Quote from: Trbfla on January 24, 2016, 05:51:38 PM
Rashid-would appreciate if you keep your personal attacks to yourself. I am not crazed. I know what I know and have facts to back up each of my statements. Jim can choose to believe Johno isn't the same guy as oz 3d100 from the btc website if he chooses to do so...I'm ok with it

Nutter, who thinks for one minute that "johno" would pay to access to be a member of the BTC site whilst claiming to beat 100 shoes playing OTBL.  If ya don't like insults quit making gormless statements and acting like your dead from the neck up.  FYI you have already been shown to be wrong about ozen, muppet, iiyyyaaa

Quote from: Jimske on January 24, 2016, 01:44:15 AM
It finally hit me.  It was Eirscott that used that same Cobain avatar.  Coincidence? or same guy?

Sounds like you have a dose of the "crazed Trbfla", where everybody is somebody.  Scotty ain't him, guaranteed.... 

You have your own way of distorting the truth.

Quote from: ADulay on January 23, 2016, 04:05:42 PM
I was lucky enough to watch it build from day one and understood the reasons for each build and why it apparently worked.

The problem is, it DIDN'T work, a lot of people paid for something that didn't deliver.

Quote from: ADulay on January 23, 2016, 04:05:42 PM
And to keep everybody happy, I was NEVER, EVER paid anything to help Maverick explain his system play to the others.

Nobody knows this to be true.

Quote from: ADulay on January 23, 2016, 04:05:42 PMEvidently helping fellow baccarat players with a system is some type of evil now.

Doesn't reflect reality in the slightest.  People who couldn't win with it and started to discover they had been had, began complaining.  Such posts were belittled and negative comments were thrown back at them.

Quote from: marinetech on January 22, 2016, 01:47:58 PM
the author seems to be a little off his rocker, no?

NO, he has done more, understands more that everybody here combined when it comes to Bacc', a Big Kahuna.  Appears he hit a raw nerve regarding the back-ground of the moderator and been shown the exit as the soxster says. 

Hope you don't mind Jimske, as you posted your bet selection over a BacLabs, so assume it was no secret even if that forum is no longer.

What you posted for those that may missed.



This may sound complicated to some but it is simple for me. My "Base Mode" is I wait 1 hand at start of shoe and then bet FLD until lose 2IAR then bet OLD until lose 2IAR then go back to FLD. My theory is since 2+ repeats and 1+ chops have the greatest occurrence I can win many shoes without doing a thing more. The only problem is those dern solo singles (1IAR; Alternate 2's, A2's). When that happens I lose 3 or more in a row. At the beginning of the shoe if I lose 2IAR I mostly will stop and see what the chops do and try to outguess them. There are shoes where a lot of A2's exist so I try to handle those differently.

So anyway I do that until some bias pops up and I instead bet the strength of the shoe. Strengths of the shoe could be side dominance (bet straight down one side), extreme chop (bet OLD), extreme streak (in which case just FLD), extreme 2's (bet OTBL). That way I will win EVERY shoe that has any kind of strong bias. If the shoe has an extreme bias I will win a lot of units. That's why I like the placement.

I have a couple other bets that I like that go along with this. I like the "Longest Gone" (LG) bet where I will not bet more than a run (chop or streak) has gone before. Lots of shoes never see more than a 4 or 5 IAR. Some never see more than a 3IAR. Whether I NB here or bet it to stop depends on MM. Another bet I like is "Longer Still" (LS). If I am not already in the Base Mode and a run goes longer than ever before I may bet for the run to continue and stay on it until I lose.

That's about it. I could go into more detail about certain bet choices. They may change from shoe to shoe depending on other "mitigating" dominating factors. Rarely takes me more than a second to place a bet. Normally I am the first on the table to bet. I can and do play alone and can get through a shoe pretty quick since I bet nearly every hand.

Hope that explains it pretty well.

I don't visit ECD's site as I don't want to feel dirty.  Can you find out which Oz casino the ozcooter plays at, I might be able to watch out for him..

care to explain the bet selection?

