Baccarat can be beaten
Quote: WizardI shouldn't even dignify this thread with a post, but I'll stray from convention this time.
May I suggest the radical idea that anybody with any system that "can't be beaten" just use it and make about 100 million from it. If you don't want to be "selfish," then give away 50 million to charity.
I really don't see what is wrong with anything I've done here.
Everything I've done here is positive, yet, I still have gotten nothing but negative responses.
I have given sound gambling advice. "Either don't gamble. Or thoroughly and I mean THOROUGHLY test your systems".
I have shared my exciting experience.
I have shared the theory that is the drive behind the method I created.
Please, tell me what I have done to warrant such negative responses? Unless, my only mistake was trying to be positive in a negative environment? If so, then I understand.
Not sure if that is your method of random. But it would be interesting to play this way if a roulette table was close enough to the bacc table. I would be game to play it for the minimum.
Lets, if you lose on any given shoe do you up your bet the following shoe and reset to your original bet once you recoup. Seems to me like some sort of increase would help.
Quote: RouletteProdigyI tried my own version of random play once again this evening. Granted it is a very very small sample I did win this time. What did I do differently, I had a roulette table open on my other comp and assigned red to bank and black to player.
Not sure if that is your method of random. But it would be interesting to play this way if a roulette table was close enough to the bacc table. I would be game to play it for the minimum.
Lets, if you lose on any given shoe do you up your bet the following shoe and reset to your original bet once you recoup. Seems to me like some sort of increase would help.
What you're doing is very close to what I do!
However, I got even deeper, as to make my random bet selection, fall under a random trigger, of another randomly driving engine, that is not related to the game I actually betting on.
I flat bet and never increase my wager size. You should never have a losing shoe. If you do? Tweak your approach until you win every shoe. The reason I say this, is because, one losing shoe in testing, can easily be randomly converted to 5-7 losing shoes in a row at any given time in the casino.
You lost me!
Quote: RouletteProdigyHowever, I got even deeper, as to make my random bet selection, fall under a random trigger, of another randomly driving engine, that is not related to the game I actually betting on.
You lost me!
Well, you said you use the random black or red from roulette to decide when to bet player or banker right?
However, that still puts you on one side of the random deviation. Some times you may win more going against the assignment of red to banker or player to black, OR, going WITH the assignment of player to black and banker to red. Do you get what I mean?
So, what you would need, is to establish a random trigger, of whether or not to follow the assignment, OR, go against it. Making your wagers even more random. And make sure neither your triggers, OR, bet selections are set to a possible pattern.
Do you leave a shoe once you have made x amount of units or play the entire shoe regardless.
I think your intentions are good here. Not a fan of negativity myself but I do understand why the math guys are down on systems/methods none have been proven to win in the so called long run.
This would be interesting for me to experiment with. There are a ton of 10.00 minimum tables in my area.
I will try to figure out a trigger with a 500.00 bankroll if anything it will be my fun money to gamble with.
But your system? my one sentence summary from reading it is "bet random because the game is random"
Sorry that's not how "random" works. out of all the things that can work in the sentence "Bet x because the game is x", random is not one of them.
Quote: RouletteProdigyGotcha, I am starting to understand you better now.
Do you leave a shoe once you have made x amount of units or play the entire shoe regardless.
I think your intentions are good here. Not a fan of negativity myself but I do understand why the math guys are down on systems/methods none have been proven to win in the so called long run.
This would be interesting for me to experiment with. There are a ton of 10.00 minimum tables in my area.
I will try to figure out a trigger with a 500.00 bankroll if anything it will be my fun money to gamble with.
I continue to bet the shoe until the shoe is done. I believe, the best way to gain confidence in your system is to see it withstand as many outcomes as possible. Hit and run (leaving the shoe early) is just avoiding the inevitable (should your system be a loser in the long run to begin with).
Thank you for the kind words. I do understand why the math guys respond to be the way they do, I am just being hopeful they can open their mind a little to what I am trying to share.
By the way, please don't risk any real money in the casino until you have thoroughly tested your system against a simulator for a long time...successfully. The free baccarat game offered here on this site and wizardofodds.com seems very good for testing. It even using a declining card values effect. Awesome!
Quote: NeutrinoNobody said baccarat can't be beaten. You just have to do what phil ivey does and get out of the casino with the $$ before they refuse to pay.
