I've Beaten Baccarat and published the code in a book on Amazon
Quote: BFevBBWCev = 0.721 units per 10 shoes as he asked for, i though he could at least see the strategy makes 150 units per year minimum. If i made a spelling mistake my bad, i meant edge "over" the house, i calculate wins compared to losses as a percentage. If i show u my stuff, then there would be no need to buy the book. Sir you cant test drive a car without driving it, you cant review a book without buying it.Quote: OnceDearQuote: BFevBBWCYou want me to speak in pre-existing terms. That's not going to happen. Where's your code? "Thats all i needed to hear", see how that game works.Quote: DRichQuote: BFevBBWCQuote: DRich
Interesting. What is the expected EV if I play through 10 shoes of baccarat?
link to original post
I know nothing of EV. The edge of the house is 220% over infinite shoes. Im sure you can work out the EV.
link to original post
LOL. That is all I needed to hear.
link to original post
link to original post
BFev, Maybe you are a skilled programmer and or mathematician, but EV is THE fundamental heart and soul of any system. That you are not familiar with that term reveals that you are not even close to writing in the same language as your target audience.
"The edge of the house is 220%"!?!? What does that mean. If the edge of the house means 'The house edge' then if the house edge is > 0, you have a losing system. If the house edge is 220%, then for every dollar you wager, you lose $2.20 !!
If you mean the edge over the house, then for every $1 wagered, you expect to win $2.20 profit. That's impressive since Baccarat only pays $2 unless you are somehow wagering on the tie or a side bet.
Why have you directed us to your book on amazon? If you want us to evaluate your stuff, show us your stuff: Don't show us where we can buy your stuff.
Dieter saying 'He felt less helpful than usual' is noteworthy. He's tasked with removing spammers and system sellers from this forum. Seems to imply your presence is being tolerated, but that's all.
[edit]
I watched your videos. One of 7.40 where you noted the outcome of some hands.... You never placed a wager, so what was that trying to show.The other video showing bankroll growth and ~220% edge. Confirmed you don't know what edge means.
Again I ask, how do we review your book without buying it?
link to original post
link to original post
200% edge over house cannot be reconciled. Wins compared to losses as a percentage? so 200% =W/L : Wins = 200% x Losses. : Two wins for every loss. But you only manage to make 0.721 units over 10 shoes or about 300 hands observed?
You must observe a heck of a number of hands per wager placed.
Oh. And you can test drive a car without buying it, so why mention that?
Anyhow. I'm out. As Gordon infers, this will be another train wreck of a thread
Of course saying your system works with continuous shuffle machines shows that it’s a fallacy.
Oh wait it’s only for online? lol
On a side note I think at the least this post should be deleted as it’s marketing spam and at most you banned.
On a double side note, is WOV now advertising their forums to mental wards? This dude is clearly not 100 percent.
Quote: SlotenthusiastEven if you did somehow figure out how to beat baccarat with “code” you’d never be able to use it in a live casino setting without breaking the law. Unless of course you were on the rainman level spectrum. And even in that case you wouldn’t be functional enough to play at a table.
Of course saying your system works with continuous shuffle machines shows that it’s a fallacy.
Oh wait it’s only for online? lol
On a side note I think at the least this post should be deleted as it’s marketing spam and at most you banned.
On a double side note, is WOV now advertising their forums to mental wards? This dude is clearly not 100 percent.
link to original post
3 days for personal insult
Quote: MDawgHe writes that "using a continuous shuffling machine won't stop it" - in that case, whatever he is up to, has nothing to do with the advantage plays I utilize.
link to original post
I hadn't seen that, so I guess it was in his amazon description. If he does assert that, then his code is a non-starter. He's analysing previous hands against a CS? We are into the LaLa land of reading random. Oh I do so wish to read Wizard's review of this book. Wizard is kind and caring, so it will take some diplomacy on his part to give a frank review.
