Kevin Trudeau's new baccarat system
Quote: MrSupermanIs that better haha or will that still get me in trouble lol
I'm fine with it but I'm not in charge. Depending on their moods they could try to "get" you with Forum Rule one. Check out all the forum rules to see just how this site is run and what is expected. Don't complain about them like I do. They don't like that. :-)
While you're there, check out the Suspension List as well. Happy reading!
Quote: thecesspitBut the system doesn't 'know' this is a good set or a bad set. It starts each time and you may have a run that wins or a run the loses. There's no memory. Every time you play you have a chance of being wiped out.
That's a different question... whats my risk of ruin? What's my chance of doubling my bank roll? These are good questions to ask on a system... and once you've done a few of those you realize it's all much the same in the end. You tweak the chance of ruin down, and increase the time to double bank roll.
I could code it, but it's just not that interesting to do it anymore, and writing code for others tends to be a thankless task when modelling betting systems. Either you 'got it wrong' or 'used the wrong codes, man, I'm trying it anyway'.
Thank you so much if you write a code to test it out, I have very little basic knowledge of code but these are the rules of the system(knowing it would fail in the end but the rusult we want is to see how long the system would last)
The betting sequence is 8-15-35-60-20-20
You only play in the beginning of each shoe playing for 4 dollars or for up to 40 hands whatever comes first, so an example would be
First shoe
BBPPPB
You only win that first banker and then you stop because you just won 7.60 dollars and your only going for 4 dollars, if you were to dip at after 4 players in a row then you would keep playing til either 4 dollars or til hand 40 whatever comes first
Doubling the betting system is risky because you have more chance to lose all of your bankrolls, 1580 equals 158 * 10 which I have been told 10 bankrolls is save enough but I would keep even safer
Quote: 1BBI'm fine with it but I'm not in charge. Depending on their moods they could try to "get" you with Forum Rule one. Check out all the forum rules to see just how this site is run and what is expected. Don't complain about them like I do. They don't like that. :-)
While you're there, check out the Suspension List as well. Happy reading!
I saw it. Took one of my typical respites knowing the thread wasn't done, to see what happened next. It appears a Blue (you?) got it back on track.
Quote: FaceI saw it. Took one of my typical respites knowing the thread wasn't done, to see what happened next. It appears a Blue (you?) got it back on track.
Yeah, the guy just wants to talk about something that's important to him, important enough to join the forum and get a little razzing. He's been a pretty good sport about it. No harm no foul?
Break the problem up into small pieces and write code to do just that small piece.
Some examples,
Write code to generate random cards. Watch that you seed your pseudo-random number generator correctly so that hou don't make the same sequence over and over again.
Then, generate a valid deck of cards in random order. Then, a valid random shoe of multiple decks.
It would be helpful to write automated tests of your code to check if you are making valid shoes.
After that, you can write a program that plays baccarat with the random shoes.
Once all of that is done, you can test different betting systems, try to analyze streaks, etc.
It isn't a trivial task, if but broken into small, testable pieces it can be a great learning experience.
Quote: MrSupermanThank you so much if you write a code to test it out, I have very little basic knowledge of code but these are the rules of the system(knowing it would fail in the end but the rusult we want is to see how long the system would last)
I said I could code it, but won't be doing that unless you are offering a per hour wage. It's not that interesting to me any more, I have better things to do with my spare time than unpaid labour on Trudeau's BS. It is a worth while task to try it yourself.... you'll learn lots. I did when playing with other VP systems.
That's because its absolutely insanely ludicrous to think there's any merit to . No one rational would want to mention this guys name and system.Quote: MrSupermanI've looked around on this site and no one mentions this system
He claims people have made 100's or millions using this system and you will win everyday 10 units minimum per shoe.
Can anyone truly be that gullible?
