[attachimg=1]

[attachimg=2]

[attachimg=3]

[attachimg=4]

It is a tough day that rolls around every year.  For the past 18 years it has been real hard to deal with.

My three flags that I possess will be flown at various fire departments in honor or lost loved ones. 

One is a New York State Flag.
One is a New York City Flag.
One was airbrushed painted in honor of a family member. 

I will try to get some pictures tomorrow of them flying at the fire departments that i left them at yesterday.

[attachimg=1]

[attachimg=2]

[attachimg=3]

For the record, I have nothing against anyone.  However, some will twist and turn as well as copy and paste previous written threads and even edit some of those with their own additions or deletions to them.  And so the story goes on.

Before I purchased this website, Stephen was a subject matter here and discounted, verbalized and chastised many on this board including actual scorecards and scoreboards from real live B&M casinos and the comments from himself or his numerous sock-puppets were in attempt (IMO) to boast his own thoughts, ideas and commercial ventures for sale.

Kinds of the same thing happened with Mark AKA: Gizmotron, and his school tutor teachings, etc.  But things went personal with personal attacks and more.  Maybe I played into them, maybe those other members rolled with something I started.  I do not know.  But, Stephen did get extremely personal and vindictive.  Plus, he was clearly selling his books, etc.  As far as I know he would not even support this website with Vic at the time.

As far as 888 and those articles, I was also approached to co-market with them as well and for the few dollars possible, I declined.  They also offer to purchase for about $10.00 to $25.00 series of articles related to gaming that fit into their protocols and schedules, etc. 

On a side note, you will notice on most forums, gaming/gambling included, there will always be those that are A-Alpha and devote extensive time to writing, posting, copying and pasting and everything related.  Those will usually attempt to control and rule the board and any member or poster not in agreement with them will be ousted, humiliated, chastised and talked down on in the highest majority of instances.

I still say, if it does not interest you, you learn and find it interesting, you enjoy it and not necessarily endorse it, just are interested by it, read it and post and enjoy.  If not, whether the thread or a complete forum, just skip it and close the cover, the same as going to Barnes & Noble and checking out a book.  If you like it, buy it, if not do you really complain, write the author, chastise the store manager for selling it, write letters hatred and picket outside the store? 

Thanks, Alrelax, Glen.

LOL.  ROMAFL!  Classic, great scene from Do the Right Thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLYTObRhcSY

Samuel Jackson won.
Absolutely one of the best, love the guy!

Well one stereotype about Samuel Jackson is true...HE'S ALWAYS YELLING!!!!!!!!

Pretty much says it the way it is, was and always will be.  Quote from a Jewish Politician in Midtown Manhattan when quizzed about slavery and who put the money up for so many slave ships.  Usually it is the beast the roars the loudest, LOL.

Realism the way it is most of the times.  But not publicized and not brought into the mainstream media any longer because it is so against the leftist do gooders.  And by the way, that clip is not satire, it is reality.  Bed Stuy, Red Hook, South Bronx, Jerome Avenue, East New York, countless other sections.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLdIKlXl3ZA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xjr2hnOHiM&t=59s

And the comments.  P.S.:  For thsoe that copy and Paste and add things, the comments are on YouTube (A Public Site) LOL

""Hey....I Gots to know".....never gets old watching that moment. Proper English, LOL";

"Love how he is so chill with the whole thing. Like "Ah for chirst's sake, I was just enjoying my lunch when these punks showed up and bothered everyone."

"He's shooting robbers while still chewing his lunch. What a badass! Modern movies have nothing on Dirty Harry";

"The "punk" was played by Albert Popwell. He was in 5 Eastwood movies altogether:
The Enforcer, Sudden Impact, Magnum Force, Coogan's Bluff and Dirty Harry.";

"Too bad that ALbert Popwell became a crack dealer and fell into the down sides of his own people".

And just to refresh the memories of all the by passers and stop by type of people that are nosy, trolls and board of drama over at other websites where they attempt their form of control and bull-stuff, etc., a few got so pissed off when I actually supported the founder and person that formed this board.  When I posted what I sent him and encouraged others to do so, sometimes it worked and other times, like the last few times, a few got enraged and posted their derogatory comments. 