But your system? my one sentence summary from reading it is "bet random because the game is random"
Sorry that's not how "random" works. out of all the things that can work in the sentence "Bet x because the game is x", random is not one of them.
My theory suggests, that baccarat, being that is a pseudo random game of a limited random environment (cards that have a declining existence), can be beaten by true randomness.
Quote: letswinWell, you said you use the random black or red from roulette to decide when to bet player or banker right?
However, that still puts you on one side of the random deviation. Some times you may win more going against the assignment of red to banker or player to black, OR, going WITH the assignment of player to black and banker to red. Do you get what I mean?
So, what you would need, is to establish a random trigger, of whether or not to follow the assignment, OR, go against it. Making your wagers even more random. And make sure neither your triggers, OR, bet selections are set to a possible pattern.
So if I'm understanding this correctly, you say:
Bac is a game of random cards coming out of a shoe.
These random cards produce a house edge either way you bet.
The house edge creates a negative expectation.
By wagering on these random events randomly you beat the house edge and negative expectation.
Triggers allow you to be even more random than just normal randomness. Kind of super random.
This super randomness throws off the randomness of Bac allowing you to win every shoe.
Am I correct?
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13So if I'm understanding this correctly, you say:
Bac is a game of random cards coming out of a shoe.
These random cards produce a house edge either way you bet.
The house edge creates a negative expectation.
By wagering on these random events randomly you beat the house edge and negative expectation.
Triggers allow you to be even more random than just normal randomness. Kind of super random.
This super randomness throws off the randomness of Bac allowing you to win every shoe.
Am I correct?
ZCore13
Well, what I am suggesting, is that baccarat randomness, is random enough to make you a loser if your bet selection and reason for betting has any kind of pattern. However, since baccarat has rules, and limited card values, ....unlike true randomness, which has no, and never will have, any bias, ...true randomness can beat the pseudo random environment of baccarat.
My theory sounds crazy, but it works. It works really well.
indulge this obvious sham like there could be
some credibility to it. Random against random
is for newbies, its how ploppies play because
they don't know any better.
Quote: sc15The reason why you're not interested in betting money on proving your system works is because it doesn't work, and you don't have any money to bet.
I'm not interested in betting money on proving my system works?
You're responses are truly confusing. I'm trying to pace myself here, but you keep throwing me for a loop.
Please, and I beg you, please show me where I stated "I will not bet any real money to prove that my system works".
The only things I said even remotely close to what you've just stated are
One "I do not need any money to put my system up against any test. I'd do that for free for all to see"
Two "I am initially not here to prove my system works."
From what it seems like, your responses, are more geared for a person who is trying to sell a system or recruit some sort of interested financial partners. Please save that energy for that person. I am no where near even close to that type of individual.
Quote: EvenBobYou people make fun of Gamblers Glen, yet you
indulge this obvious sham like there could be
some credibility to it. Random against random
is for newbies, its how ploppies play because
they don't know any better.
Ok, I'm working on some creative material at the time and am wide awake. So I'll bite....
Explain how what I'm doing is a "sham".
Of course, a "sham" would suggest, I have something to gain by brainwashing and/or conning people.
Please, I'd love to hear it.
Edit: I'm still working on my tie trigger.
Quote: rainmanSo all I have to do is bet banker when a fat person or a person with glasses walk by? Then I bet player when I smell a fart or an attractive female walks by? Why didn't I think of this sooner.
Edit: I'm still working on my tie trigger.
the tie trigger is every time letswin makes another bullshit post
Quote: letswinWell, what I am suggesting, is that baccarat randomness, is random enough to make you a loser if your bet selection and reason for betting has any kind of pattern. However, since baccarat has rules, and limited card values, ....unlike true randomness, which has no, and never will have, any bias, ...true randomness can beat the pseudo random environment of baccarat.
My theory sounds crazy, but it works. It works really well.
There is no such thing as true randomness that can be proven scientifically. If you created a method of true randomness, then instead of wasting your life on a gambling forum, you should send your theory to a credible science community to review. You will surely win the nobel prize in physics and probably help invent the next required steps for quantum computing along with the myriad of breakthroughs in pretty much every field of science.
Quote: JoeSnowThere is no such thing as true randomness that can be proven scientifically. If you created a method of true randomness, then instead of wasting your life on a gambling forum, you should send your theory to a credible science community to review. You will surely win the nobel prize in physics and probably help invent the next required steps for quantum computing along with the myriad of breakthroughs in pretty much every field of science.