My simulator uses a continuous shuffle. Or should i say it draws cards at random, every shoe it creates is still a genuine shoe. Either way the strategy cant be stopped.Quote: SlotenthusiastEven if you did somehow figure out how to beat baccarat with “code” you’d never be able to use it in a live casino setting without breaking the law. Unless of course you were on the rainman level spectrum. And even in that case you wouldn’t be functional enough to play at a table.
Of course saying your system works with continuous shuffle machines shows that it’s a fallacy.
Oh wait it’s only for online? lol
On a side note I think at the least this post should be deleted as it’s marketing spam and at most you banned.
On a double side note, is WOV now advertising their forums to mental wards? This dude is clearly not 100 percent.
link to original post
To be fair to OP or any other person that ever did find some weird quirky math exploit to make a game beatable online, you would become a multi-millionaire with enough penetration and you'd be able to do this for everyone within your personal life that you could trust with that information. Assuming you weren't too greedy with it and got found out. Online only exploits are perfectly acceptable.Quote: Slotenthusiast
Oh wait it’s only for online? lol
link to original post
Yes he'd be breaking the law if he set up a 'shoe' twitch kind of system or other device that would tell him how to bet during a live brick and mortar game. Although the odds of being found out now a days are still low if you're smart about it. Casinos can't force you to disrobe, they could only trespass you.
BFevBBWC your videos don't have any commentary on them, or did my youtube player glitch out? Can you briefly explain what your system is doing?
read the amazon sampleQuote: ChallengedMillyTo be fair to OP or any other person that ever did find some weird quirky math exploit to make a game beatable online, you would become a multi-millionaire with enough penetration and you'd be able to do this for everyone within your personal life that you could trust with that information. Assuming you weren't too greedy with it and got found out. Online only exploits are perfectly acceptable.Quote: Slotenthusiast
Oh wait it’s only for online? lol
link to original post
Yes he'd be breaking the law if he set up a 'shoe' twitch kind of system or other device that would tell him how to bet during a live brick and mortar game. Although the odds of being found out now a days are still low if you're smart about it. Casinos can't force you to disrobe, they could only trespass you.
BFevBBWC your videos don't have any commentary on them, or did my youtube player glitch out? Can you briefly explain what your system is doing?
link to original post
Quote: BFevBBWC
read the amazon sample
link to original post
I did read the amazon sample
he states that his system was inspired by the Roulette system known as "The Law of the Third"
EB has already pointed this out
of course "The Law of the Third" is just another example of gamblers fallacy
each spin of the wheel is independent of all other spins which means that it cannot possibly be a winner in the long run.
the Google result from putting together Roulette and "The Law of the Third" is linked below for anyone who is interested.
I don't believe the Wizard has commented on this system.
I am going to send him a PM about it.
His analysis of it would be interesting.
https://www.google.com/search?q=roulette+law+of+thirds&oq=roule&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l3j0i131i433i512l2j69i57j69i60l2.1760j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
.
Quote: BFevBBWCIt has to be heavily modified to make it work.
link to original post
the Law of Third cannot be a long run winner because the wheel has no memory
future results are not influenced by past results
that is the case with most gambling games
there are a few exceptions
re those few exceptions - such as card counting in blackjack - there has to be a very clear understanding of how and why they are effective
just about all system proponents claim that future results are influenced by past results -
there are exceptions such as those who make roulette predictions based on tracking the movement of the ball around the wheel - noting where it is likely to fall off and where it is likely to land - or dice sliders which is in my understanding illegal - some claim they can otherwise set or control the dice to get an edge, but there are many who doubt that this is possible
to get people interested in your book, without revealing the details of your code; you might consider explaining how and why in your system that you believe future results are predictable enough to overcome the house advantage and move the player into profitability
.
