+ Register

[Mike]

2. If no system works for you  and you don't believe in them then can I ask what are you doing here save to wind people up?

Partly, to challenge people like you who make absurd unsubstantiated claims and sell systems. If that's "winding people up", then guilty as charged. 

3. Members, not all but most and readers guests of and to this site are here for information for the most part and shall make up their own minds. Just because you are a disbeliever it does not follow that all will agree with you. If you can prove that no system works, go and write a book on it, I'm sure it will be a best seller!

Most gamblers are innumerate and have little clue about how to judge the merit of a system. That seems to apply to you also, since you're apparently unaware of what "negative expectation" means. It means (PROVES) that no system works because outcomes are random and the payoff is less than it would be if the game were fair (100% return). No book is necessary, just a simple mathematical equation.

4. Since you do believe that I know sweet F A, then don't waste your energy and mine by engaging with me. Clearly you have already made up your mind about what I think. Therefore we are at deadlock and it is thus pointless communicating. 

Many members post systems here and on other forums. I don't have a problem with that because most of the time they're just sharing ideas. But when someone makes outrageous and misleading claims and is also selling a system, that's overstepping the mark in my opinion. It may be that they truly believe that they have something remarkable and are not simply scamming, so I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt, but if they become  evasive in response to questioning and resort to personal attacks, it tends to cast doubt on their integrity, don't you think? You do know fraud is a crime for which people can and do go to prison, don't you?

5. At the end of the day a system is a rule or set of rules explaining how the author of it plays to win. If people want to know how he does it then that is up to them. If other people like yourself do not believe in systems or have your own way of playing (i.e. your own system) then stick to that, why on earth would you want to condemn another persons system!

Because in this case you're making ridiculous claims for it and are also charging for it. You say "believe in systems" as though it's just a matter of opinion whether systems can work or not, as if there's no proof either way, like believing in God perhaps. It's an extraordinary claim you're making, much more remarkable than Ed Thorp's discovery that card counting could be used to beat Blackjack. That changed Blackjack in casinos the world over; has your book changed Baccarat? I don't think so.

Look, if you really had something even remotely like you claim then you wouldn't be piddling around in the dark corners of the web trying to sell a kindle book for £10! Get real! You would have much bigger fish to fry.

But of course, people will have to make up their own mind. 

[stephen tabone]

Partly, to challenge people like you who make absurd unsubstantiated claims and sell systems. If that's "winding people up", then guilty as charged. 

Most gamblers are innumerate and have little clue about how to judge the merit of a system. That seems to apply to you also, since you're apparently unaware of what "negative expectation" means. It means (PROVES) that no system works because outcomes are random and the payoff is less than it would be if the game were fair (100% return). No book is necessary, just a simple mathematical equation.

Many members post systems here and on other forums. I don't have a problem with that because most of the time they're just sharing ideas. But when someone makes outrageous and misleading claims and is also selling a system, that's overstepping the mark in my opinion. It may be that they truly believe that they have something remarkable and are not simply scamming, so I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt, but if they become  evasive in response to questioning and resort to personal attacks, it tends to cast doubt on their integrity, don't you think? You do know fraud is a crime for which people can and do go to prison, don't you?

Because in this case you're making ridiculous claims for it and are also charging for it. You say "believe in systems" as though it's just a matter of opinion whether systems can work or not, as if there's no proof either way, like believing in God perhaps. It's an extraordinary claim you're making, much more remarkable than Ed Thorp's discovery that card counting could be used to beat Blackjack. That changed Blackjack in casinos the world over; has your book changed Baccarat? I don't think so.

Look, if you really had something even remotely like you claim then you wouldn't be piddling around in the dark corners of the web trying to sell a kindle book for £10! Get real! You would have much bigger fish to fry.

But of course, people will have to make up their own mind. 

GOOD, then why don't you attack ever system author? Probably cos one, most of their claims stand up like matchstick and are not here to be scrutinised. Unlike me who back his up because it works. The sun has a system it rises from the east and sets in the west. You want to say that the earth is flat and there is no sun, it's a touch in the sky and there is no universe, save that you're the centre of it!
Quote
3. Members, not all but most and readers guests of and to this site are here for information for the most part and shall make up their own minds. Just because you are a disbeliever it does not follow that all will agree with you. If you can prove that no system works, go and write a book on it, I'm sure it will be a best seller!