Yeah thanks Nick

Quote from: Bayes on January 06, 2015, 08:40:20 AM
Here's a quickie example of how to use the formula to create a system.

The chance of at least one repeat in four spins for a double-street is 72%, and the chance for at least 1 repeat in 6 spins for a street is 78%.

Alternate the following two series of bets:

1. Wait for 1 spin (you will bet for 3 spins). On the 2nd spin, bet whatever DS hit on the first spin. If a loss, bet the last 2 DS's on the third spin. On the 4th spin, bet the last 3 DS's which hit. If a win on the 2nd or 3rd spin, just repeat the bet, but not if the win comes on the 4th spin. If all 3 bets are lost, increase the stake as per D'Alembert (+1 after a loss, -1 after a win) and reset to 1 unit immediately a new high balance is achieved (i.e., don't finish playing the series, but start a new one).

2. Betting on streets follows a similar pattern. Regardless of a win or loss using the above, bet the last street hit, then the last 2 streets on the next spin, the last 3 on the next, etc, up to a maximum of 6 streets. Use the same progression as above after a series loss.

Very good.  Can anybody run a sim and post one of those graphics for the above?

Very well explained, thank you.

Quote from: Bayes on December 31, 2014, 05:05:03 PM
Hi Rashid,

I'm not familiar with the details of eirescott's system, although I've heard about it a few times over the years (I think it was refuted at imspirit's site). I don't think the formula will change, because it just tells you the chance of at least one repeat, although maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

Yep, unfortunately we can't bet directly on the result of a sequence of outcomes, only on the next outcome, which as we know is always 50:50. And if we could, the casinos would adjust the payouts accordingly. 

Every time we try to force the next hand/spin to conform to a sequential probability (as we often do when creating systems) we end up assuming that trials are dependent, which they're not, so we have committed the gambler's fallacy.

Correct, it was refuted at imspirits site. 

Would have to disagree regarding betting on the result of a sequence of outcomes, this is exactly what this "pair" bet section entails.  It is geared to return "hopefully" a win within a maximum of 4 bets per 8 hand sequence.

While I agree every hand is independent and yes anthropomorphizing prior results is a difficult habit to break, however "success" per block of 8 hands is by far outstrips "failures", yet there still exists the situation of losing more bets than winning bets, obviously due to the potential of taking a maximum four attempts to win a single bet.

If you consider it just gamblers fallacy, then surely the 90.6% figure you posted above simply can't apply? 

As maths seems your forte, out of curiosity what is the percentage figure if using triplets as opposed to doubles (pairs), I haven't been able to put together a viable method of implementing triplets (my very limited test results were poor), yet I feel doing so would be inherently stronger that this non-matching-pair" option, purely based on the maths.     

Quote from: ADulay on December 31, 2014, 05:23:53 PM
No, I believe he just chose not to deal with the daily "crisis" of adults basically arguing over who took their Crayons and things like that.

AD

Yeah okay, but his timing was impeccable.  I mean he was able to deal with adults arguing over crayons for quiet some time while he had ultimate power.  Then with changes underfoot, decided to bail, anybody who gets that upset over the term bull sh1t in this day and age on a gambling forum really shouldn't be here IMO. 

I mean people are allowed to "reel people in", "con fellow members into parting with their money with false promises", but you can't use the term bull sh1t, literally pathetic..

Quote from: Mike on December 31, 2014, 09:10:39 AM
esoito was neither fair nor impartial. I was muted for no good reason several times, apparently only for being "negative". It makes you wonder what's going on here when members are censored for posting the truth about systems.

I concur, he was bias, the fact he didn't stick around for a more democratic forum, kind of hints he was on a authoritarian power trip, couldn't tolerate being undermined so baled   

When you changed the background a while back (which a lot didn't like), things seemed to improve, but it was too early to tell as it was changed back to what it is now. 

Victor, with all your software and coding skills, why has the typing lock-ups, freezes issue not been resolved?

It is just as bad as ever.