Quote: BFevBBWCIt has to be heavily modified to make it work.
link to original post
I think the game has to be modified for your system to work.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: BFevBBWCIt has to be heavily modified to make it work.
link to original post
the Law of Third cannot be a long run winner because the wheel has no memory
link to original post
I don't know why people started referring to these things as 'laws'. This is not a law, this is Observation of the Third, and that's all it is, an observation. There's no mathematical law that governs this, absolutely none. And the OP saying it has to be modified is an understatement. It would have to be twisted inside out and run over a few times with a loaded dump truck before you can make it work and by then it would have no similarity to the so-called law of the third.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: BFevBBWCIt has to be heavily modified to make it work.
link to original post
the Law of Third cannot be a long run winner because the wheel has no memory
future results are not influenced by past results
that is the case with most gambling games
there are a few exceptions
re those few exceptions - such as card counting in blackjack - there has to be a very clear understanding of how and why they are effective
just about all system proponents claim that future results are influenced by past results -
there are exceptions such as those who make roulette predictions based on tracking the movement of the ball around the wheel - noting where it is likely to fall off and where it is likely to land - or dice sliders which is in my understanding illegal - some claim they can otherwise set or control the dice to get an edge, but there are many who doubt that this is possible
to get people interested in your book, without revealing the details of your code; you might consider explaining how and why in your system that you believe future results are predictable enough to overcome the house advantage and move the player into profitability
.
link to original post
If you have 3 open doors, and you shut 2, and you close your eyes, spin 360 degrees a few times then run towards them, what are you more likely to run into. The closed doors. Thats the Law of Thirds.
Quote: BFevBBWC
If you have 3 open doors, and you shut 2, and you close your eyes, spin 360 degrees a few times then run towards them, what are you more likely to run into. The closed doors. Thats the Law of Thirds.
link to original post
I see absolutely no commonality between closing doors and roulette.
I don't see enough similarities between closing doors and the effects of removal in punto banco to keep looking into it.
Best of luck.
Well, I warned ya.Quote: BFevBBWC(snipped to relevant part}
Mike is getting a free copy. There are no flaws.
link to original post
A wise author told me that there are always flaws, especially in their own works. Therefore one should always try to eliminate them at the earliest possible stage. Your initial post requested a Wizard review, but publicly, putting pressure on the Wizard to grant the review. IMHO, that's bad form.
How better to approach things? DM the Wizard first from an attitude of humility. "I've written a book, but before I publish it, I would really appreciate your thoughts on this system. It works for me, but I want to know if it's just confirmation bias on my part."
Approach with a desire to learn, and people are more willing to assist. Asserting perfection at the outset is not the way to go when dealing with professionals like the Wizard.
Well, the die is cast. I look forward to Michael's review.
Well not this time.Quote: MorstanaIt's clear that strategies like the Law of the Third spark a lot of debate, and for good reason. The key takeaway is that gambling systems, especially those based on fallacies or misunderstood concepts, often don't hold up under mathematical scrutiny.
link to original post
Quote: BFevBBWCWell not this time.Quote: MorstanaIt's clear that strategies like the Law of the Third spark a lot of debate, and for good reason. The key takeaway is that gambling systems, especially those based on fallacies or misunderstood concepts, often don't hold up under mathematical scrutiny.
link to original post
link to original post
Care to show us the proof that your system always works? Wait, don't tell me, let me guess; pay the US$30 and find out.
And what if I find the flaw (assuming there is one - for all I know, the way you implement your method turns out to be some counting method that, while it only works for certain points in the shoe, is an AP after all) - do I get even part of that US$30 back?
You remind me of someone who claimed that they had a "one-page proof" of Fermat's Last Theorem using only methods known to Fermat at the time, and he would make it available - for something like US$1,000,000. Later, he discovered a flaw in it, but then announced that he had a 10-page version, and posted to the sci.math newsgroup asking ways that he could make money from it.
