What is the logic behind doing after "LW"?

QuoteI betted $71 but got back $54.

That is due to erroneous bet on #0. The bet suggested by Victor can be multiplied but not divided/downsized.
                      Millions of virtual monkeys may type a Shakespeare novel but even billions of actual ones can't.
No offence meant.

This method has no merit in real play. It is still better than playing martingale.

Guys,
             Aren't we going too much off topic?

AMK,
                  A wise system (let's not talk about my HG) has to have a check over bet size and there has to be a reasonable stop loss which one can afford to lose in a bad day. Izak said that the max bet will be 45 units and one 171 units buy in should suffice for long time while he himself used a max bet of 88 units within first 500 shoes. How many of you can dare to place 88 units in a game of baccarat, in one go?
                    His betselection is not at all wise. It is simple "go with the flow". Izak forgot the fundamental that flow equally tends to finish than to continue. All pattern playing is equal and same. No pattern covers more than half chances to win, in baccarat or any other game of chance.
                   I do not play much of baccarat but I analysed both of zumma books i.e. 1000 and 600 (I call them zumma 1600 together removing all "Tie" decisions). You can see that here: http://albalaha.lefora.com/2012/12/25/see-how-5-different-kind-of-bet-selections-perform/
                                                              I have opened my private exclusive forum as a blog. You can refer it, if you feel like.

The funniest thing about Izak is, all 56 of his methods win thousands of chips. No failure, at all.

If -63 is the fate of 10 random shoes, it is certain that there is nothing in this system that can ensure win more and lose less. It is nothing else but a fake Holy Grail. Another shill from Izak, as I expected. I am hearing nothing from "the originator", my crisbis, regarding this HG.

All methods of Izak look good but they always fail in real tests. Test more and you can be sure of this.

QuoteModerator Comment
  That last sentence, Al -- unless you can substantiate it with cold, hard evidence then you should remove what can only be construed as libel. You claim to have legal training which makes your unsubstantiated claim all the more concerning

TRUTH is the biggest defense against any allegation of defamation. A few systems of his specially IBS 9 has been tested by imspirit.wordpress.com, which is one of the best blogs upon gambling systems realities. He just did not put reverse engineering once but if you go through his CYL 2 system, it is solely based on that. In this system, author has beaten 1000 shoes of zumma1000, with a net profit .

Quote from: Bayes on June 03, 2013, 06:02:09 PM
Sam, I really wouldn't bother. A member sent me a copy of it today and it seems to be almost the same as his later "Infallible Baccarat Systems"; version 10 was coded by ImSpirit a couple of years ago.
Izak must be running out of ideas.

         I already stated this.

All of his methods are playable in general but none has an edge which anybody can look for. A method may be good for one data sample and can be the worst on another. He has been making false claims about all of his systems and he is a master of reverse engineering.

[mod] That last sentence, Al -- unless you can substantiate it with cold, hard evidence then you should remove what can only be construed as libel. You claim to have legal training which makes your unsubstantiated claim all the more concerning. [/mod]

Cheap marketing tricks. 

Quote from: Sputnik on June 01, 2013, 10:21:09 PM

Can some one explain for me why you need 1000 zumma.
Silly if you ask me, when you have random org, my opinion.
You beat random org you beat any zumma Collection or real baccarat game, simple as that.

        Buddy, I do refer to random.org to generate random sessions of roulette where all 37 or 38 numbers are truly equal in all parameters and have the same probability to appear. When we talk of baccarat, unless an RNG is not configured to keep the statistical difference between Player and Banker bets due to slight tilt in the favor of "Banker" due to the drawing rules (I can write an entire topic explaining as to why Banker and Player are not true ECs like Red/Black of Roulette).
    The banker bet actually wins a little more often than its counterpart player. With all hands considered, banker wins 45.86 percent of the time, player wins 44.62 percent, and 9.52 percent of hands result in ties. Since the ties push, banker wins 50.68 percent of the time when there is a decision, and player wins 49.32 percent of time.
           Unless, random.org incorporates the difference between player and banker in its generator, it will treat them as Equal Chance and the results seen may be faulty.

Quote[size=78%]@ Al, any chance you could upload the Zumma 1000 shoes here?[/size]

Bayes and Normy and my other friends,
Zumma is a copyrighted stuff and this forum of ours is an open forum. Do you still want me to upload it here? I am sending a copy of both zumma 1000 and zumma 600 in excel format to Normy2000. Anybody else if requires this, please email me.

24K baccarat has officially beaten zumma 1000 and zumma 600, i.e. 1600 shoes but it is not a grail.