Random.org
There is a such thing as true randomness.
All this energy you guys put into trying to refute the experience I am sharing and the advice I am giving and the theory I have presented. And even more energy put into to try to shoot me down as some sort of con. Wouldn't it be more productive to try to put my theory to a thorough test? I don't suppose so huh?
Quote: letswinRandom.org
There is a such thing as true randomness.
All this energy you guys put into trying to refute the experience I am sharing and the advice I am giving and the theory I have presented. And even more energy put into to try to shoot me down as some sort of con. Wouldn't it be more productive to try to put my theory to a thorough test? I don't suppose so huh?
That is not true randomness.
The software Dr Haahr uses to produce random numbers or sequences follows a number of rules set in place. The only difference is, Haahr's software has a much more complicated programming using Atmospheric noise captured by radios.
It even explains on Random.org that it's pseudo randomness because of the current problem with computing (bits using 0's and 1's) rather then quantum computing which uses 0's and 1's and everything between (infinite).
Hopefully, your method is much more random then random.org.. right?
Or do you just go on random.org and generate a random number and if it's even, you bet on banker, odd is player?
Quote: JoeSnowThat is not true randomness.
The software Dr Haahr uses to produce random numbers or sequences follows a number of rules set in place. The only difference is, Haahr's software has a much more complicated programming using Atmospheric noise captured by radios.
It even explains on Random.org that it's pseudo randomness because of the current problem with computing (bits using 0's and 1's) rather then quantum computing which uses 0's and 1's and everything between (infinite).
"RANDOM.ORG offers true random numbers to anyone on the Internet. The randomness comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number algorithms typically used in computer programs."
Verbatim from the site.
Quote: JoeSnowThat is not true randomness.
The software Dr Haahr uses to produce random numbers or sequences follows a number of rules set in place. The only difference is, Haahr's software has a much more complicated programming using Atmospheric noise captured by radios.
It even explains on Random.org that it's pseudo randomness because of the current problem with computing (bits using 0's and 1's) rather then quantum computing which uses 0's and 1's and everything between (infinite).
Hopefully, your method is much more random then random.org.. right?
Or do you just go on random.org and generate a random number and if it's even, you bet on banker, odd is player?
To answer your question, I use a plethora of random generators. Combined with a certain method. Which is an ever changing variable.
Quote: letswinTo answer your question, I use a plethora of random generators. Combined with a certain method. Which is an ever changing variable.
So what you mean to say is, even you don't believe Random.org is truly random, since if it was truly random, you won't have to add more layers to chance variables.
Quote: letswin"RANDOM.ORG offers true random numbers to anyone on the Internet. The randomness comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number algorithms typically used in computer programs."
Verbatim from the site.
Go to the analysis section on random.org and on there you can read that random.org is just a better version of currently existing RNG generators and can't actually prove that it is truly random.
Again, if anyone can create a method of true randomness and can prove it, they would be winning every science award created the next day. Dr. Haahr obviously can't prove it, since if he can, his face would be plastered everywhere in every science journal in the world.
Quote: JoeSnowSo what you mean to say is, even you don't believe Random.org is truly random, since if it was truly random, you won't have to add more layers to chance variables.
I do believe random.org is truly random, but, you have to add more layers, in order to keep your bets from being apart of a previously established pattern.
Quote: letswinTo answer your question, I use a plethora of random generators. Combined with a certain method. Which is an ever changing variable.
LOL! No you don't. You're so knowledgeable
about this, you thought I was giving you a
compliment when I said you were winning
right at the house edge. LOL again..
Quote: letswinI do believe random.org is truly random, but, you have to add more layers, in order to keep your bets from being apart of a previously established pattern.
If you add layers to a truly random number generator, then it actually loses its' integrity, and in itself becomes "less" random. How can your bets be an established pattern of non-randomness, if you are using a "true" random number generator?
Quote: JoeSnowSo what you mean to say is, even you don't believe Random.org is truly random, since if it was truly random, you won't have to add more layers to chance variables.
Go to the analysis section on random.org and on there you can read that random.org is just a better version of currently existing RNG generators and can't actually prove that it is truly random.
Again, if anyone can create a method of true randomness and can prove it, they would be winning every science award created the next day. Dr. Haahr obviously can't prove it, since if he can, his face would be plastered everywhere in every science journal in the world.