I have figured out this much: on that graph with the two lines where you play using The Wizard's baccarat app, the upper line is the number of the 19 possible results (from Player +9 (i.e. a 9-0 player win) to Bank +9 (i.e. a 9-0 Bank win)) that have not come up, and the lower line is, for the most part, the number of those results that have come up at least twice - but I did notice that, every time a result comes up for the third or subsequent time, the lower line drops down by a small amount. Apparently, when the two are within 1 of each other, you bet, but I have yet to simulate a method using the available information where you can average +0.08 per shoe after taking the 5% commission on bank bets into account. (You are taking the commission into account on those graphs of 2080 shoes at a time, right?)
The simulator is proof that it works. The lower line dropping is only due to the average im using. Yes im taking commission into account. It works trust me, its just that it dictates the speed that you can make money, will take a year to make decent money.Quote: ThatDonGuyQuote: BFevBBWCWell not this time.Quote: MorstanaIt's clear that strategies like the Law of the Third spark a lot of debate, and for good reason. The key takeaway is that gambling systems, especially those based on fallacies or misunderstood concepts, often don't hold up under mathematical scrutiny.
link to original post
link to original post
Care to show us the proof that your system always works? Wait, don't tell me, let me guess; pay the US$30 and find out.
And what if I find the flaw (assuming there is one - for all I know, the way you implement your method turns out to be some counting method that, while it only works for certain points in the shoe, is an AP after all) - do I get even part of that US$30 back?
You remind me of someone who claimed that they had a "one-page proof" of Fermat's Last Theorem using only methods known to Fermat at the time, and he would make it available - for something like US$1,000,000. Later, he discovered a flaw in it, but then announced that he had a 10-page version, and posted to the sci.math newsgroup asking ways that he could make money from it.
I have figured out this much: on that graph with the two lines where you play using The Wizard's baccarat app, the upper line is the number of the 19 possible results (from Player +9 (i.e. a 9-0 player win) to Bank +9 (i.e. a 9-0 Bank win)) that have not come up, and the lower line is, for the most part, the number of those results that have come up at least twice - but I did notice that, every time a result comes up for the third or subsequent time, the lower line drops down by a small amount. Apparently, when the two are within 1 of each other, you bet, but I have yet to simulate a method using the available information where you can average +0.08 per shoe after taking the 5% commission on bank bets into account. (You are taking the commission into account on those graphs of 2080 shoes at a time, right?)
link to original post
...hope you don't mind I fixed that for you... as a former 10+ year professional programmer.Quote: BFevBBWCThe simulator is proof that it works has bugs to make it look like it works...
I'll still await Mike's analysis. I assume you've sent him a copy of your book/code/etc?? After all if he signs off this forums will accept it as truth.
i sent him a pdf, no word on if he downloaded it.Quote: Romes...hope you don't mind I fixed that for you... as a former 10+ year professional programmer.Quote: BFevBBWCThe simulator is proof that it works has bugs to make it look like it works...
I'll still await Mike's analysis. I assume you've sent him a copy of your book/code/etc?? After all if he signs off this forums will accept it as truth.
link to original post
That is to say I guess you would have to say that the general randomness of a shoe would expect the player to win x% the banker x% and if you are 50% of the way though a shoe and you are >3 SD away from where the general %'s would put you, would there be any edge in betting based off of that knowledge with the understanding that the final variance of the shoe is on average lower than the maximum level of variance achieved within the shoe?
Probably useless, but with the rule of 3rds comment and without reading his preview, this is all I'm coming up with.
Quote: Talldude90Probably useless, but with the rule of 3rds comment and without reading his preview, this is all I'm coming up with.
link to original post
The problem with the "rule of thirds" is, if used "as is," it applies only if each possibility is equally likely - something that is certainly not true with the 19 possible values of player score minus banker score.