[Find your own damn link to that, or sue me.]Quote: Title of douchebag's current cheesy scam siteKevin Trudeau Free Money - As Seen On TV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_TrudeauQuote: WikipediaKevin Mark Trudeau (/truːˈdoʊ/; born February 6, 1963) is an American author, radio personality, infomercial host, salesman and convicted fraudster who has promoted various unsubstantiated health, diet and financial remedies. Several of his books, including Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You to Know About, allege that both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the pharmaceutical industry value profit over treatments or cures. He is currently incarcerated at Federal Prison Camp Montgomery, near Montgomery, Alabama, and is scheduled for release on July 18, 2022.
Trudeau's activities have been the subject of both criminal and civil action. He was convicted of larceny and credit card fraud in the early 1990s, and in 1998 he was...
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-03-17/business/chi-kevin-trudeau-sentenced-20140317_1_kevin-trudeau-global-information-network-guzmanQuote: Chicago TribuneTV pitchman Kevin Trudeau sentenced to 10 years in prison
Mar 17, 2014 - When TV huckster Kevin Trudeau stood in a packed federal courtroom to make one final sales pitch Monday, he hardly resembled the tanned, ...
So the answer would have to be: "Yes, people are that gullible. Still. And probably will stay that way, as long as there are people." I wonder, if your health, investment, gambling system expert is currently doing a ten year hitch in federal lockup, would that possibly be kind of a bad omen of some sort?
And really you shouldn't (or just vaguely) because as soon as you hear him talking you realize he is full of it and you tune him out.Quote: DrawingDeadSomehow I had never heard of this Kevin Trudeau goofball.
It's like seeing a gypsy lady walking towards you in a Wal-Mart parking lot saying, "excuse me I just need......" Me, "NO THANKS, I didn't need any money."
Quote: MrSupermanThank you so much if you write a code to test it out, I have very little basic knowledge of code but these are the rules of the system(knowing it would fail in the end but the rusult we want is to see how long the system would last)
The betting sequence is 8-15-35-60-20-20
You only play in the beginning of each shoe playing for 4 dollars or for up to 40 hands whatever comes first, so an example would be
First shoe
BBPPPB
You only win that first banker and then you stop because you just won 7.60 dollars and your only going for 4 dollars, if you were to dip at after 4 players in a row then you would keep playing til either 4 dollars or til hand 40 whatever comes first
Doubling the betting system is risky because you have more chance to lose all of your bankrolls, 1580 equals 158 * 10 which I have been told 10 bankrolls is save enough but I would keep even safer
So you just answered your own question right there. If you lose your progression you lose $158 and how many $4 (or $7.60) wins does it take to make that amount back? The answer is too many! I've personally tried many different system variations and you will hit that losing streak again and again before making up the loses. If you really want to test this personally just make yourself a scorecard and track as many shoes as you want on the free baccarat simulator at wizardofodds.com. I have a stack of papers with shoes I've recorded. One shoe you'll make a killing and the next you'll get decimated or it will stay somewhere in the middle but either way your bankroll will be steadily declining.
Quote: MrSupermanHas anyone tried Kevin Trudeau's new baccarat system? I've been trying to find a free simulator or was hopeing to have the wizard give me some answers, but playing for 1 win in the very beginning of each shoe only betting banker playing only to win 4 units/ 4 dollars if you dip you keep playing till either you make that 4 dollars or til hand 40 and stop that shoe the betting sequence is
8-15-35-60-20-20, this is 1 unit = 1 dollar.. I'm hopeing the wizard will give this a try thank you
Also, if you don't mind me asking how did you get ahold of this "cutting edge system"?
Are you a GIN member (or former)?
I was under the impression you had to be a "GIN LEVEL 6" or above, which is like a 30-50k investment? (plus 150 dollars a month continuing membership fee)?
There are two reasons why we don't test your system, the way you *think* it needs to be tested:
(1) Anyone with a basic understanding of probability can do the math to see that it doesn't work in their heads.
Let me give you an example. Say your challenge is to pick any four U.S. coins of 25¢ denomination or less, and have the total be over $1. In my head I can see that's impossible. It would be *pointless* to program a Monte Carlo simulation and have a computer play millions or billions of rounds trying to do something that we already know is futile.