I won't argue this with you. It is pointless to argue what a person or persons feels or believes, certain individuals will or will not do, based on what they can or cannot accomplish. It is nonsense to suggest there is an absolute to what actions a person will or will not take based on various variables. It really is. However, I will say, the randomness offered here at random.org, is definitely, more close to true randomness than baccarat will ever be. Which is why true randomness, if used properly, can beat it.
Quote: letswinOk. Please, read what I post before responding. Dublinbet offers free play there, where you can bet with free money against their live shoes. It's a really unique way to test your system/systems against live dealt cards. They have a camera showing the cards being dealt, so you at least know your testing is done against real shoes. I would suggest someone to go there to TEST their methods out against live shoes with the FREE money account only. No way would I EVER myself, or suggest for ANYONE to use real money at any online casino.
Second, I have generated $500k in my free money account. At any time, anyone can have the account information and log in and see this for themselves.
Third, I already stated more than once why I'm here. To share my experiences (winning) and to give people who do gamble playing baccarat (and probably lose) information and advice about creating systems and the best theory to apply when creating one.
Taking a day or a few hours out of my time to do this service here? For free? In no way means that any of my claims are bogus, or that I have some sort of alternative motive. I have stated countless times that I am not interested in partners, investments, to sell my system, to recruit anyone. I get it though. To close minded, negative people, it's really hard to believe anyone would do what I'm doing. And perhaps, one day (when you're successful), people such as yourself will reflect on how and why someone such as myself would do what I am doing. I have lost $100,000s of dollars playing baccarat and finally created something that works. Won all my money back plus a fortune more. I would be SELFISH if I wouldn't do what I'm doing.
However, I will never reveal my PERSONAL working method. But, the theory I have given away, is SOUND and will allow ANYONE who puts work into to create a system that works for them and either changes their life for good? Or allows them to at least win back all or at least most, of the money they've lost to casinos!
Possibly? Even stop them from LOSING any money...as I suggest ENDLESS Amounts of testing before EVER betting a real $1.
.
In that case I must ask the mods if I can change my name to letswinWithAxelWolf, I generated over 26 million in My Ellis Island free money account using my system and it only took minutes. I didn't start out as a big loser. I never once got behind. EI chips might actually be worth something(doubtful very much ). It only took me $5000 chippies(although they gave more to start out with, I didn't need it). Anyone can get an account log in and see this for themselves.
So look no further everybody. I WILL reveal my PERSONAL working method to the right people. Unless you want to lose 500k and spend ENDLESS hours first learning and developing a inferior method of you'r own( from someone who himself lost a fortune and was asking for help just a short time ago)
Quote: JoeSnowIf you add layers to a truly random number generator, then it actually loses its' integrity, and in itself becomes "less" random. How can your bets be an established pattern of non-randomness, if you are using a "true" random number generator?
Just straight random, will only increase your odds slightly. Or, better put, make your bets truly 50/50. Which is still a negative expectancy since banker in baccarat wins slightly more than player and gets charged a commission.
You have to do better than that.
Quote: letswinI won't argue this with you. It is pointless to argue what a person or persons feels or believes, certain individuals will or will not do, based on what they can or cannot accomplish. It is nonsense to suggest there is an absolute to what actions a person will or will not take based on various variables. It really is. However, I will say, the randomness offered here at random.org, is definitely, more close to true randomness than baccarat will ever be. Which is why true randomness, if used properly, can beat it.
I'm not trying to argue, and I would LOVE for a certain individual like yourself to devise a strategy to win at Bac and share it with everyone on this forum like you claim you are doing.
What I'm doing is debunking what you say one by one, so if your system truly works, we can both shoo away the naysayers who claim your method isn't logical.
So essentially, I'm helping you. Do you disagree with this logic?
Quote: letswinJust straight random, will only increase your odds slightly. Or, better put, make your bets truly 50/50. Which is still a negative expectancy since banker in baccarat wins slightly more than player and gets charged a commission.
You have to do better than that.
Seems you edited your post.
So you are admitting that random.org isn't truly random. But, you adding in different layers will make something MORE random which will give you an even closer randomness to "true randomness" you can possibly achieve. Which in turn, will increase your odds.
Do you see where your logic fails or do you want me to explain it to you?
It's called playing the macau way.
Quote: JoeSnowI'm not trying to argue, and I would LOVE for a certain individual like yourself to devise a strategy to win at Bac and share it with everyone on this forum like you claim you are doing.
