone is doing?
This alone tells a lot about you mister somebody in the middle of the desert!


Have you ever heard the term "more money than brain/sense"??
According to your reasoning every "whale" around the glob who wastes fortunes on the felts is smart professional gambler, just because is betting with black or pink chips doesn't make someone smart gambling-wise, that person has the money from other activities, not from winning on gambling!

That's why for the casinos great time suckers like these are the best clients!

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 01, 2018, 09:11:36 PM
Xander is absolutey right, but I'd change his words in "nobody CAN'T DEMONSTRATE to win itlr without an edge".

If anybody can demonstrate to win at games without a mathematical edge he would be millionaire without placing a dime on the felt.
The problem is to present a valid scientific evidence of such claim.

Every other attempt to say "hey, I'm consistently winning" without scientifically proving it is a total mere bighornshit. No matter how good or smart will appear the author or the hypothesis involved at the start. 
Especially whether such winning players are placing red or, rarely, green chips.

A final world: Glen hadn't written worse ideas than anybody else and, hey, he's not wagering red or green chips at the table. So i would use more respect for him.

as.

You are speaking like the respect is product to be bought, "look and admire me, I'm betting with black chips but you don't..."
Bad news for you mister asymetrical, you cannot, I repeat, you cannot by the respect of others by flashing your money, by having a cheesy attitude, by bragging as long as your luck lasts, you cannot!
Such poor and childish mentality! ts, ts, ts