But fact remains, that they NEVER contributed to this board.  They vomit their hatred, they vomit their on-line drama and a bunch of gambling fallacies to the max!  And reality also proves and proved, that a few of them have actually posted such lengthy and volatile stuff on other message boards, which they used to complain my posts were lengthy and complicated.  ROMAFL to the max!  Does not matter if there is one or 1,000 members here, active or inactive.  Point remains the same, this board is open and will remain open and can be the base for anyone that desires a neutral gaming board base as long as people follow the rules of the board.

Reality remains, if you do not like it, enjoy it, learn from it, find it interesting, skip it--the same as you would in a book store, no darn different!  If you are going to chastise, humiliate, degrade, demean, make up fake news-events and histories of other members, go to Wizard of Odds, VMB or anyone of the other boards, Facebook, Twitter, etc., and do just that.   

Reality has proven that they resent anyone that is successful (no matter what level or magnitude of success that might be, or whatever the member is positively posting about) or has accomplished anything with casino wagering of any level.  Reality has also proven that they attack, berate and lie about other members.  The level of hatred and bitterness from within those, literally and physically spending hours upon hours of internet computer time to post hatred and as well as, their own utter infatuation and total consumption caused by either a Gambling board owner, Moderator or other member, is the most pitiful thing I have every witnessed!

However, Reality has proven just that! 

Many do not realize, but it is so true.  At the baccarat table, on the gambling forums and within life in general.

When you do well you become a sign of hope to the optimist, but to the pessimist, you represent the stink of their very own failure and mistakes.

Furthermore, those pessimists will swear up and down with great fury and sometimes convincing belief, spread that everything you have accomplished or discovered is really what led them to their downfall or mistakes. 

Dedicated also to the on-line know it all, that specializes in lies, YouTube, copy and paste and drama like a transsexual that was exposed to the straight world he once dominated, among many more traits and factual but worthless agenda to his life of on line gaming for trivial amounts of money (if any) as well as his full time career of message board posting,  Love you bro, 'seriously I do' just about the same as the number 6 on a fast food menu cooked in old fryer oil about 10 mins from closing time.  I might actually love the #6 a tad bit more.

ROMAFL!

P.S.:  I do not have to name him, he knows who he is.  

Helping to Define Presentments, Models & BetSelection Wagering, PART 2

Here, this might explain it to the baccarat players that have actually been around long enough to lose, to win and to have been sucked in by the countless distractions and influences that exist at the live baccarat tables in brick and mortar casinos. 

It is certainly possible to be absolutely certain ... and absolutely wrong?   Correct operations upon mistaken premises do not generate useful results. 1+1=2 only if we agree on definitions of those symbols and their interpretation which make that a true statement; if we do, then it is true by definition within that system.  And hence, the systems, explanations, and computer-generated baccarat test models that are endorsed or explained to win a greater amount of times than they will lose.  Usually by those claiming to bring large bankrolls to hold your ground, play long enough without stopping or another fallacy somewhere along those couple of examples. 

We know that math is self-consistent, and we know it produces results which make useful predictions about the real world, and we find ways to refine it when if falls short, such as complex numbers...such as multiple columns and elaborate ways of waiting for a wager if this or that happens, or claiming to stick to a mechanical scheduled wager following events that are yet to unfold, etc., etc.   And that my friends as much truth as science ever offers because those posters are taking something that is basically true as a premise and converting it, molding it and shaping it to coincide with their wagering beliefs, hopes, desires or whatever one wants to label it.

Another term for what they are offering to match their extreme (LOL) knowledge and decades of baccarat play that they mold along with their highly educated backgrounds (again, LOL) is a simple two words, Deductive Reasoning. 

Deductive Reasoning implies that if all of the premises are true and if the influences are valid, it will follow.  SIMPLE!  Hence, the conclusion must be true.  The conclusion can be anything the author/poster wants it to be.  The group of 3 after the XYZ event presents itself in the third column of seven total columns, etc., etc.  Or something along the lines as, every 3rd or 4th or 5th B or P will cut to the opposite side more times than it does not. 