What I'm doing is debunking what you say one by one, so if your system truly works, we can both shoo away the naysayers who claim your method isn't logical.
So essentially, I'm helping you. Do you disagree with this logic?
Naysayers are apart of the environment I suppose, so I will just let them be.
However, there is no way you can debunk what I'm saying by simply conversing with me about it.
I'm sharing my theory, not the method itself. A person will have to open their mind and then put in the work like I did and create their own method.
Quote: sc15I got a system to beat baccarat.
It's called playing the macau way.
you mean cheating? In Macau they sell little calculators disguised as phones that help you count the game. lol I guess its kinda old news now since cellphones are no longer permitted at the table.
Quote: nickolay411you mean cheating? In Macau they sell little calculators disguised as phones that help you count the game. lol I guess its kinda old news now since cellphones are no longer permitted at the table.
No
"Recently, a number of Asian groups have socially engineered casino management into altering the house procedure for dealing mini baccarat. The group will approach an executive host or marketing manager and request the cards be dealt the "Macau" way. This technique requires that the casino uses cards that have problems with their edge cut patterns. The players manipulate the dealer into turning the cards in a desired manner which sorts the cut patterns into two groups (9 thru 6 & 5 thru 0). The sorting of these cut patterns creates a situation similar to playing marked cards. To enhance their advantage, the players convince management to allow them to place wagers after the cards are dealt from the shoe, but face down and unexposed on the layout. Allowing the players to sort the cut patterns, and in a later shoes, wager while the sorted card backs are exposed, gives the players an approximate 21% advantage."
Edge sorting is a legal play if you find a casino dumb enough to let you do this.
We Already had a Gr8player share his theories but not his method. He to lost 100s of thousands until he finally learned how to use self disciple, money management and zen to beat bac.Quote: letswinNaysayers are apart of the environment I suppose, so I will just let them be.
However, there is no way you can debunk what I'm saying by simply conversing with me about it.
I'm sharing my theory, not the method itself. A person will have to open their mind and then put in the work like I did and create their own method.
The real money came only after he learned how to harness the secret powers of the great falls(there's something in the water, just mix it with your cool-aid).
No need for your help, my deal is far better than yours. Besides I'm up over 20 million in FC and I show 100% of my method.
Quote: sc15No
You could have just said the Phil Ivey way. For some reason I am surprised this was allowed in Macau. There's a scam a minute there and they're usually pretty on top of shit. Minus the whole bring in your own card shuffler mishap lol.
85 replies on a betting system post in a day! You really hit the nerve of the "trollpost hungry and needless debate crowd" on the forum. Maybe now it is time to request an admin to close this thread, seems to me you got the word out!
which is good.
1....the vast majority of gamblers would love some way to win where they don't have to
be able to do anything
2.....I think most serious gamblers are reasonably intelligent people and the idea that you can
have totally random bets which some how are more directed than just flipping a coin is
a silly concept. Any bet that is not 100% unrelated to anything else is not random.
Now I think that is great if some one finds a way to win at anything at the casino, fantastic
but any way, system, idea what ever you want to call it that is used over and over is....not random
dicesetter
*First, a fun fact: You can not generate a proven completely random number, as stated by others in this thread.
I'm a computer engineer. I programmed a simulation to get a random number though an API from the site random.org. I also programmed my own random number generator (not all that hard to do). After that I used the system function rand() to generate yet another random number. I used all of these in combination to be even one level of random pass what I believe you've posted thus far, and then got yet another number from random.org to be the deciding factor on if I should trust the initial result or switch.
I ran a simulation for 500 million shoes. I was down almost exactly the house edge listed in baccarat.
Your random system is flawed. If there's any way you try to say I wasn't "random" enough then your "system" is entirely too complicated as I pulled 4 numbers as randomly as known to the human race.
Quote: letswinWell, what I am suggesting, is that baccarat randomness, is random enough to make you a loser if your bet selection and reason for betting has any kind of pattern. However, since baccarat has rules, and limited card values, ....unlike true randomness, which has no, and never will have, any bias, ...true randomness can beat the pseudo random environment of baccarat.
My theory sounds crazy, but it works. It works really well.
This is nonsensical and obviously false. Say I have a game there are two cards in a deck red and black you can bet on either one and will win if you guess correctly. All cards are dealt out of this deck so you technically know with 100 percent certainty what your second bet should be. This game pays .95 to 1 . So basically 5 percent commision off every bet.