Most gamblers are innumerate and have little clue about how to judge the merit of a system.
I say: I say: So you're even attacking all members now.
That seems to apply to you also, since you're apparently unaware of what "negative expectation" means. It means (PROVES) that no system works because outcomes are random and the payoff is less than it would be if the game were fair (100% return). No book is necessary, just a simple mathematical equation.
I say: I've covered this above, you're repeating. Yarn

Many members post systems here and on other forums. I don't have a problem with that because most of the time they're just sharing ideas. But when someone makes outrageous and misleading claims and is also selling a system, that's overstepping the mark in my opinion.
I say: I'm a sponsor
It may be that they truly believe that they have something remarkable and are not simply scamming, so I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt, but if they become  evasive in response to questioning and resort to personal attacks, it tends to cast doubt on their integrity, don't you think? You do know fraud is a crime for which people can and do go to prison, don't you?
I say: I have answered your questions but I am not going to roll in the dirt with you. If you want to sue me then good luck with that!

Because in this case you're making ridiculous claims for it and are also charging for it.

I say: again, I'm a sponsor

You say "believe in systems" as though it's just a matter of opinion whether systems can work or not, as if there's no proof either way, like believing in God perhaps. It's an extraordinary claim you're making, much more remarkable than Ed Thorp's discovery that card counting could be used to beat Blackjack. That changed Blackjack in casinos the world over; has your book changed Baccarat? I don't think so.

I say: you may not think so but others do and as you said yourself it's a matter of opinion then therefore it's a matter whether people believe in and use it. You don't have to but other may.

Look, if you really had something even remotely like you claim then you wouldn't be piddling around in the dark corners of the web trying to sell a kindle book for £10! Get real! You would have much bigger fish to fry.

I say: I'm piddling around everywhere on the web or will be. This site is not a dark corner, that's an insult to this site forum and members of it! Cost of my books will rise therefore I'd advise members to click on the link below and take advantage of the current offer. 2.1 and 3.0 will cost a lot more save that members on this site will be offered discounts.Plus I am not affiliated with any online casino gambling where I receive commission on people's deposits and or loses. Therefore I am not a scammer! I state this in my books. There are lots of scammers out there Mike you needs not look far if you want to challenge them but I'm only selling my opinion, my research, my ideas, my advances into winning at baccarat If you don't like it you know what to do. I'm not selling a $1,000 dollar workshop in Vegas and then take people to casinos to lose and where the person running it receives commission from the casinos due to the people's loses he took there. I'm selling books Mike and as you wrote at a very reasonable price too.

But of course, people will have to make up their own mind.   

I say: yes precisely, their mind is not your mind, you're not happy, do not believe in systems, modes of play even though everything in nature from atoms to the way you think is based on systems and we live in a solar system! But no, you don't believe in systems Mike. 

[Mike]

Ok Stephen, I'm sure all prospective purchasers of your current book would like to know what the result was of your tests over 10,000 Baccarat shoes, so how many bets did you actually make in those shoes and what was the final profit?

And by the way, you keep saying "I'm a sponsor" as if that gives you some kind of right to make nonsense claims with impunity. I think you should read Autobetic's first post. He's a sponsor too, but unlike you he does understand that Baccarat can't be beaten in the long run -

Some of you might already be asking:
Why would a Poker player build a Baccarat App? Shouldn't you know better?

Yea, I should. Baccarat is a -EV game (if you don't know what EV is and if you're serious about being a better gambler, read my article about Expected Value). It can't be beat at the casino in the long run. The odds are always working against you, even if you catch a break on the good side of variance every now and then.

http://betselection.cc/baccarat-forum/baccarat-pro-by-autobetic/

You should read his article about expected value. You might learn something, or maybe not.

why don't you attack ever system author?

Do I have to keep repeating myself? Because every system author isn't selling their system and hyping it up. You are.

[stephen tabone]

Ok Stephen, I'm sure all prospective purchasers of your current book would like to know what the result was of your tests over 10,000 Baccarat shoes, so how many bets did you actually make in those shoes and what was the final profit?

And by the way, you keep saying "I'm a sponsor" as if that gives you some kind of right to make nonsense claims with impunity. I think you should read Autobetic's first post. He's a sponsor too, but unlike you he does understand that Baccarat can't be beaten in the long run -
http://betselection.cc/baccarat-forum/baccarat-pro-by-autobetic/

You should read his article about expected value. You might learn something, or maybe not.

Do I have to keep repeating myself? Because every system author isn't selling their system and hyping it up. You are.