(It's also not really "thirds" - I think it's closer to, the fraction of N numbers that come up K times in N draws is approximately 1 / (e K!). I say "approximately" as the sum of the value approaches 1 as K approaches positive infinity.)
lol ... ok thanks..Quote: gordonm888If you're waiting on the Wizard to analyze the pdf of the book, please be patient. He has posted extensively about his plans to travel to Waco during the next few days for the total eclipse. After that he will be doing some Wizardly things - sorting potions in his laboratory, conjuring up new mathematics, chopping up moderators and cooking them in a lobster pot. Please give him some grace on the schedule.
link to original post
I got a bonus at work, so I broke down and bought the book - and discovered two major flaws in his simulator code:
1 - when it gets to the point where, in the version where he tracks hands from the Wizard's online baccarat game, it says not to bet (the "yellow box" appears), it is supposed to reset all of the numbers and start over; his simulator does not.
2 - when it gets to the point where it says to "bet Player on the next hand" or "bet Banker on the next hand" (the "blue box" and "red box" conditions), it uses the same hand that created the signal to bet to determine the result. More often than not, a "bet Player on the next hand" signal comes immediately after a hand that the Player won, and a "bet Banker on the next hand" signal comes immediately after a hand that the Banker won.
The combination of these two conditions results in a vastly over-counted number of wins.
There were some minor flaws in the code as well, but these didn't affect the result that much:
3 - one of the things he does is use the difference between the player's hand and the banker's hand; however, instead of taking the actual difference (which is what he does in the app that he used to track hands from the online game), the simulator treated it as if the losing hand was a zero. For example, if the result was Player 8, Banker 6, instead of counting it as "Player +2", it was counted as "Player +8."
4 - for the most part, the shoe that he used had no face cards. Here is how the simulator deals cards: start with a full shoe of 32 "1-value" cards (i.e. aces), 32 2-value cards, and so on through 32 9-value cards, plus 128 10-value (or 0-value, if you want to look at it that way) cards. However, when a card is drawn, a number from 1 to 10 from among the numbers that have any cards of that value left in the shoe is chosen, with equal probability, and that card's count is reduced by 1. In other words, as long as there is at least one 1, one 2, ..., one 9, and one 10 in the shoe, each of those 10 values is equally likely to be the next card.
I ran a simulation of his system, using various combinations of "weights" to replace the ones he uses (I won't go into more detail as I did promise not to reveal how his system actually works), and running 1 million full shoes against each; so far, testing every set of weights where all of the numbers <= 10 and the weights are in order, I have not had a single set return a EV of better than -0.5%.
Quote: ThatDonGuyI have not had a single set return a EV of better than -0.5%.
link to original post
Nobody here is surprised, the surprise would have been if it had turned out any differently.
Quote: ThatDonGuyand running 1 million full shoes against each; so far, testing every set of weights where all of the numbers <= 10 and the weights are in order, I have not had a single set return a EV of better than -0.5%.
that in itself, although it doesn't get a bettor into profitability, is quite surprising
unless I'm missing something - which is quite possible
because the negative EV on a bet on either the Player or the Bank is greater than 1%
and thanks again to Don for a great analysis
.
Quote: ThatDonGuySlightly more than a month later...
I got a bonus at work, so I broke down and bought the book - and discovered two major flaws in his simulator code:
1 - when it gets to the point where, in the version where he tracks hands from the Wizard's online baccarat game, it says not to bet (the "yellow box" appears), it is supposed to reset all of the numbers and start over; his simulator does not.
2 - when it gets to the point where it says to "bet Player on the next hand" or "bet Banker on the next hand" (the "blue box" and "red box" conditions), it uses the same hand that created the signal to bet to determine the result. More often than not, a "bet Player on the next hand" signal comes immediately after a hand that the Player won, and a "bet Banker on the next hand" signal comes immediately after a hand that the Banker won.
The combination of these two conditions results in a vastly over-counted number of wins.
There were some minor flaws in the code as well, but these didn't affect the result that much:
3 - one of the things he does is use the difference between the player's hand and the banker's hand; however, instead of taking the actual difference (which is what he does in the app that he used to track hands from the online game), the simulator treated it as if the losing hand was a zero. For example, if the result was Player 8, Banker 6, instead of counting it as "Player +2", it was counted as "Player +8."
