As much as I hate to even think about getting involved here, let me try to state the obvious.

You've decided that a single member on THIS forum has made your life so miserable that you have now had your UK based law firm contact your US based law firm in order to attempt to file some sort of charges of slander or libel on an INTERNET GAMBLING FORUM.

Yeah, right.

Let's see.  In the overall scheme of things, an internet gambling forum rates right up there with spoiled chunky peanut butter on a level of things that matter to anyone with a brain.

So this person purchased your book and made a bad review of it.   Not a big deal.  Happens all the time and evidently your first few editions have more than just one poor review so that won't carry much water with the battling lawyers.

Tort law in the US is an odd character.  I'm thinking potential book sales from a protracted "lawsuit" will have to be very large and at $20 a pop, I'm also thinking that's not a profitable business plan.

If I were a normal user I believe I would see right through the plan.

You are receiving more FREE PUBLICITY on your book than you ever imagined and just can't grasp that yet. 

So, be very happy with your new found free advertising and take the few punches that come along with it. 

Hopefully one of the regular members here will eventually purchase your book and come back to make a glowing report on it, at which time you will start to make a lot of money from sales.   However, if nobody comes in with a good book review, then perhaps all this talk about lawsuits and lawyers and the rest of the overachieving braggadocio will fall by the wayside.

Once again, for all the members who have read this far:   You are on an internet gambling forum.   Not the National Academy of Science and Literature.  Deal with it.

AD

Quote from: Stephen Tabone on July 23, 2017, 10:12:16 AM

And then I get moderated as if I were Lex Luthor looking after Kryptonite !! Says it all doesn't it!!

Stephen,

  Just to clear up your "moderation".

  At the time you were put into moderation (since removed) you were ranting and raving and pretty much accusing anyone who had a different view of your original book with attempting to overthrow the free world.  Several members attempted to smooth things out but your reaction was pretty much "over the top", which resulted in a moderation flag being put on your account.

  As you have toned down your rhetoric with reference to your publications, you are now merely "Watched" for the time being.

  Hopefully we'll not be having any repeats of targeted antagonism with regards to various book reviews of your latest publications when they finally come out.

  AD

 

Stephen,

  I have a serious question to ask but wanted to make sure you wouldn't fly off into some kind of fit if my name was attached to it.

  May I ask the question with reference to "Version 3.0?"

  AD

3Nine,

  You might want to tone down your baiting in order for this discussion to continue.

  Serious questions are always acceptable but leading or taunting is not, at least not after the first 20 or so like so many do here.

  AD

Very good.

Welcome back!

AD

I'll respond.

Try to learn what a paragraph is.

AD

Delete them at your discretion, as noted in the original post.

AD

Gentlemen,

  As the level of this ongoing "soap opera" gets more chaotic by the day, I have decided to just bow out of the discussion.

  The original three shoes posted at the top of this thread are no longer valid as the rules of the book (Version 2) have changed and apparently they will continue to change, almost daily, until the author is happy with the outcome.

  In spite of the fact that this was merely a nice diversion from my normal baccarat routine, it has somehow collapsed under the weight of trying to make the system fit the shoe and accusations of all kinds flying around.   This is too bad.   It was fun having some other people in on the play and comparing results and attempting to help it along.   This has fallen by the wayside due to constant "updates" to the Kindle Book as published.

  So, Stephen, you can thank me for most of your advance sales of Version 3 when it comes out.  Hopefully someone will get the conversation started on that when published.  I know it won't be me.

  I will continue to watch the evolution of Version 2 from the sidelines.

  Respectfully,

  AD (the guy who doesn't put tie hands in his worksheets)

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