Quote from: Trbfla on January 24, 2016, 05:51:38 PM
Rashid-would appreciate if you keep your personal attacks to yourself. I am not crazed. I know what I know and have facts to back up each of my statements. Jim can choose to believe Johno isn't the same guy as oz 3d100 from the btc website if he chooses to do so...I'm ok with it

Nutter, who thinks for one minute that "johno" would pay to access to be a member of the BTC site whilst claiming to beat 100 shoes playing OTBL.  If ya don't like insults quit making gormless statements and acting like your dead from the neck up.  FYI you have already been shown to be wrong about ozen, muppet, iiyyyaaa

Quote from: Jimske on January 24, 2016, 01:44:15 AM
It finally hit me.  It was Eirscott that used that same Cobain avatar.  Coincidence? or same guy?

Sounds like you have a dose of the "crazed Trbfla", where everybody is somebody.  Scotty ain't him, guaranteed.... 

You have your own way of distorting the truth.

Quote from: ADulay on January 23, 2016, 04:05:42 PM
I was lucky enough to watch it build from day one and understood the reasons for each build and why it apparently worked.

The problem is, it DIDN'T work, a lot of people paid for something that didn't deliver.

Quote from: ADulay on January 23, 2016, 04:05:42 PM
And to keep everybody happy, I was NEVER, EVER paid anything to help Maverick explain his system play to the others.

Nobody knows this to be true.

Quote from: ADulay on January 23, 2016, 04:05:42 PMEvidently helping fellow baccarat players with a system is some type of evil now.

Doesn't reflect reality in the slightest.  People who couldn't win with it and started to discover they had been had, began complaining.  Such posts were belittled and negative comments were thrown back at them.

care to explain the bet selection?

Yeah thanks Nick

Quote from: Bayes on January 06, 2015, 08:40:20 AM
Here's a quickie example of how to use the formula to create a system.

The chance of at least one repeat in four spins for a double-street is 72%, and the chance for at least 1 repeat in 6 spins for a street is 78%.

Alternate the following two series of bets:

1. Wait for 1 spin (you will bet for 3 spins). On the 2nd spin, bet whatever DS hit on the first spin. If a loss, bet the last 2 DS's on the third spin. On the 4th spin, bet the last 3 DS's which hit. If a win on the 2nd or 3rd spin, just repeat the bet, but not if the win comes on the 4th spin. If all 3 bets are lost, increase the stake as per D'Alembert (+1 after a loss, -1 after a win) and reset to 1 unit immediately a new high balance is achieved (i.e., don't finish playing the series, but start a new one).

2. Betting on streets follows a similar pattern. Regardless of a win or loss using the above, bet the last street hit, then the last 2 streets on the next spin, the last 3 on the next, etc, up to a maximum of 6 streets. Use the same progression as above after a series loss.

Very good.  Can anybody run a sim and post one of those graphics for the above?

Very well explained, thank you.

Quote from: Bayes on December 31, 2014, 05:05:03 PM
Hi Rashid,

I'm not familiar with the details of eirescott's system, although I've heard about it a few times over the years (I think it was refuted at imspirit's site). I don't think the formula will change, because it just tells you the chance of at least one repeat, although maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

Yep, unfortunately we can't bet directly on the result of a sequence of outcomes, only on the next outcome, which as we know is always 50:50. And if we could, the casinos would adjust the payouts accordingly. 

Every time we try to force the next hand/spin to conform to a sequential probability (as we often do when creating systems) we end up assuming that trials are dependent, which they're not, so we have committed the gambler's fallacy.

Correct, it was refuted at imspirits site. 

Would have to disagree regarding betting on the result of a sequence of outcomes, this is exactly what this "pair" bet section entails.  It is geared to return "hopefully" a win within a maximum of 4 bets per 8 hand sequence.

While I agree every hand is independent and yes anthropomorphizing prior results is a difficult habit to break, however "success" per block of 8 hands is by far outstrips "failures", yet there still exists the situation of losing more bets than winning bets, obviously due to the potential of taking a maximum four attempts to win a single bet.

If you consider it just gamblers fallacy, then surely the 90.6% figure you posted above simply can't apply? 

As maths seems your forte, out of curiosity what is the percentage figure if using triplets as opposed to doubles (pairs), I haven't been able to put together a viable method of implementing triplets (my very limited test results were poor), yet I feel doing so would be inherently stronger that this non-matching-pair" option, purely based on the maths.     

Quote from: ADulay on December 31, 2014, 05:23:53 PM
No, I believe he just chose not to deal with the daily "crisis" of adults basically arguing over who took their Crayons and things like that.

AD

Yeah okay, but his timing was impeccable.  I mean he was able to deal with adults arguing over crayons for quiet some time while he had ultimate power.  Then with changes underfoot, decided to bail, anybody who gets that upset over the term bull sh1t in this day and age on a gambling forum really shouldn't be here IMO. 

I mean people are allowed to "reel people in", "con fellow members into parting with their money with false promises", but you can't use the term bull sh1t, literally pathetic..

Quote from: Mike on December 31, 2014, 09:10:39 AM
esoito was neither fair nor impartial. I was muted for no good reason several times, apparently only for being "negative". It makes you wonder what's going on here when members are censored for posting the truth about systems.

I concur, he was bias, the fact he didn't stick around for a more democratic forum, kind of hints he was on a authoritarian power trip, couldn't tolerate being undermined so baled   

When you changed the background a while back (which a lot didn't like), things seemed to improve, but it was too early to tell as it was changed back to what it is now. 

Victor, with all your software and coding skills, why has the typing lock-ups, freezes issue not been resolved?

It is just as bad as ever.

Quote from: Bayes on December 30, 2014, 12:14:24 PM

Example 2

In an even chance there are 4 equally likely outcomes taking 2 decisions at a time, i.e., BB, PP, PB, BP. What is the chance of at least one repeat in 4 decisions (note that this equates to 8 hands, not 4, because each outcome consists of two hands)

N = 4 and r = 4, so

[math]P(repeat)=\frac{4^4(4-4)!-4!}{4^4(4-4)!} = 0.906[/math]

or a little over 90%.

You can find a scientific calculator here.

BB
PP
PB  lose 1 bet
P?   now what

Eirescott posted many years ago, to place the P bet after the PP, and PB outcomes, because if the result is P it then becomes ambiguous therefore a no-bet scenario for which to recoup the prior lost bet.

Either way you will lose more hand per shoe than win, despite the 90% expectation figure.

What is the formula if you include Eirescotts adaptation?

 

How common is the term bull sh1t?  And you get reprimanded for it's use on a gambling web-site?? 

I believe there are four moderators on this board, yet one name was out there constantly, obviously taking their position far too seriously and long since  removed from gaming tables and the perils and joys of which. 


What's up Tangram, with your comment??

Quote from: greenguy on December 30, 2014, 08:03:51 AM
I do believe I held a special place in esoito's heart.
[smiley]cactus/p000.gif[/smiley]

Many shared that sentiment.  I guess some have to get that little piece of feeling important from somewhere. 

What irks me, is that this is not a gardening site, it is a gambling site.  Gambling involves both winning and losing MONEY.  With the later, who knows your situation, you might have to go hungry for a while, unable to pay a bill, resort to stealing.  Yet one must not use the word bu11sh1t on thy web-site, get real FFS.