So in a sequence you can bet one of 4 sequences
black: black
black: red
red: red
red: black
Say the deck is black then red and you bet 100 dollars on each bet. If you bet black red you win 190 dollars. If you bet red black you lose 200 and the other two sequences cause a loss of 10 dollars. So clearly you are losing at this simple game by betting randomly even though it is only a pseudo random game.
Quote: RomesOkay letswin, here you go:
*First, a fun fact: You can not generate a proven completely random number, as stated by others in this thread.
I'm a computer engineer. I programmed a simulation to get a random number though an API from the site random.org. I also programmed my own random number generator (not all that hard to do). After that I used the system function rand() to generate yet another random number. I used all of these in combination to be even one level of random pass what I believe you've posted thus far, and then got yet another number from random.org to be the deciding factor on if I should trust the initial result or switch.
I ran a simulation for 500 million shoes. I was down almost exactly the house edge listed in baccarat.
Your random system is flawed. If there's any way you try to say I wasn't "random" enough then your "system" is entirely too complicated as I pulled 4 numbers as randomly as known to the human race.
I don't know why the effort put into proving certain things I have said here is wrong is stronger than focusing on the main topic of this discussion.
That argument to whether or not random.org is true randomness or not is irrelevant. However, random.org is about as close to true randomness as you can get. Accepting the fact (which I never stated otherwise, .....reason for why I don't understand the energy being put into such a pointless side discussion) that random.org is not even 100% true randomness, if you must accept that.
Anyway, what you're missing is accepting the reality that baccarat in itself is not as random as a true rng. And because of that, you are not creating the proper "method" or "random trigger".
I shared my experience, and presented a very sound theory. Hopefully, someone can have the same success as I did.
Quote: TwirdmanThis is nonsensical and obviously false. Say I have a game there are two cards in a deck red and black you can bet on either one and will win if you guess correctly. All cards are dealt out of this deck so you technically know with 100 percent certainty what your second bet should be. This game pays .95 to 1 . So basically 5 percent commision off every bet.
So in a sequence you can bet one of 4 sequences
black: black
black: red
red: red
red: black
Say the deck is black then red and you bet 100 dollars on each bet. If you bet black red you win 190 dollars. If you bet red black you lose 200 and the other two sequences cause a loss of 10 dollars. So clearly you are losing at this simple game by betting randomly even though it is only a pseudo random game.
I'd be more than happy to pit my method up against any baccarat game or simulation. I want nothing in return for winning, accept people realizing my theory works.
lol I am accepting baccarat is not 100% random, that's a given considering people have tried to count cards in it for a long time now. How on Earth can you tell me I'm not accepting that?
You did indeed share your experience and present your theory. Then upon YOUR suggestion I tested your theory with more layers of random than you even discussed only to find the theory did not hold up. Then, I reported my findings.
Why are you being so negative and closed minded about my findings?
Quote: RomesWhy are you being so negative and closed minded about my findings?
This is the part I find hard to understand.... if I have a random source, and multiply it by more random, I end up with random. But if I multiply it by a known, non-random value, I don't create 'more random'.
Random is a black and white state. It's also hard to prove a source is random. But you can make a good guess on the likelihood of a string being actually random in a relatively short space of time given a bit-stream.
Quote: letswinOk. Please, read what I post before responding. Dublinbet offers free play there, where you can bet with free money against their live shoes. It's a really unique way to test your system/systems against live dealt cards. They have a camera showing the cards being dealt, so you at least know your testing is done against real shoes. I would suggest someone to go there to TEST their methods out against live shoes with the FREE money account only. No way would I EVER myself, or suggest for ANYONE to use real money at any online casino.
Second, I have generated $500k in my free money account. At any time, anyone can have the account information and log in and see this for themselves.
I downloaded a blackjack program from somewhere, I forget where, that was published by a a group that had a counting team. It was accompanied by a book on counting and strategy. It was a pretty good program.
Users being who they are, and because it wasn't real money, I decided to have some fun. I bet max bet every time, I split 10s; actually I split any pair. I doubled on just about everything. I pretty much ignored "basic strategy"... hell, I ignored strategy. I just bet whatever the hell I wanted to. Starting with $1000, I got that sucker up to well over $1 million.
So, that's my advice for beating blackjack. Bet whatever the hell you want to, split everything, double any time you think it would be fun. You'll turn $1000 into well over $1,000,000.
