+ Register

[ADulay]

I've received the following from a member via email:

"1. How many decks in these three shoes? the results are, 74, 74, 73 these can't be 6 deck, too many and no ties.

Guys, calm down.

Although the Alrelax shoes did show the ties, I elected NOT to show them as they do nothing for anything that I test so they are NOT included in any of my sheets or transpositions.

Hopefully that settles that little "crisis".

I swear some of you guys would have a real heart attack in a real casino.

AD

[ADulay]

Error.

Sorry.  It was +3 and -6, not -3 and +6.

Too much coffee.

AD

[stephen tabone]

Again, I advise all readers to check their own results on shoes they see playing out.

[stephen tabone]

That makes shoe 1 a loser right off the bat.

That makes shoe 2 a loser at -3.

And that's the trifecta.   All three shoes lose according to your book.

Stephen, you've just showed us the correct play and all three shoes lost.   What more proof do I need?   Hey, you asked it.

We're trying to help here but you're being a bit sticky about having "the right shoe" or that people are posting fake shoes.   Nope, we're trying to make your play win.

Cherry picking shoes to show winners is easy.  I can cull through all of mine and find many that would suit you to a Tee, but that's not how it's played.  You work with what you get so once again I'm open to run any shoe posted from a casino from TODAY or TOMORROW.

If you would like I'll use my online session at BetPhoenix that I'll play around 6pm tonight unless you believe they're rigging the shoe to work against your play.

AD

Despite the three bad shoes posted. I have gone through and applied my strategy, and here are the results:
(IF ANY BETTORS USED MARTINGALE, AS A GUIDE YOU CAN SEE HOW IT HOLDS IT OWN DESPITE THE WORST SET OF JUST THREE SHOES POSTED: DON'T ALLOW THE MOB TO PUT YOU OFF!!)

(Note: Not every result is bet on as in the rules of my strategy)

Shoe one: 1-,2-,3- but if kept playing as follows, 2-, 1-, break even (BE), 1+, BE, 1+, BE, 1-, BE, 1-, 2-, 1-, BE, 1+, 2+, 3+ up to result number 32 on 1st shoe. / now to the end of the shoe: 4+, 3+, 2+, 1+, BE, 1-, BE, 1-, BE, 1+, 2+, 1+,BE, 1+, 2+, 1+, 2+, 3+, 2+, 1+ (max + is 3+ about half way and again towards the end, so if kept playing from start would have got out half way point 3+

Shoe two: 1-, 2-, 1-, 2-, 3-, 2-, 1-, BE, 1+, BE, 1+, BE, 1+, BE, 1-, BE, 1-, 2-, 3-, 2-, 1-, 2-, 1-, 2-, 3-, 2-, 1-, 2-, 1-, 2-, 3-, 2-, 3-, up to result number 51 / now to the end of the shoe: 4-, 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-, 7-, 8- By half way you'd have to stop. Half way on this show would be approx 1-

Shoe number three: 1+, BE, 1-, 2-, 1-, 2-, 1-, BE, 1-, BE, 1-, 2-, 1-, 2-, 1- 2-, 3-, 4-, 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-, 5-, 4-, 5-, 4-, 3-, 2-, 1-, 2-, 1-, BE, 1-, BE, 1+, 2+, 3+, 2+, 3+, 4+ end of shoe. / either you would have took the hit 3- or if carried on you would have ended up 4+

Proof if anything that despite these bad shoes my strategy holds its own and therefore is the most powerful strategy ever! (Save that when 3.0 if published it will rock the casinos, shuttering the myth that the house always wins. This was designed to scare bettors from winning and to make them lose their minds and make bad decisions)

To prove the strength of my strategy for those of you that use Martingale, you will see from the above that the average loses in a row is 2 to 3 therefore if you were to use Martingale trying say up to 4x times max, 1/2/4/8 using my strategy check yourselves to see how much you'd me winning on these three bad shoes. And these are the bad shoes! What if you were playing on the good and great shoes?

What are you waiting for!
What more proof do you need? 


Send me a PM if you're planning on buying 2nd edition so I can send you latest updates. Click on the link below to get best offer on Amazon. 50% of my royalties for next 3 copies sold will be gifted to this site betselection whether paperback or kindle versions.

[stephen tabone]

That makes shoe 1 a loser right off the bat.

