+ Register

[stephen tabone]

I personally can't see anyone giving that system play an "excellent" rating or even an "adequate" rating.   It's not worth the $10 for the Kindle version unless you are an absolute  Day 1, New Player with zero knowledge of the game and wagering in general.     If you fit that description, buy the Kindle version and stay a little longer in the casino.  You will lose at a very nice, slow rate and enjoy your stay at the table.  You may even get lucky with a nice opening ZZ run to show off your new found system play!

AD

I think a gambler who uses my strategy stops by half way on bad shoes thus leaving at break even. and thereby gaining the advantage on winning shoes. some might even continue more than 3 unit wins on good shoes. I have been up average 7+ unit wins on good shoes and even more than that. I don't know how many play some adapt somewhat. But in general sticking to the rules not only keeps a gambler using the strategy safe, he stays in the game but his aim is to gain the advantage by leaving with plus winnings as stated in my book with references to a day trader. The mistake a lot of people make is to try the system using 100s of shoe results and finding reasons to state that it does not work. In theory if a day trader did this he would never trade therefore not know how to manage risk to reward.

[stephen tabone]

See here https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201930110

and here http://www.wikihow.com/Spot-Fake-Reviews-Manufactured-by-an-Amazon-Seller

I can't proof that the reviews of the 2nd edition of his book aren't genuine, but they're not verified purchases. On the other hand, there's one negative review of the first edition, which IS a verified purchase. The reviewer says the 200 shoes provided by the book would have generated a loss.

I don't know if the first edition contained a lot of shoes, but it was 368 pages long whereas the second edition is only 38 pages long!

many paperbacks are sold to individuals via third parties therefore not all reviews will show as verified purchases. 

[Jimske]

I think a gambler who uses my strategy stops by half way on bad shoes thus leaving at break even. and thereby gaining the advantage on winning shoes. some might even continue more than 3 unit wins on good shoes. I have been up average 7+ unit wins on good shoes and even more than that. I don't know how many play some adapt somewhat. But in general sticking to the rules not only keeps a gambler using the strategy safe, he stays in the game but his aim is to gain the advantage by leaving with plus winnings as stated in my book with references to a day trader. The mistake a lot of people make is to try the system using 100s of shoe results and finding reasons to state that it does not work. In theory if a day trader did this he would never trade therefore not know how to manage risk to reward.

This makes no sense.  You either have rules or don't.  This nonsense that your strategy cannot be programmed to test results is just that - nonsense.  If there is a subjective element that must be conquered to win then the strategy is worthless.  Well granted, it has some value as a benchmark for some, as AD has said, don't have a lot of experience and need a starting point.

Successful day traders are not guessing.  They are using known leading indicators that will give them a positive expectation.  With a positive expectation the only risk one is managing is trading "within their bankroll" so as to overcome downturns.

[alrelax]

So it's an on again off again type of thing and by the way for whatever it's worth I will publicly state here in this thread I don't think he's a hundred percent truthful in my opinion and I don't see the validity of his so-called system that he claims consistently prevails and I believe the only asset is to himself in peddling a book or two.

Writing a book that is strictly self published does not make anyone an expert or a successful anything at something.  Also look at the reviews on his other books IMO they are absolutely embarrassing!!!

[alrelax]

bottom line is it works sometimes sometimes it doesn't when it doesn't the author has said you have to stop and manage your money there's nothing that's guaranteed and basically any wager that is wagered is wagered at the Players risk and expense and therefore if it does work it's the credit of the author that he copied it from and if it doesn't the player either play too long or didn't know how to use it or changed it up according to the person that started all this conversation with claims of authoring best selling books etc.

[Mike]

This makes no sense.  You either have rules or don't.  This nonsense that your strategy cannot be programmed to test results is just that - nonsense.  If there is a subjective element that must be conquered to win then the strategy is worthless.  Well granted, it has some value as a benchmark for some, as AD has said, don't have a lot of experience and need a starting point.

Successful day traders are not guessing.  They are using known leading indicators that will give them a positive expectation.  With a positive expectation the only risk one is managing is trading "within their bankroll" so as to overcome downturns.

Well said!

And Stephen's statements are contradictory. Elsewhere he says that it's important to test a system in the long term not just the short term. Now he says it's mistake to test a system over 100's of shoes!

[Sputnik]

I have a book that code different staking plans with 1.7% house edge with 60.000 placed bets and show positiv results using specific rules and observations.
So i think any system can be coded.