All proofs and arguments are finite. If they were not, the conclusion could never have been reached.  Think about it.  Everyone relies on premises and those premises, forming the basis for the argument are unproven.  They are only proven in the mind and vision of the person testing, explaining and claiming fame to the way that sustains themselves in guaranteed wins or at least grinding out a solid winning amount most every time if not every time they sit down and play. 

You could create a proof of those premises, but that new proof would in turn itself rely on unproven premises, no?  Yes, it would!  The problem is inescapable.  But of course, the master of baccarat or any table game for that matter, be it systems salespeople/authors, those people desiring to control and rule the gambling forums, or those offering their tutorial and educational services.  Ultimate, all deductive reasoning depends on premises that are not deductively proven. 

The arguments often also rely on auxiliary premises that are not explicitly present. They are simply background assumptions, fallacies or events made up by those in retaliatory mode against anyone that claims their info/date is flawed or might not work. 

Those claiming the fame as I outlined above, will only outline the events or presentments when such continues.  But the whole flip-flop and downside is, the black hole of never knowing when those presentments and events will surface and how long they will stay. 

Models are nice because they are finite.  Simple.  A model is tangible in so many words.  And yes, that model might have worked, but still, there is no way to define how large and how long anyone needs to sustain himself at a gaming table until that model kicks in and hopefully performs in the same length, shape and longevity as it did on the model that was discovered by its author, etc.  And more times than not, if not all, there will be periods of thousands and thousands of hands presented until those models do present themselves for an unknown and in no way guaranteed length of stay, let alone arrival. 

Helping to Define Presentments, Models & Bet Selection Wagering, PART 1

How do you do what is correct today, like right now at the table? Talking about it and having others review it, a few will always find something wrong with what you said.  And those types will go to great lengths in the attempt to prove their findings.  Then they post, demean, humiliate and have a tiny consensus of their peers that join them.  But the bottom line is, that they are living in a fallacy world of portraying that they play the necessary hours and amounts of shoes to equal the 51% Plus outcome and thus, they win each and every time.  Complete and utter nonsense to the max!   

Always a group of presentments will come around but subsequently, believing such is the way to win at baccarat, you are only preparing the depth of the hole to bury yourself.  That group of wins that has a percentage of somewhere from 51 to 60% or even greater, on all the testing and results of mathematical models, will eventually come around.  But the waiting time for any such event will eat up far more profits than you will make.  But hey, certainly makes great worthless and senseless ammunition in the forum gambling board war of the full-time posters.

The times that those events do not come around, as well as the times your event just immediately fizzles out early, will eat those wagers up.  Problem is, you are narrowing your vision, your consciousness and losing out of numerous chances and the ability to capitalize on presentments that everyone just responds with that all too familiar 'WOW' over.  To me, that is the only way to explain the solid, powerful, consistent and repetitive patterns/trends/events being produced form the shoe with virtually very few if any people wagering with the shoe.  They are nearly all hooked on the cut to the opposite last win or wagering on that event they found will register 51% Plus on thousands or tens of thousands of shoes. 

Be it:  XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXO  or maybe; XXOOXXOOXXOOXXOOXXOO or maybe; XXXXXXXXXOXXXXXXX or maybe; XOOOXXOOXXXO or that every Natural win cuts to the opposite side or that every third card draw adds up to an 8 or a 9 total to one side only and reduces the other for like 7 or 8 or 10 consecutive hands.  And many many more, too numerous to list.

Sure, you can engage and believe the gambling forum full time posters with their long drawn out dialog of samples that are proven by computer testing will put you on easy money street.  But in reality, taking those same groups of events to the baccarat table, will prove a loss to yourself.  Because you will do just as I said in the above info.  You will have loss far more than you will ever win.  Of course, every author I have read posts and posts their theories claiming they grind it out and make a solid living from it, but without any proof except computer generated score cards, their altered test results and their complex definitions of how and why it all happened.  And those that say they win far more than they loss will never post a picture, never post a win-loss statement, never post their contact info, never get on the phone with another and numerous other traits of the same lines.  They are internet drama queens and bored out of their minds.  Fueled only by fallacy turned around and having a few in their small worthless group of followers.