Stop right there, I can see you protesting "But we don't know that my baccarat system is futile!" No. *You* might not know it's futile, but most of us do. We're watching someone not only trying to make four small coins exceed $1, but also insisting that the idea has to be tested before it's proven wrong. That's why we're all groaning.
(2) The idea that you have to test something to disprove it sounds very noble and scientific, but there are in *infinite* number of ideas that can be tested by making irrelevant tweaks, and it's imposible to test everything. It's definitely proper to discard ideas that we already know don't work, otherwise we could be testing worthless ideas full-time. For example: If someone proposes that humans can fly by flapping their arms, and we test that and show that it's not true, someone could come along and say: Oh, did you test it in October? Because you tested it in February but it might work in October. Then if we test in October and it fails, someone else could say, Oh, but it might work if you wore a green shirt, because you wore a red shirt when you were testing.
Your basic idea has been tested *to death*, for decades, by mathematicians and programmers (even though it's easy enough to see *in your head* that it doesn't work if you paid attention to the probability lessons in middle school). Changing the specific numbers in the progression makes no difference. It's like asking me to test again while wearing a different shirt color.
Here's a way to think about it: Say we play a game where you bet a dollar on the flip of a coin, heads you win, tails you lose. Every time you lose I take your dollar, but every time you win I pay you only 90¢. It should be easy enough to see that you can't win at this game. So it should be easy enough to see that it doesn't matter if you sometimes bet different amounts, if you're going to get only 90¢ on the dollar every time you win.
Perhaps your problem is that you think you're more or less likely to win based on whether you won or lost previous rounds? That mistake is known as the Gambler's Fallacy, and it's been well-understood for centuries.
Finally, there's a way to get me to program a test: Accept my Betting System Challenge, where you put up $1000, and if your system actuall works then I pay you $10,000. (Or you can challenge with $3000, and I'll pay $30,000 if you're right.) I've offered this challenge for years and no one's accepted. That ought to tell you something.
Quote: MichaelBluejayI've offered this challenge for years and no one's accepted. That ought to tell you something.
Ha! Kevin Trudeau was going to clean you out and the "dream-killer" establishment people threw him in jail before he could! Can't you see there is a conspiracy?
Quote: richbailey86Probably cured cancer naturally and the fda freaked because the pharma companies would go bankrupt
Actually he has a better chance of curing cancer than winning with this system.
Quote: MichaelBluejayMrSuperman:
There are two reasons why we don't test your system, the way you *think* it needs to be tested:
(1) Anyone with a basic understanding of probability can do the math to see that it doesn't work in their heads.
Let me give you an example. Say your challenge is to pick any four U.S. coins of 25¢ denomination or less, and have the total be over $1. In my head I can see that's impossible. It would be *pointless* to program a Monte Carlo simulation and have a computer play millions or billions of rounds trying to do something that we already know is futile.
Stop right there, I can see you protesting "But we don't know that my baccarat system is futile!" No. *You* might not know it's futile, but most of us do. We're watching someone not only trying to make four small coins exceed $1, but also insisting that the idea has to be tested before it's proven wrong. That's why we're all groaning.
(2) The idea that you have to test something to disprove it sounds very noble and scientific, but there are in *infinite* number of ideas that can be tested by making irrelevant tweaks, and it's imposible to test everything. It's definitely proper to discard ideas that we already know don't work, otherwise we could be testing worthless ideas full-time. For example: If someone proposes that humans can fly by flapping their arms, and we test that and show that it's not true, someone could come along and say: Oh, did you test it in October? Because you tested it in February but it might work in October. Then if we test in October and it fails, someone else could say, Oh, but it might work if you wore a green shirt, because you wore a red shirt when you were testing.
Your basic idea has been tested *to death*, for decades, by mathematicians and programmers (even though it's easy enough to see *in your head* that it doesn't work if you paid attention to the probability lessons in middle school). Changing the specific numbers in the progression makes no difference. It's like asking me to test again while wearing a different shirt color.
Here's a way to think about it: Say we play a game where you bet a dollar on the flip of a coin, heads you win, tails you lose. Every time you lose I take your dollar, but every time you win I pay you only 90¢. It should be easy enough to see that you can't win at this game. So it should be easy enough to see that it doesn't matter if you sometimes bet different amounts, if you're going to get only 90¢ on the dollar every time you win.
