Error.

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

Too much coffee.

AD

Quote from: Stephen Tabone on June 24, 2017, 03:00:41 PM
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

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

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