Quote from: esoito on July 07, 2017, 09:08:53 AM
Because they have learned either through personal experience, or by observing the fate of others who have posted to forums, that it's often the poster who is unpleasantly attacked and criticised, rather than the idea they are proposing.

That's a fair point, and ad hominem attacks add nothing to the argument, but some don't take criticism of their IDEAS very well either, and accuse the critic of attacking THEM personally, and so the "debate" degenerates.

Witness the recent debacle with Stephen Tabone. When his system/book was criticised, he didn't take it very well and resorted to absurd counter-attacks, accusations of the "mob" etc, instead of actually addressing the issues which were raised.

And sometimes the character of a poster (not the idea) DOES have a bearing on his/her message. If, for example, someone has a track record of being a scammer, or dishonest, misleading, etc, then shouldn't this be taken into account?

But in general I agree with alrelax; if you don't like what a poster has to say, ignore it. If you can't ignore it, then challenge it, giving REASONS for your point of view.

Quote from: Albalaha on July 07, 2017, 01:13:03 AM
Gone are the days when we used to talk of innovations, new systems, their testings and all those stuff that made this place worth visiting. A few members are using the board as a garbage bin putting in all kind of weird unrelated stuff. Going the way gamblers glen went.

Why not start your own topic then, instead of whining about "idiotic topics"?

I think gamblers are beginning to realize that there are no winning systems for games like Roulette and Baccarat, and for poker, sports betting, forex trading etc where you CAN get a real edge, people are naturally reluctant to share their strategies, and who can blame them? Their hard-won edge would be eroded if many people knew how to achieve it.

It may be a 50:50 game but the dispersion is a different question. Two games may both be 50:50 but the variances can be different.

I haven't read through this entire thread, but it's claimed that this method of bet selection results in a lower variance than a random selection. Is there any statistical evidence of this?

One way to test the hypothesis is to count the number of gaps between wins for (a) the VDW, and (b) a random selection. You will end up with two sets of series of numbers. Now compute the standard deviation of both sets. If the VDW really does perform as claimed, its standard devation should be lower than that of the random selection.

Quote from: esoito on January 25, 2013, 11:20:02 PM
Dearie, dearie me...

I've only ever used BF for sports betting and without any problems -- touch wood.

Given that fiasco over the 10x business at their casino,  I'm now wondering if I've simply been lucky thus far to have escaped their obvious potential for underhand treatment of their customers.

I guess it all comes back to the fact that there is really no proper supervision and oversight by a statutory body with teeth. 

You might prefer Smarkets (I do). It's a relatively new kid on the block but is growing fast. It hasn't got the liquidity of BF but has a nice simple interface and a low flat commision rate of 2% on winning bets.

Quote from: Albalaha on June 29, 2017, 03:54:13 AM
does your method win long run test given on a random sample data?  Can it overcome the worst possible scenario?

No and No.

Esoito runs a tight ship. 

Quote
All text is relevant to the main strategy, if a bettor or person wants to gain unit wins s/he must know about money management. It's all logical.

To be fair, you do give some good advice, like about not chasing losses. But all this is included in the systems rules, so strictly speaking it's not necessary because if you follow the system rules then you WON'T be chasing losses. And the analogy with trading is misplaced. In Baccarat outcomes are random, share/stock prices are not. In baccarat the odds (payouts) are fixed, in trading they are not. There are some principles which are common to all speculative activity but I think the comparisons you make are misleading.

QuoteReviews don't interest me, moreover ones from the mob.

lol, come on Stephen, you can do better than this. "The mob" are evidently those who you believe are out to discredit you, they have no genuine interest in your book. So how do you know that those who give negative reviews are part of the mob? Because they give negative reviews! (begging the question). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Quote
Sales do, which is why my book appears in the #1 spot on Amazon best seller out of all Baccarat books! So put that in your
mathematical pipe and smoke it! 

In the first place, I can't find any indicator that your book is a "best seller" on Amazon. Secondly, this is niche market and there are very few books on Baccarat published, so being a best seller doesn't necessarily mean very much. Thirdly, the fact that many people may have bought your book doesn't mean that's it's worth buying for the content. The only thing which determines that is whether the system actually performs as advertised, and that hasn't been proved. Finally, the fact that many people believe something doesn't make it true. This is "Appeal to majority". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Quote
Sales are important because the more people learn about my systems there more they will beat the casino.

What a noble sentiment! And of course it has nothing to do with you making more money.

Quote
I try to develop systems that most people can understand and follow rather than complex nonsensical systems.

Why does "nonsensical" have to accompany "complex"? Of course it doesn't. If a winning system actually was possible, logically speaking it's unlikely to be simple and mechanical because random outcomes don't conform to any predictable patterns (as you seem to assume in your book). Since that's the case, any successful system needs to constantly adapt to the changing outcomes, which implies complexity. Furthermore, your statement seems to suggest that you're more interested in creating a system which can be easily understood, rather than one which actually works. Perhaps because
this would sell better; not many people would be willing to learn something very complex, but "quick fix" solutions appeal to the gambling mentality of "something for nothing".

Quote
If you're looking for something more complex to win at a 50/50 game a chance I'm sure the workshop mob in Vegas will help you for $1,000.