I get what you are saying and i read about other pro gamblers mention the same thing, when you find the sweet spot you will notice that you are within the sweet spot and should quit and get out.
It has nothing to do with educated guess work or trading. Its all about to define when you are ahead and quit. How can some one quit and being ahead if they don't know the meaning of being ahead.
So if we would run 100 shoes and the common peak for most shoes together was +3 units - then we would know that is the sweet spot. Now some shoes will make +20 units but is not important as we want to know what 75% (or more) of the shoes peaks are together. Then the same principal works for the average sweet losing sequence and among does you look at best and worst results.

Should also mention that i understand your way of thinking when you say that if you not reach goal being ahead or jump on board the sweet spot and have played half the shoe you might aim to break even or accept small loss. The distance from winning +3 units is the same distance from -3 units to break even when you look towards variance and fluctation.

Now i got personal reviews on your book and the material as i understand are for beginners.

Cheers

[stephen tabone]

See here https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201930110

and here http://www.wikihow.com/Spot-Fake-Reviews-Manufactured-by-an-Amazon-Seller

I can't proof that the reviews of the 2nd edition of his book aren't genuine, but they're not verified purchases. On the other hand, there's one negative review of the first edition, which IS a verified purchase. The reviewer says the 200 shoes provided by the book would have generated a loss.

I don't know if the first edition contained a lot of shoes, but it was 368 pages long whereas the second edition is only 38 pages long!

fake reviews don't get a book into the top #7 best sellers ranked on amazon in baccarat cat, only sale can do that. Many of my books are sold as paperbacks and there have been kindle gift bought for others.

[Jimske]

I get what you are saying and i read about other pro gamblers mention the same thing, when you find the sweet spot you will notice that you are within the sweet spot and should quit and get out.

The sweet spot is also math related, not just a guess.  It can be part of a mechanical system.  I used it with my previously posted "Double Triplets."  I see it as a bell curve within statistical limitations.  When losses and wins begin to become extreme the likelihood (odds) of improvement diminishes so one may as well call stop losses or wins rather than keep going hoping for that "once in a million" improvement.

[stephen tabone]

I see there's another glowing review on Amazon. But notice that NONE of them are VERIFIED PURCHASES. The reason Amazon introduced this is to stop fake reviews. I'm not saying these reviews are necessarily fake, but just pointing it out.

I wrote a reply to the previous thread yesterday asking Stephen a few pertinent questions about his system. But it never saw the light of day. Perhaps he'll return.

I don't have any control over reviews, I received a bad 1 star review on my first edition, reviewer more or less stated he did not even read book. Many books have been sold as paperbacks and others given as gifts which is why there are no verified purchases, though there is one on first edition.

[Jimske]

fake reviews don't get a book into the top #7 best sellers ranked on amazon in baccarat cat, only sale can do that. Many of my books are sold as paperbacks and there have been kindle gift bought for others.

Look - maybe you got a neat little bet placement twist that hasn't been already sampled (I doubt it).  That's fine.  You want to sell some books because that's how you make money.  Okay. 

The onous of proof is on you!  And so far relying on Amazon reviews as proof?  How crazy is that?

I do like the idea of a third book with a new and improved version.  Personally I can't wait.  I'm just hoping and praying - please let me be one of the few to get the magic bet placements!

Beautiful!

[Mike]

There can be no "proof" which will demonstrate that a negative expectation game has a positive expectation. It's an oxymoron.

What's left?

reviews, anecdotes, and empirical test results (but not so many that the negative expectation is revealed!).

[Sputnik]

Mike does it take more then 60.000 placed bets or less to show that the game has negative expectation and for the house edge to kick in.
For example 1.35% house edge on the EC position.

Cheers

[Mike]

In the majority of cases (about 95%), and with a HA of 1.35%, you would be losing before 60,000 bets. That's flat betting, if using a progression your mileage may vary.

The problem is that if you keep testing and tweaking systems, then eventually you're going to find a system which SEEMS to be a winner over a LOT of bets. It doesn't mean it really IS a winner though, unless of course you have a real edge. A real edge does not  weaken as you make more bets. If it does, it means you're riding high on waves of variance, that's all.

[Sputnik]

Mike you would like this book - Conquer The Casino - By Philip Koetsch - Computer Analysis Of Successful Gaming Strageys.

He code and run 100 placed bets sample until he reach 60.000 placed bets and all simulations with fictive 1.7% house edge.
My opinion the results are amazing and the best book i buy for money, i am using it for all my further development with EC bets and comparing results.

Cheers