Quote from: Stephen Tabone on June 23, 2017, 09:57:50 PM
Valid? To be honest I believe only individual people can say if their own results are "valid" because no one can confirm with the shoe results are genuine and with all respect to anyone posting such results, even if they are genuine there will always be that element of doubt in the readers mind. Therefore it would be better for individuals to carry out there own checks.

Stephen,

  The reason I have played those three shoes from Alrelaz, you know, the obvious fake ones that he put a lot of time and effort in to make them look "real", well they are all available for anyone to use for TESTING of various system plays, not just yours.

  If several of us use them and come up with wildly different results, then some of us are on the wrong track with regards to your play.

  If the people who have purchased/received your play want to test it out and their results are similar, then we'll be in agreement.

  Why would anyone believe that the recently posted shoes from Alrelax are not real?

  I'm not trying to bash you or your play, I'm just playing it for others to make up their own mind about it.

  Why I'm spending this much time on a play I'll never use is beyond me.  I must be having a boring week or something.   However, it is fun running something different for a change.

  AD

Quote from: ADulay on June 22, 2017, 06:56:32 PM
Stephen,

  I WILL run the latest iteration of TUBS on any of the shoes that get posted by Alrelax as you seem to believe that my shoe history is suspect for some reason.  At least this way we'll have a valid, current live shoe to work with from time to time and as several of us have the system play in hand, we will be able to see if there are any problems between us.

  AD

As promised here are the three shoes that Alrelax posted late yesterday with the results running "TUBS with mod" and using VDW as the control reference.

Shoe 1:
TUBS -3 with an early stop due to the rules.  It went +0 if run to the end of the shoe.
VDW +5 at hand 53 and at the end.

Shoe 2:
TUBS -4 with an early stop due to the rules.   It went -10 if run to the end of the shoe.
VDW +3 to the end of shoe.

Shoe 3:
TUBS -6 with an early stop due to the rules.   It went +0 to the end.
VDW was -2 mainly due to the unusually high number of "twos" in the shoe.   

Hope this helps somebody.

AD (You guys DID test these shoes, right?)

             

Quote from: Stephen Tabone on June 22, 2017, 06:10:40 PM
Sorry guys for any confusion, misunderstandings, re my strategy, i may have assumed one element was a given/understood in my 2nd book, I've sent a number of you Private messages to clarify any misunderstanding relating to the mode of play of my strategy. Hope that helps change your results to see profits. If you are not sure about something Please send me a private message. Thanks. Stephen.

Stephen,

  I went back to your "book" and triple checked it for your "correction" to the system play that you have graciously PM'ed to me.   It wasn't in there at all and your "correction" changes the order of play in no small way, almost changing the complete element of the method!

  The obvious problem with the original 2nd edition system was the "Sporadic One" (with apologies to Ellis for that nomenclature).   Your "new" explanation does take some of that out of the equation.

  With that said, I believe I'll wait for Edition 3.0 to show up before doing any more testing or retesting of previous shoes.

  I WILL run the latest iteration of TUBS on any of the shoes that get posted by Alrelax as you seem to believe that my shoe history is suspect for some reason.  At least this way we'll have a valid, current live shoe to work with from time to time and as several of us have the system play in hand, we will be able to see if there are any problems between us.

  I'll save my further comments for a later date.

  AD

Recent test run of another 50 shoes.   All shoes from either Dublin Bet or the Immokalee Indian casino circa July and August of 2014.

50 shoes.  -16 units played according to the "latest rules" posted here. 

This is not looking good.

Stephen, you better get Version 3.0 published quickly! 

AD

Gentlemen,

  I believe I may have been quoted incorrectly.

  Yes, I did run a batch of 50 shoes and it turned out a +44, both under my spreadsheet macro and close enough running them MANUALLY to confirm the results.

  With that said, a +44 after 50 shoes is less than one unit per shoe and I did NOT take the commission out of those.

  I think I'll pull another 50 shoes (different dates/book) and make another run at it, just to confirm my earlier findings.

  I harbor no ill will against Stephen nor do I hate his book.  I just found that it was not for me and the style of play is not to my liking.  If it would actually make a substantial profit, I would be more enthusiastic, but for now it is merely another copy of another system play but without the good parts attached.

  AD

Quote from: Sputnik on June 21, 2017, 03:54:25 PM
Sorry to say but this method is not a winner and the verdict is based upon my own testing using the rules in the book.

Cheers

I concur.

AD

I must be living in a cave as I've never heard of that at all.

Interesting.

AD

Quote from: Jaguar88 on June 19, 2017, 06:00:34 AM
People usually fare better with a structured form of instruction than a random collaboration.  There are a substantial number of examples to support this.  The clear majority of what we have learned about the game is through actual play.  Of course it's great to learn and check with the right players on-line.  However, it is very easy to see who actually plays and who doesn't  when reviewing content on-line.

All very true.

AD

Quote from: Jaguar88 on June 17, 2017, 07:40:37 PM
Yet the material we present may be used as a basis for your development of an approach to playing baccarat successfully. You may find that this discretionary decision making process works well for you or use this information to help develop a more systematic approach to the game.