That makes shoe 2 a loser at -3.

And that's the trifecta.   All three shoes lose according to your book.

Stephen, you've just showed us the correct play and all three shoes lost.   What more proof do I need?   Hey, you asked it.

We're trying to help here but you're being a bit sticky about having "the right shoe" or that people are posting fake shoes.   Nope, we're trying to make your play win.

Cherry picking shoes to show winners is easy.  I can cull through all of mine and find many that would suit you to a Tee, but that's not how it's played.  You work with what you get so once again I'm open to run any shoe posted from a casino from TODAY or TOMORROW.

If you would like I'll use my online session at BetPhoenix that I'll play around 6pm tonight unless you believe they're rigging the shoe to work against your play.

AD

When you get approx 3.6 (sets of 22x) more P/B runs more than zigzag runs over three shoes that someone posts (=81x more!) you first need to 'ask questions' before making further tweaks. The game play and added tweaks are strong enough. These shoes...are very questionable. The knives were out to get me, (as advised by some members) I know that, at the time these were posted, therefore I really cannot accept them as stand alone. The fact that there were no good shoes that showed TUBS in a good light posted means that no one reader can take these 3 shoes as gospel.

Again I write, individuals should take down their own results and apply them. To merely reply on other persons shoe results is meaningless. No one serious about winning would judge a strategy based on what others claim. S/he must check a strategy against results s/he knows to be true. Otherwise what you'll find on here is 'bear baiting' against me. Though I might be a bear, in defending my strategy I'm certainly not a chained one, to accept claims. I'm a free thinker and therefore am not bound to masters who mistreat in order to satisfy themselves and or the crowd, you readers.

Over the space of a few days, 18th -21st June 2017, the mob (double faced) in order to try and discredit my strategy went onto Amazon and left negative reviews (not a good word to say about it! That I think says more about themselves). The mob clearly planned this and did so to protect their friend's $1,000 workshop in Vegas as other members had advised me about what is going on (then the mob leader takes them to casinos to lose: and he get commission from their loses).

And then you get these doggy shoe results to try and put others off from looking into my strategy! these people will do/say anything to protect their mob leader. My guess is that they don't even gamble, they don't bet on baccarat for real but just pretend to. Readers should make up their own minds. As of today my book is still #1 on baccarat on Amazon. (currently on sale: click on the link below) 2.1 will be out soon, followed by 3.0 which everyone is waiting for.

Despite the three bad shoes posted. I have gone through and applied my strategy, and here are the results:
(IF ANY BETTORS USED MARTINGALE, AS A GUIDE YOU CAN SEE HOW IT HOLDS IT OWN DESPITE THE WORST SET OF JUST THREE SHOES POSTED: DON'T ALLOW THE MOB TO PUT YOU OFF!!)

(Note: Not every result is bet on as in the rules of my strategy)

Shoe one: 1-,2-,3- but if kept playing as follows, 2-, 1-, break even (BE), 1+, BE, 1+, BE, 1-, BE, 1-, 2-, 1-, BE, 1+, 2+, 3+ up to result number 32 on 1st shoe. / now to the end of the shoe: 4+, 3+, 2+, 1+, BE, 1-, BE, 1-, BE, 1+, 2+, 1+,BE, 1+, 2+, 1+, 2+, 3+, 2+, 1+ (max + is 3+ about half way and again towards the end, so if kept playing from start would have got out half way point 3+

Shoe two: 1-, 2-, 1-, 2-, 3-, 2-, 1-, BE, 1+, BE, 1+, BE, 1+, BE, 1-, BE, 1-, 2-, 3-, 2-, 1-, 2-, 1-, 2-, 3-, 2-, 1-, 2-, 1-, 2-, 3-, 2-, 3-, up to result number 51 / now to the end of the shoe: 4-, 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-, 7-, 8- By half way you'd have to stop. Half way on this show would be approx 1-

Shoe number three: 1+, BE, 1-, 2-, 1-, 2-, 1-, BE, 1-, BE, 1-, 2-, 1-, 2-, 1- 2-, 3-, 4-, 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-, 5-, 4-, 5-, 4-, 3-, 2-, 1-, 2-, 1-, BE, 1-, BE, 1+, 2+, 3+, 2+, 3+, 4+ end of shoe. / either you would have took the hit 3- or if carried on you would have ended up 4+