There are ways to win at baccarat and it all has to do with mostly non-mechanical and non-mathematical knowledge.

Alrelax/Glen.

From the Washington Examiner 

Wednesday, August 28, 2019

Hillary Clinton, who escaped charges for mishandling top secret intel, says Trump would be indicted if he weren't president

by Becket Adams

If anyone knows anything about the powerful benefiting from protections from the law that regular people do not enjoy, it is two-time failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Lucky for us, she has some thoughts on the matter.

The former secretary of state was asked Tuesday at an event organized by Time magazine whether she believes the president committed an obstruction of justice offense in his attempts to interfere in the federal investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Clinton responded by saying the special counsel's report shows there is enough there that any other person who engaged in those acts would have been indicted.

"But because of the rule in the Justice Department that you can't indict a sitting president, the whole matter of obstruction was very directly sent to the Congress," she said.

In other words, Trump is a free man only because we have different rules for different people in this country, according to Clinton.
"If you read that part of the report, it could not be clearer," she said of the special counsel's investigation. "We do have checks and balances in America and there is this thing called Congress. You could not be more explicit than, Please, look at this.' You may conclude it doesn't rise to an impeachable offense, that's your job, but I'm giving this to you.'

I will give her this: She is sticking to what she knows. If anyone knows anything about the two-tiered system of law in this country, it is her.

As secretary of state, Clinton maintained an unauthorized home brew server in a bathroom at her house in Chappaqua, N.Y. The server not only jeopardized national security secrets and other sensitive government intelligence, but it also allowed her to skirt normal record-keeping laws and regulations. Clinton and her team were able to delete and destroy thousands of messages later without having to turn them over to the regular federal officials as is required of all secretaries of state.

Yet despite engaging in behavior that would land any number of low or mid-level military personnel or federal contractors in prison for a very, very long time, Clinton faced no legal repercussions. Former FBI chief James Comey said that the bureau's investigation had found she was "extremely careless" in her handling of sensitive government intelligence. It probably helped that the attorney general at the time, Loretta Lynch, who refused to recuse herself from the investigation, specifically instructed the FBI not to charge Clinton with gross negligence, which was the only real charge considered against the secretary of state.

Clinton is not even wrong in her assessment about Trump avoiding obstruction charges. She has a point!

But let that point come from someone who has not rather famously benefited from an unequal application of the law. Clinton grousing about Trump in this matter would be like Henry Kissinger coming out as a strong critic of the architects of the Iraq War.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/hillary-clinton-who-escaped-charges-for-mishandling-top-secret-intel-says-trump-would-be-indicted-if-he-werent-president

Means "sex", "I have a problem", and also a form of "secretive code talking" for black people.  But hey, it is what it clearly is.  Thank you guys for reading!


https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/hey-hey-hey/

And as if that is not enough to explain it; The other one is truly an author's delight as it is factual and signifies what many interface themselves with:

"Hey Hey", defined:

A "hey hey" is a homosexual male over the age of 18. People with the name James, may be called a "hey hey". A "hey hey" may also enjoy being with muscular men and walk threw grocery stores with them. These types of people enjoy living in apartment buildings with two or more men. "hey hey's" are about 75% homosexual, 17% pedophile, 5% women, and only 3% human.  Steve: " hey saw bob today when i was at the grocery store and i swear to god the cashier was such a "hey hey", he invited to let me stay at his apartment".

Bob: "are you serious, just the other day i saw a "hey hey" at the garden supply store it was icky"
"hey hey", "hoes monster", "queer", "homo", "homosexual", "gay", "pedophile", "creep".
posted by: enus rosenburg February 14, 2009.................................

Sorry if this offends you, but it is the brutal honest truth!  If you are a 'hey hey' sign it to your name and fly the LGBT flag and be darn proud of it, if not, well LMFAO! 

Cannot make this stuff up, it is factual.  Sit back and watch.