Isn't that what we do here in the forum?

AD

Quote from: Stephen Tabone on June 17, 2017, 12:53:02 AM
I'm trying to extend my free offer with my publishers so sure will try and sort something for you.

Stephen,

  No need to send me anything.  I'm only working on this due to a simple miscommunication causing it to cross my desk and am about to put it on the shelf after some validation testing today.

  I've tested it enough "internally" to see that it is not a valid play for me, personally.

  Others may find it most suited to their own style.

  Thanks anyway.

  AD

Quote from: Blue_Angel on June 16, 2017, 11:41:40 PM
Andy, could you please let me know where I could find those hands to download?

You can't anymore.  It's not there anymore, at least the database that it came from is not there anymore that I can find.
It was a personal compilation gathered over a specific point in time.  40,000 hands from one single table literally minute by minute, time coded for reference.

I figured that 40,000 hands should be enough to validate pretty much any "system" play that came across my desk.

Quote from: Blue_Angel on June 16, 2017, 11:41:40 PM
What if I can produce a hefty net profit after betting all those hands?
Would that be interesting to say the least?

You know, I've freely handed out that hand compilation to several people who said they desperately needed it to finish off some testing of a great system.  I've never heard back from any of them.  Hopefully at least one of them got some good use from the data.

You're welcome to it if it will help you develop an idea that you have.

Or I can sell it on Amazon as a Kindle book for $9.99. 

AD

Quote from: Stephen Tabone on June 16, 2017, 11:46:55 PM
when you read edition 3, you will be making a living from the casino!
I've given you the strawberries but JUST WAIT FOR THE CREAM! I really pour it on!

Stephen,

  Actually I'm not on the list for Edition 3 and really don't plan on buying the book.

  However I did go back and take a look at that first run of 50 shoes (original result was -16) and after applying the "new" rules (mid-shoe losing exit and all that) it dropped down to -4 across all the shoes.

  I'd say that mid course correction does make a difference. 

  I'll put some time into this over the weekend with some testing routines. 

  Thanks for the idea.

  AD

Quote from: Stephen Tabone on June 16, 2017, 11:12:33 PM
Also please don't forget to SPLIT the wins, when 3+ units are gained, call that a day and start from that point on wards. But in any case if they are proper shoe results sourced from a casino then system should be absolute bullet proof and ultimate, save that I will release the advantage information in July.

Stephen,

  I plugged the 50 shoes (616 thru 666) into the box and using the "new and improved" rules it came out with a +42 units for the run.   That's not bad.

  But, being the detail man that I am, I had to manually check that my calculations on the spreadsheet were giving me valid results so I ran those 50 shoes MANUALLY.

  Yep, it came out with +44 after those 50 shoes.    18 losing shoes (of -5 or less) and 32 winning shoes of +2 or more.

  I would have to say that making the change to "leaving at neutral or slightly down" anytime past about mid-shoe made a difference.

  Let me run back and check that first batch with the "new rules" and see if it made a difference overall.

  AD

Quote from: Stephen Tabone on June 16, 2017, 08:45:45 PM
Whilst you might run, 'The Ultimate Bullet Proof Baccarat Winning Strategy' through a program please consider that I have advised that by about half way if the shoe results are not going the person playing the games way, that they should try and exit at break even, therefore you'd have to set the program to follow this advise too. Also a person might want to exit other shoes 3- as opposed to 6- depending how many decks of cards are being used because the results of a shoe of course depend on how many decks are being used. Remember that while my strategy is The Ultimate, (of all systems) it does not promise miracles. The person using the strategy should employ strict money management. His/Her aim should be to try and walk away 3+ unit wins in profit in a day and not to play shoe after shoe after shoe. Since I have written in previous threads, all systems go through cycles. The game is very tight,50/50 therefore a player should use common sense. To win a player should be looking at the longer term and not a set of computer generated results through a program. Real casino shoe results differ largly from those generated via computer programs. his also holds true with roulette or any other casino game.

Stephen,

  I will run another set of 50 shoes under these "new and improved" guidelines.   All of my tests are run with REAL shoes.  No computer generated data at all.

  Heck, if I really get bored tonight (it's currently raining and I can't get to the range for tonight's match) I'll even run them by hand to make sure they computer is running them correctly.

  As today is June 16th I'll run my tests with shoes 616 through 666.   Yes, it is a pain to cut and paste 50 different shoe results.

  If I can ever get a decent batch of shoes to produce a profit worth mentioning, I'll then put it to the acid test of the "Bac-Malta 40000" file.   It's 40,000 consecutive dealt live hands in chronological order from a live dealt table.   I'll have to modify the start and stop points along the way to make sure it leaves shoes at the appropriate times, but it can be done if I really need to.

  Why I'm putting this much effort in it, I really don't know but I am intrigued that I might be missing something obvious, but I do have my reservations, of course.

  AD

Quote from: ice789 on June 16, 2017, 05:17:40 AM
i buy i know trigger opp+wait 3

i want rx code for test

I think we can all assume that you're talking about having the TUBS play programmed to run under the Roulette Extreme program.

Shouldn't be too difficult as a very similar RX code is already done that comes with the program proper.

AD