Proof if anything that despite these bad shoes my strategy holds its own and therefore is the most powerful strategy ever! (Save that when 3.0 if published it will rock the casinos, shuttering the myth that the house always wins. This was designed to scare bettors from winning and to make them lose their minds and make bad decisions)

To prove the strength of my strategy for those of you that use Martingale, you will see from the above that the average loses in a row is 2 to 3 therefore if you were to use Martingale trying say up to 4x times max, 1/2/4/8 using my strategy check yourselves to see how much you'd me winning on these three bad shoes. And these are the bad shoes! What if you were playing on the good and great shoes?

What are you waiting for!
What more proof do you need? 


Send me a PM if you're planning on buying 2nd edition so I can send you latest updates. Click on the link below to get best offer on Amazon. 50% of my royalties for next 3 copies sold will be gifted to this site betselection whether paperback or kindle versions.

[stephen tabone]

1. Other members PM'ed me, emailed me re the mob. I do not know if the mob is real, or true
2. Alrelax posted three shoe results, he had the right to, but members, readers will always have doubts, they have this right too. For me the shoes were bad against my strategy though that said using Martingale the results show that my strategy is still strong.
3.I do not believe that Alreax set out to damage me re the three shoes he posted. Though I stand by the advise for readers to check their own results. Why this makes sense is that while Alreax shoes may be real true, others could post fake ones. I think Alreax would agree on this point. And this is not to say that his are fake. When I wrote what others advised me I was only putting it out there, not to say this is so with Alraex' results.
4. My novel The Godfifa, though not perfect was a first novella I wrote a long time ago. It was an experimental work. Tough there is one bad review on it, there are good points in that review too and reviewer wanted to read the next book. Please read the review for yourselves.
5. I do not know Alraex from Adam, therefore I have no beef with him. His entitled to his opinion and his blog. I know that he has mentioned to me a lot on his other posts and threads. I can't stop him from doing that but I don't like to refer to non gambling related topics for the most part. I never delete my posts and within which I seldom write outside of gambling related topics. I hope he'll adopt this stance too. I don't mind if he PMs me and calls me whatever he likes I can take it but besides this doing live on the forum does not help the forum or other readers who come here for information.
6. I am sorry this whole thing has gotten out of hand somewhat and I hope it stops because I get no satisfaction in it. I like to read what others write about gambling related topics, strategies, casino life and the like.
7. I'm sorry if I had upset you. I did not mean to.

[stephen tabone]

.

[Mike]

Hi, Mike, I'm not going to include any computer generated shoe results in future publications. Just going  advise readers to obtain real live dealer casino shoe results. This is the best way forward.

Stephen,

You still haven't given any reason why you believe live dealer results are better than computer generated results, and you haven't anywhere said how many bets you've made in your tests which enable you to come to the conclusion that your system is a long term winner.

There are basically two ways to "prove" that your system works. 1) You can prove it mathematically or 2) You can prove it empirically by testing over a large number of placed bets.

Since it's impossible to prove mathematically that a negative expectation game is actually positive (D'uh), you are left with option 2. And because it seems that you make relatively few bets per shoe, you must have had to play an awful lot of shoes (many thousands) in order to arrive at statistically significant results.

For an even chance bet, especially one with a low house edge like Baccarat, you need to generate positive results over at least 10,000 BETS (NOT shoes) and show an increasing standard deviation. So what is the statistical evidence which proves that your system works?

It's absurd to trumpet that you have "beaten" the game on the basis of a few hundred bets. 

Where is the math?

[stephen tabone]

Stephen,

You still haven't given any reason why you believe live dealer results are better than computer generated results, and you haven't anywhere said how many bets you've made in your tests which enable you to come to the conclusion that your system is a long term winner.

There are basically two ways to "prove" that your system works. 1) You can prove it mathematically or 2) You can prove it empirically by testing over a large number of placed bets.

Since it's impossible to prove mathematically that a negative expectation game is actually positive (D'uh), you are left with option 2. And because it seems that you make relatively few bets per shoe, you must have had to play an awful lot of shoes (many thousands) in order to arrive at statistically significant results.

For an even chance bet, especially one with a low house edge like Baccarat, you need to generate positive results over at least 10,000 BETS (NOT shoes) and show an increasing standard deviation. So what is the statistical evidence which proves that your system works?