Perhaps your problem is that you think you're more or less likely to win based on whether you won or lost previous rounds? That mistake is known as the Gambler's Fallacy, and it's been well-understood for centuries.
Finally, there's a way to get me to program a test: Accept my Betting System Challenge, where you put up $1000, and if your system actuall works then I pay you $10,000. (Or you can challenge with $3000, and I'll pay $30,000 if you're right.) I've offered this challenge for years and no one's accepted. That ought to tell you something.
Ditto. Thats what i immediately thout about op's request. To hell with wasting my time running sims when i already know the results.
Quote: zalemdelete
Aw, go ahead and put it back. You don't want delete as your first post.
The hot streak you see is all in the pastQuote: Dicenor33Bac and craps are the only games on the casino floor, which might have hot streaks. You need a multi table joint to spot one. If you'll ever come across one, you should bet everything you got, because it's your only chance.
Quote: Dicenor33Bac and craps are the only games on the casino floor, which might have hot streaks. You need a multi table joint to spot one. If you'll ever come across one, you should bet everything you got, because it's your only chance.
Really? Roulette never has 'hot streaks'? casino War? Video Poker? What's special about Craps and Bac that gives it hot streaks more than other games of chance?
Nothing, and as Mickey says, hot streaks are all in the rear view mirror.
Its just a complicated variation of gamblers fallacy, often used by seasoned gamblers. Guys who know they cannot argue with math, but still have the need to find a way to explain all the crazy stuff they see. They want it to be true, I highly doubt the actually keep exact records ( sure its fun but it's not an advantage). They will even make excuses why not to log a session. The dealer messed with the dice, someone messed up the flow, someone hit 16 vs dealers 4 etc etc.
This merits an honorary degree from somewhere. Seriously, this distills chapters of academic psych verbiage published as peer reviewed research by tenure track educrat drones into plain potent language. Congrats, with no snark intended. Really. For a charitable public service, save and repost weekly, lather rinse repeat as needed.Quote: AxelWolfIts just a complicated variation of gamblers fallacy, often used by seasoned gamblers. Guys who know they cannot argue with math, but still have the need to find a way to explain all the crazy stuff they see. They want it to be true, I highly doubt the actually keep exact records ( sure its fun but it's not an advantage). They will even make excuses why not to log a session. The dealer messed with the dice, someone messed up the flow, someone hit 16 vs dealers 4 etc etc.
Quote: DrawingDeadThis merits an honorary degree from somewhere. Seriously, this distills chapters of academic psych verbiage published as peer reviewed research by tenure track educrat drones into plain potent language. Congrats, with no snark intended. Really. For a charitable public service, save and repost weekly, lather rinse repeat as needed.
I actually doze off while I'm gambling. I did all the thinking up front. To I have to put myself through the misery of the time it takes to get the money
Its why i play everything on turbo.
Quote: AxelWolfPredicting hot And cold streaks is easy, your going to be right a certain percentage of time.
Its just a complicated variation of gamblers fallacy, often used by seasoned gamblers. Guys who know they cannot argue with math, but still have the need to find a way to explain all the crazy stuff they see. They want it to be true, I highly doubt the actually keep exact records ( sure its fun but it's not an advantage). They will even make excuses why not to log a session. The dealer messed with the dice, someone messed up the flow, someone hit 16 vs dealers 4 etc etc.
Great post. We (humans) are programmed to look for patterns, and will do anything to prove a pattern to ourself. That is one reason betting systems are so popular since the orgins of gambling. When something violates the pattern we will stretch our neck out to convince ourself it was not part of the pattern or there is some higher reason that it happened. People need patterns, a major weakness in the modern world.
Quote: Gandler We (humans) are programmed to look for patterns, and will do anything to prove a pattern to ourself...People need patterns, a major weakness in the modern world.[/q
Yes, Patternicity
"people believe weird things because of our evolved need to believe nonweird things.""What, me worry?"