Their most promising?  LOL.  Okay, Trump just locked himself in for another 4 years and for those that still think he is going to be impeached, yeah right.  Hope you did not hold your breath.  Oh yeah, by the way, Hillary should be indicted in the near future as well.  Those were blatant acts of criminality.  Remember Watergate, federal prisons are certainly available and there are numerous ones for female offenders as well.

1)   "I want to be clear, I'm not going nuts," the Democratic front runner said later that day. "I'm not sure whether it was the medical school or where the hell I spoke, but it was on the campus."

2)   Former Vice President Joe Biden joked to his New Hampshire supporters that he isn't 'going nuts' following a string of campaign trail gaffes, the latest in which he forgot the location of the Dartmouth College building where he delivered a speech on Friday.

3)   While speaking with a reporter who asked for his impression of Keene, a city in southwest New Hampshire, he accidentally referred to the state as Vermont.

4)   On Tuesday, Biden slipped up again during a speech in Iowa where he said that Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. were "assassinated in the 70s".  Both were killed in 1968.

5)   Earlier this month, Biden made additional headlines for stating during a separate Iowa speech that "poor kids are just as bright, just as talented, as white kids,"  quickly adding, "wealthy kids, black kids, Asian kids, no I really mean it, but think how we think about it."

6)   Defending Biden, Symone Sanders, his senior adviser, urged the public in a CNN interview to stop focusing on his errors.  "If we're going to elevate the conversation, we cannot allow this election to devolve in a tit-for-tat over name-calling and 'gaffes,' again something that does not matter," she said. "This is not something that's registering with the American people."

~someone should have told that #6 to Hillary, LOL.


https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-not-going-nuts-after-dartmouth-mistake_n_5d640553e4b01d7b52933e52


https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/lawyer-who-made-case-for-clinton-indictment-confirmed-as-judge

You must realize, that a designing a Scope of Result, is to contain actions, that you solely initiate and control, not the shoe. The shoe produces presentments, the average bac player is attempting to have the shoe conform to his desires, rather than, the player conforming to the shoe's presentments. 

The design goal is to get to the point of comfort, confidence and belief.  One that does not threaten your wagering and force you to reduce ideal or beneficial wagers that would be positive for you and move you from that idle comfort zone, to that horrible tilt.  How does the above relate to process?

Moving to affect the person and how it does that.  I call then the 6 R's:

Recognition
Realization
Reaction
Results
Reductions
Raises

The movement requires transporting yourself from the one person MYSELF frame-of-mind, to an outsider, onlooker of sorts. 

Do you really understand the negative effects on movement?  Too often everyone settles for the armchair quarterbacking information as our only information collected during the presentments.  But that is the underlying problems in my opinion.

There are so many input processes that are active, and we generally limit ourselves and cut the picture of winning down.  Cut it down quite a bit in the name of safety and money management control. 

You will not understand how to design what will help you, unless you really know what the problem is.  The negative effects, the positive effects and how each one of them will hurt you or help you, rather than the complete belief into something that will only grind you down or keep you from winning, which is a schedule of wager according to a very small win stop and loss stop agenda which is the main topic and subject these days on the websites and forums.  It is a great prelude to the many fallacies that the player will fall to eventually. 

What most everyone seems to deny as well as not to adhere to or admit is factual:

If XYZ is moving/presenting, then: There is nothing mechanical to guarantee any outcome, never ever has been and never will be.
If ABC is moving/presenting, then: There is nothing mechanical to guarantee any outcome, never ever has been and never will be.

Fallacy, the path to failure or non-winning in most all cases.  You must realize that you are not changing, you are adapting with foresight and realization as it happens.  And that is not easy and precisely why so many will never grasp the beauty of the game of Baccarat. 

When you enhance something, falsely or accurately, the more controlled the present situation will be.  And when it becomes controlled, you are destined for the realization of what that shoe will present, nothing will change that.

Reduction.  Continue?  Complete.  Enough?  Neutral.  Sufficient?

You drown yourself in the concentration of not knowing.  Stop.  Correct yourself and learn.