It's absurd to trumpet that you have "beaten" the game on the basis of a few hundred bets. 

Where is the math?

It's fear and perception that will cause a bettor to believe that s/he cannot win mathematically. In such an instance such a gambler will find almost everything impossible not just card games. I've checked 10,000 shoes. The strategy was never designed to be played over thousands of shoes because (a) it was be impossible to carry out for real and (b) if a bettor set out to play shoe after shoe s/he will go through the ups and down tends and not notice the gradual climb. In theory when s/he hit some losing shoes the likely outcome would be that s/he would dismiss the system either by running out of bankroll or not seeing the bigger picture i.e. the climb. And then since humans need rest it would not be possible to continue to play shoe infinite in order to reach the point where positive results surpass the peak of the break even zone. (D'uh) Further, the system was design so that a bettor gains a small profit, a few units + thus able within the small waves to achieve on a daily bases. What you're looking for is called greed. There are a lot of gamblers like you that want miracles but people like you will never win in the long run because you want to run before you can walk.

[ADulay]

Gentlemen,

  As the level of this ongoing "soap opera" gets more chaotic by the day, I have decided to just bow out of the discussion.

  The original three shoes posted at the top of this thread are no longer valid as the rules of the book (Version 2) have changed and apparently they will continue to change, almost daily, until the author is happy with the outcome.

  In spite of the fact that this was merely a nice diversion from my normal baccarat routine, it has somehow collapsed under the weight of trying to make the system fit the shoe and accusations of all kinds flying around.   This is too bad.   It was fun having some other people in on the play and comparing results and attempting to help it along.   This has fallen by the wayside due to constant "updates" to the Kindle Book as published.

  So, Stephen, you can thank me for most of your advance sales of Version 3 when it comes out.  Hopefully someone will get the conversation started on that when published.  I know it won't be me.

  I will continue to watch the evolution of Version 2 from the sidelines.

  Respectfully,

  AD (the guy who doesn't put tie hands in his worksheets)

[stephen tabone]

Gentlemen,

  As the level of this ongoing "soap opera" gets more chaotic by the day, I have decided to just bow out of the discussion.

  The original three shoes posted at the top of this thread are no longer valid as the rules of the book (Version 2) have changed and apparently they will continue to change, almost daily, until the author is happy with the outcome.

  In spite of the fact that this was merely a nice diversion from my normal baccarat routine, it has somehow collapsed under the weight of trying to make the system fit the shoe and accusations of all kinds flying around.   This is too bad.   It was fun having some other people in on the play and comparing results and attempting to help it along.   This has fallen by the wayside due to constant "updates" to the Kindle Book as published.

  So, Stephen, you can thank me for most of your advance sales of Version 3 when it comes out.  Hopefully someone will get the conversation started on that when published.  I know it won't be me.

  I will continue to watch the evolution of Version 2 from the sidelines.

  Respectfully,

  AD (the guy who doesn't put tie hands in his worksheets)

No man is an island. Don't leave.

"All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated...As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness....No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls it tolls for thee." John Donne (1572-1631)

[stephen tabone]

All,

  Hmm, I didn't realize I could start a new thread in this area, so instead of posting up in the "General" area, I'll use this one.

  As several of you have Stephen's book and are testing his play, you can use this area to post up your worksheets showing the ongoing development of what originally started out as a mere OPP play.

  Stephen has the option to remove this from his area if he wishes but for those of you who are working this play, here's my first post on the subject.

  These are the three "fake" shoes that Alrelax posted up a few days ago.  If you haven't tested your play on those, you are falling behind.   

  If our results vary in the extreme, then some of us are not on the same page.  So run those sheets and see what you come up with.

  There are three different plays being run on each sheet.  Zip/F12 and TUBS and of course VDW.

  AD

start your own thread, post your own fake results, who told you to post here, earwax? take your back stabbing somewhere else, earwax says these were not his shoes after all!

[stephen tabone]

though that said, some people are just so bad they need to be an island because they are back stabbers and horrible manipulators who start trouble posting on other peoples blog when there is already a blog on this topic. Who told you to post this blog was it you mate earwax?

[ADulay]

Delete them at your discretion, as noted in the original post.

AD

[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.