It's not the first time you've mentioned that baccarat is a 50:50 game, as if that implies it's relatively easy to beat. This betrays a serious (but very common) misunderstanding of how the house advantage works in negative expectation games. The chance of winning or the simplicity of the game is irrelevant; the only thing which matters is the payoff in relation to the chance of winning. A system might have a 99.9% chance of success and yet not result in a profit. Conversely it might have a 1% chance of a win and yet yield a huge profit. Please learn some basic probability theory before you pass yourself off as some kind of expert.

Quote
You know the one run by your mob friends.

Even if my friends were in the "mob", this is another fallacy: Poisoning the well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Quote
I do have a degree in philosophy Mike and in another tread offered to scan and email it to Vic so that he could call the university to confirm.

Great, but a degree in Philosophy doesn't confer any expertise in gambling. If your degree was in mathematics or statistics members might be more impressed. This is the fallacy of "Appeal to Authority". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Quote
But your mate Alrelax went silent after slandering me,stating I was fake and uneducated and a fraud. Well what do you expect when he fears having the limelight taken away from him. 

More Ad Hominems. C'mon on Stephen, this is getting boring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Quote
Alrelax posts fake shoes and fake results

More begging the question. How do you know they were fake shoes? because your system lost playing them. Why did it lose? because they were fake shoes! If you want to prove that they were fake shoes you need to provide some statistical evidence, otherwise your argument is circular.

Quote
My book is currently on offer for those interested, click on the link below for the best offers.

And the obligatory plug, lol.

Stephen,

Please try to keep the debate on topic. If you believe that systems work, and yours in particular, then you need to back up your opinion with some hard evidence, and not indulge in logical fallacies which just serve to distract and encourage petty bickering. If you can do this, you will never have to use your own system because you will be able to live off the income from sales, lol.

Stephen,

Is that post addressed to me? because I haven't given a review of your book on Amazon. I can't because it was given to me by a member of this forum. Which review are you talking about anyway?

By the way, I WILL be writing a fair review of it on this forum when I've tested the system.

Quote from: Stephen Tabone on June 26, 2017, 03:42:57 PM
I own you Mike. I think I've won the debate.

lol, if rhetoric wins debates, then you may be right. But most of your "argument" consists of logical fallacies. As far as I'm concerned the debate is about systems and whether SOME of them can win (and yours in particular). You haven't given any reasons why we should believe that some systems CAN win in the long term, but have just offered red herrings, straw men, and ad hominems (you should know what those are if you've studied philosophy - logic 101).

And I have recently acquired a copy of your book (2nd version), and having read it, I don't understand why you say it's subjective. The system is very simple and could be explained in 4 lines (the rest is padding).

You don't seem to be bragging about the positive reviews any more, perhaps that's because they're increasingly negative. Last time I looked there were 5 reviews on Amazon UK, and 2 of them were 1 star. Also it's worth noting that the only VERIFIED purchases were those negative reviews.

Quote from: Stephen Tabone on June 26, 2017, 12:34:13 PM
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?

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 -

QuoteSome 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.

Quotewhy 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.

Quote from: Stephen Tabone on June 25, 2017, 07:06:29 PM
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. 

Quote3. 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.

Quote4. 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?

Quote5. 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. 

I don't know why you keep mentioning greed because it's totally irrelevant. You admit yourself that a system needs to be tested over a large number of shoes in order to see how it holds up in the long run, and you have done this for your system, but that has nothing to do with "greed". So I think we're on the same page here.

QuoteAnd to answer your second point, a computer cannot apply all the rules of my strategy in its entirety. ...The mind has imagination and systemises. A computer program cannot think outside the box, a human can Mike.

I read this a lot and it's a specious argument. It probably comes from a lack of understanding of computers and programming. Of course a computer can apply ALL the rules of your strategy. This is so because it's a one-to-one mapping from the rules which you would give to another person to the rules a person would give to a computer, and if you can't explain the rules clearly to another person then it can't be "explained" to a computer either. A computer doesn't NEED to have imagination or think outside the box; it just needs to be given clear instructions. Understand? The only "rules" that a computer can't follow are precognition or perhaps "intuition". But then if your system relies on intuition in order to win then it's not a system, is it?

Quoteas you're learning from me all the time. 

lol, you flatter yourself. I've seen all these "arguments" many times from system sellers, and if you think members here will fall for it you're insulting their intelligence.

Quote from: Stephen Tabone on June 25, 2017, 02:18:29 PM
To do want you want to do,i.e. play shoe infinite is impossible and madness. Computer generated results will never match the real dealer dealt cards are machine shuffled cards because within the program there's a bias. There's a bias that the banker has the edge so the program works to this rule.

Stephen,

You seem to have a lot of misconceptions regarding computer programming and simulations. Since in the other thread you said you tested the system over 10,000 shoes, it seems you do realize the value of "long term" testing, but then you went on to say (again) that the system was never designed to be played over that many shoes! Why then did you bother?

Since the outcome of all those shoes was presumably positive, there is no contradiction between long term testing and the "hit and run"  approach you advocate. Why, then, do you object to computer testing? Is it because of the nature of the hands generated? or is it because you think a computer can't make the kinds of decisions a human can?

If it's the latter, you're wrong. A program is just a list of instructions given to a computer, so if you can tell a person how to play the system without ambiguity, you can tell a computer how to do the same. The only difference is that the computer has much more discipline and patience than any person.

You'd have been much better off investing the time it took to test over those 10,000 shoes in learning how to program computers to do it for you.