I'm not making that up; I really did that with the fake money blackjack program. The difference is 1) I didn't think it was remarkable enough to mention it here, and 2) I am not deluded enough to think that it will work, because see #1. Strange stuff happens all the time. After it has already happened, it can't be used to predict the future. No one has the stupidity to make those bets with real money, but there is a reality in which those bets produce well over $1,000,000 in wins. You can search for it with your own (real) dollars, if you want to.
Quote: RomesI wasn't trying to prove you wrong, I was taking your advice and running the simulations to test your theory. All I was doing was reporting my results, that your theory is most clearly flawed (with simulation evidence).
lol I am accepting baccarat is not 100% random, that's a given considering people have tried to count cards in it for a long time now. How on Earth can you tell me I'm not accepting that?
You did indeed share your experience and present your theory. Then upon YOUR suggestion I tested your theory with more layers of random than you even discussed only to find the theory did not hold up. Then, I reported my findings.
Why are you being so negative and closed minded about my findings?[/q
No, I don't mean to be negative or close minded about your findings. That wasn't my point in my response. If that's how it came off, however, I apologize.
I was simply stating, that why did you and few other members, decide to argue with me whether or not random.org was true randomness or not? When it clearly states, verbatim, on the first page of the website, that it is as close as humans are going to get so far in our evolution. In the known world. So that was pretty much a pointless side discussion. My point was, all the energy being put towards silly side discussions, when we can just stay focused on the topic.
Also, you aren't having the same results as I would, if it was my method, because you are missing a link.
Quote: letswinI'd be more than happy to pit my method up against any baccarat game or simulation. I want nothing in return for winning, accept people realizing my theory works.
Where do you live? How about we each pay half to get me to where you live and stay at a hotel overnight. I then watch you play. If you win every shoe like you say you do, I pay you back for your half of the expenses and the trip is at my cost and I report back to everyone that you were completely right. If you do not win every shoe as you say you do, you pay my half of the expenses and the full trip is on you. The money would be deposited with a third party who would disburse the money to the winner.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13Where do you live? How about we each pay half to get me to where you live and stay at a hotel overnight. I then watch you play. If you win every shoe like you say you do, I pay you back for your half of the expenses and the trip is at my cost and I report back to everyone that you were completely right. If you do not win every shoe as you say you do, you pay my half of the expenses and the full trip is on you. The money would be deposited with a third party who would disburse the money to the winner.
ZCore13
That's not what I'm here for. I'm not here to prove anything. Just share my experience and present a sound theory. I don't know how many times I have to say that. If I had intentions to prove something, that would, typically, also mean, I hope to gain something tangible or monetary. Which I don't.
However, I will be traveling to atlantic city to play in 3 months. I'll tell you what day I'll be there and what time. If you want to watch me play? You're more than welcome. I'll share with you what I'm wearing, what table I'm sitting at, and you'll be able to watch me play. I'll be with my wife. She'll be the most beautiful woman there. :)
Quote: letswinThat's not what I'm here for. I'm not here to prove anything. Just share my experience and present a sound theory. I don't know how many times I have to say that. If I had intentions to prove something, that would, typically, also mean, I hope to gain something tangible or monetary. Which I don't.
However, I will be traveling to atlantic city to play in 3 months. I'll tell you what day I'll be there and what time. If you want to watch me play? You're more than welcome. I'll share with you what I'm wearing, what table I'm sitting at, and you'll be able to watch me play. I'll be with my wife. She'll be the most beautiful woman there. :)
That's ok that you don't want to prove anything. I'm good with that. I'm also good with your sharing your experience. The problem is, it is not a sound theory. You can not win every shoe with play as your described. No chance on earth. You also can not even win half the shoes you play over the long term. Your randomness can not overcome this or any negative expectation game.
Congrats on having the most beautiful woman. I have one of those too. :)
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13That's ok that you don't want to prove anything. I'm good with that. I'm also good with your sharing your experience. The problem is, it is not a sound theory. You can not win every shoe with play as your described. No chance on earth. You also can not even win half the shoes you play over the long term. Your randomness can not overcome this or any negative expectation game.
Congrats on having the most beautiful woman. I have one of those too. :)
ZCore13
Well, it's like I said. I will be in atlantic city 3 months from now. Should you stay firm to your belief, you are more than welcome to come see me play and be proven other wise. If not, thanks for the congrats! :)