Every Author is entitled to his 'opinion' whether s/he believes in systems or otherwise. Like every person wanting to win at any game is entitled to believe in system/s. S/he will have their own was of playing this might be working or might not be for them. I offer my strategies, my ideas, my thinking based upon my research, tests and clever structures. I'm not forcing anyone to buy my current books nor indeed future books. This is a matter for them to decide. I have received numerous emails from people from various countries stating that my strategy works for them. On the other hand I receive 5% of negative feedback mainly from people like you who don't believe in systems and therefore condemn me and people like me that believe in systems. We're free thinkers who think outside of the mathematical box. You not believing in systems is your prerogative. But you shouldn't try to impose your beliefs upon others whether author of systems or those interested in such structures. You're way out of line to do so  The bottom line is you don't believe in systems, I and many others do. I'm entitled to sell my systems, this is my blog. I'm not forcing you to be here. I advise my readers to test my systems. My aim is to offer systems that help readers win at the game. Readers of my books, my systems understand that to win at baccarat it's a matter of long term gains rather than long term greed. There is the difference so when you ask me what was the outcome of the 10,000 shoes I tested its all subjective. Readers understand that there are waves within space and time, thus wins and loses. No person is going to play hundreds of shoes non stop. My checks of 10,000 shoes -- as I have already written to you -- show a breakout beyond the peak into profits. But like I said my strategy was not designed to be used in this way i.e. shoes after shoe after shoe infinite. Individual players of the game have lives,they need rest. I have gone over this ground a number of times already and I am repeating myself so if you ask me again I am just going to paste in this reply, because you will source no other information from me, and I will not waste my time on a non believer. No one is forcing you to believe, to buy, to try, nor to respond.

For those that are interested in my current books click on the link below which offer the best current offers.
My 2.1 book will be out soon followed by my 3.0 book that within a few bets turns the tables on the casinos house edge in favor of the person using my strategy. It's a game changer. If you believe Mike, that the game cannot be beat then you'll never stand a chance of winning at the game of baccarat because like him you'll do nothing. But if you believe in my advanced knowledge of the game then find out more how you can win. I have advanced information that no one knows. If you want to know then I am about to publish my findings, PM me.

I'm not selling no expensive workshops and I am not affiliated with any online gambling sites where I get a percentage of how much you bet. I state this in my books. I don't believe in online gambling for reasons I write further about in my new book out soon. My aims are simple, to help people win playing the game of baccarat. Whether that is for fun or for profit this is up to the readers of my book. There is a disclaimer in my books regarding any monies you gamble using my opinions. I wish every gambler whether s/he bets real or fun money the best of luck and hope my strategies help them to win. The only connection I have with gambling is my books.

[stephen tabone]

And by the way, you keep saying "I'm a sponsor" as if that gives you some kind of right to make nonsense claims with impunity. I think you should read Autobetic's first post. He's a sponsor too, but unlike you he does understand that Baccarat can't be beaten in the long run -

Believing that baccarat can't be beaten in the long run is a subjective belief. It does not follow that such a claim is gospel until all system are proven to fail. The said Author is entitled to his opinion as much as I am entitled to mine. This holds true with readers, they are as much entitled to believe in whatever they want to believe in and try out whatever they want. Your objectives seem to be aimed at suppressing information and the strive of the drive to beat the game of Baccarat. The game is just that "a game" the definition of a game means that players of the game try and beat it. If the game was impossible to beat people would not play the game. If you can prove that it is impossible to beat and explain that then I bow to your superior knowledge. It's only more or less a 50/50 game of chance, it's not rocket science...Don't beat yourself up about it. Get over it, or better still try and beat it.

[stephen tabone]

It's an extraordinary claim you're making, much more remarkable than Ed Thorp's discovery that card counting could be used to beat Blackjack. That changed Blackjack in casinos the world over; has your book changed Baccarat? I don't think so.

Rome wasn't built in a day...Everything improves in time, like cars, electronics, computers etc. My book has made good ground and advancing. 3.0 wins the game hands down, flat betting with few bets on each shoe. It will rock the game. But people like you who don't believe in systems (card counting is a system: a mode of play, an instrument to help a player gain an advantage) people like you put put thinkers like me down because you want to reduce intelligent thinking to negativity that dominates your thinking. You want to damage creators, thinker systemisers because you fear new discoveries.   

[Mike]

You not believing in systems is your prerogative. But you shouldn't try to impose your beliefs upon others whether author of systems or those interested in such structures. You're way out of line to do so 

LOL, "way out of line"? Sure, it's way out of line to state the mathematical FACTS about Baccarat just as it's way out of line to state that 2 + 2 = 4. 

If you're a believer, 2 + 2 could equal 3, it depends on your opinion. 

Stephen, of course people are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

Notice, folks, how Stephen is intent on diverting attention away from his system to me. I'm one of the "mob", who is "negative", trying to stifle creativity, etc. But nobody in this forum is particularly interested in my personal views, or yours, they just want the truth. Actually, that's not quite true. A lot of members would settle for a nice dream, and if that's the case, Stephen's your man! 

Now you're admitting that your system is subjective, fair enough. But why not put it in your book?, then people will be less likely to give you negative reviews if the system doesn't work as advertised. And you're full of contradictions; how can the 3rd revision of your system be subjective when you claim that it beats the house edge? You've even given a number to quantify this. You know perfectly well that system players don't like subjective systems, so that won't go in the book will it?

[stephen tabone]

LOL, "way out of line"? Sure, it's way out of line to state the mathematical FACTS about Baccarat just as it's way out of line to state that 2 + 2 = 4. 

If you're a believer, 2 + 2 could equal 3, it depends on your opinion. 

Stephen, of course people are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

Notice, folks, how Stephen is intent on diverting attention away from his system to me. I'm one of the "mob", who is "negative", trying to stifle creativity, etc. But nobody in this forum is particularly interested in my personal views, or yours, they just want the truth. Actually, that's not quite true. A lot of members would settle for a nice dream, and if that's the case, Stephen's your man! 

Now you're admitting that your system is subjective, fair enough. But why not put it in your book?, then people will be less likely to give you negative reviews if the system doesn't work as advertised. And you're full of contradictions; how can the 3rd revision of your system be subjective when you claim that it beats the house edge? You've even given a number to quantify this. You know perfectly well that system players don't like subjective systems, so that won't go in the book will it?

"they just want the truth" you wrote, but truth is what works, and what people believe in. Truth is not you imposing your control tactics up others.

[stephen tabone]

LOL, "way out of line"? Sure, it's way out of line to state the mathematical FACTS about Baccarat just as it's way out of line to state that 2 + 2 = 4. 

If you're a believer, 2 + 2 could equal 3, it depends on your opinion. 

Stephen, of course people are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

Notice, folks, how Stephen is intent on diverting attention away from his system to me. I'm one of the "mob", who is "negative", trying to stifle creativity, etc. But nobody in this forum is particularly interested in my personal views, or yours, they just want the truth. Actually, that's not quite true. A lot of members would settle for a nice dream, and if that's the case, Stephen's your man! 

Now you're admitting that your system is subjective, fair enough. But why not put it in your book?, then people will be less likely to give you negative reviews if the system doesn't work as advertised. And you're full of contradictions; how can the 3rd revision of your system be subjective when you claim that it beats the house edge? You've even given a number to quantify this. You know perfectly well that system players don't like subjective systems, so that won't go in the book will it?

I'm an extreme systemiser. It's an intrinsic characteristic that I posses. I'm interested in finding out what those rules of a game are and how those rules work so that I can help others win when playing the game of Baccarat.

Most people do not have the time or ability to systemise. I'm best placed to do that which is why I'm publishing my findings in my books. Some people will talk of mathematics and will, in short try telling you that what goes around comes around; in other words you'll lose some then win some or viscera. Then they'll say you'll lose more because of negative expectations. They'll make all kinds of complex insignificant arguments in an attempt to disprove the basic notion that systems do not work. However even those that get lost in mathematics will not attempt to try and develop a way of at least trying to win.

Get into a debate with such a person and you'll soon notice a lack of logic in their circular arguments. They never establish anything beyond that nothing can be established. They even miss the point that the game of Baccarat is just that 'a game.' And more importantly they miss the fact that Baccarat is a 50/50 game of chance. It's not rocket science. Anyone who brings mathematics into Baccarat will never be content.

In short they are afraid of the game, scared of the challenge of trying to win at the game. They are bound by the infinite constrains of mathematics. In the end they end up crazy because instead of concentrating on the patterns the game of Baccarat presents as the results are displayed their thinking delves into the improbabilities. You see this with Mike. His you're stereotypical mathematical aggressive doubter.

I own you Mike. I think I've won the debate.

Engage with them at your peril but know that they offer you nothing but strife as you can see above.

Engage with a systemiser and he will deliver you answers. He will make order of the game, he will digest the game by classifying and summarizing, he will codify, organize the mode of play to afford the player of the game of Baccarat the best possible chances of winning at that card game.

[Atlantis]

Hi Stephen,

I like craps. Can your method be used on the P and DP? Just curious if it can applied to this game as well...

A.

[stephen tabone]

Hi Stephen,

I like craps. Can your method be used on the P and DP? Just curious if it can applied to this game as well...

A.

I have a unique book on craps coming out in September. If you PM I will let you know first before it is published.
I also have a roulette book coming out in August. What I identify in it will change the way readers view the game. New information not available anywhere. (but whatever you do please don't tell anyone who is into mathematics )

[alrelax]

Stephen, how much would someone have won on this shoe if they played to your system?

[attachimg=1]

[Babu]

Stephen, how much would someone have won on this shoe if they played to your system?

[attachimg=1]

Now you're using the casino's system to make fake shoe.

[stephen tabone]

that one single shoe you have selected I would be 1- having exited half way through. If you want you're welcome to select 1,000 losing shoes. But you'll never post the winning shoes! I doubt that every much. Thus your posting of shoes in this respect is pointless. In my future book, 3.0 there are no bad shoes. Big claim I know but this is the truth.

[stephen tabone]

http://betselection.cc/stephen-tabone's/i'm-learning-from-members/msg57533/#msg57533