4 - for the most part, the shoe that he used had no face cards. Here is how the simulator deals cards: start with a full shoe of 32 "1-value" cards (i.e. aces), 32 2-value cards, and so on through 32 9-value cards, plus 128 10-value (or 0-value, if you want to look at it that way) cards. However, when a card is drawn, a number from 1 to 10 from among the numbers that have any cards of that value left in the shoe is chosen, with equal probability, and that card's count is reduced by 1. In other words, as long as there is at least one 1, one 2, ..., one 9, and one 10 in the shoe, each of those 10 values is equally likely to be the next card.
I ran a simulation of his system, using various combinations of "weights" to replace the ones he uses (I won't go into more detail as I did promise not to reveal how his system actually works), and running 1 million full shoes against each; so far, testing every set of weights where all of the numbers <= 10 and the weights are in order, I have not had a single set return a EV of better than -0.5%.
link to original post
You forgot to tell them you didn't know how the system worked and were running your own implementation of the system, which was wrong, and may still be wrong.
Quote: BFevBBWCQuote: ThatDonGuy
I ran a simulation of his system, using various combinations of "weights" to replace the ones he uses
link to original post
You forgot to tell them you didn't know how the system worked and were running your own implementation of the system, which was wrong, and may still be wrong.
link to original post
what now?
So you're not going to directly address the obvious coding mistakes though? I've rarely, if ever, seen ThatDonGuy post something I don't agree with.Quote: BFevBBWCQuote: ThatDonGuySlightly more than a month later...
I got a bonus at work, so I broke down and bought the book - and discovered two major flaws in his simulator code:
1 - when it gets to the point where, in the version where he tracks hands from the Wizard's online baccarat game, it says not to bet (the "yellow box" appears), it is supposed to reset all of the numbers and start over; his simulator does not.
2 - when it gets to the point where it says to "bet Player on the next hand" or "bet Banker on the next hand" (the "blue box" and "red box" conditions), it uses the same hand that created the signal to bet to determine the result. More often than not, a "bet Player on the next hand" signal comes immediately after a hand that the Player won, and a "bet Banker on the next hand" signal comes immediately after a hand that the Banker won.
The combination of these two conditions results in a vastly over-counted number of wins.
There were some minor flaws in the code as well, but these didn't affect the result that much:
3 - one of the things he does is use the difference between the player's hand and the banker's hand; however, instead of taking the actual difference (which is what he does in the app that he used to track hands from the online game), the simulator treated it as if the losing hand was a zero. For example, if the result was Player 8, Banker 6, instead of counting it as "Player +2", it was counted as "Player +8."
4 - for the most part, the shoe that he used had no face cards. Here is how the simulator deals cards: start with a full shoe of 32 "1-value" cards (i.e. aces), 32 2-value cards, and so on through 32 9-value cards, plus 128 10-value (or 0-value, if you want to look at it that way) cards. However, when a card is drawn, a number from 1 to 10 from among the numbers that have any cards of that value left in the shoe is chosen, with equal probability, and that card's count is reduced by 1. In other words, as long as there is at least one 1, one 2, ..., one 9, and one 10 in the shoe, each of those 10 values is equally likely to be the next card.
I ran a simulation of his system, using various combinations of "weights" to replace the ones he uses (I won't go into more detail as I did promise not to reveal how his system actually works), and running 1 million full shoes against each; so far, testing every set of weights where all of the numbers <= 10 and the weights are in order, I have not had a single set return a EV of better than -0.5%.
link to original post
You forgot to tell them you didn't know how the system worked and were running your own implementation of the system, which was wrong, and may still be wrong.
link to original post
So, ThatDonGuy goes out and spends part of his bonus to get BFevBBWC's book. And this is the book that lays out the whole system...Quote: ThatDonGuy{snipped to relevant part}
Slightly more than a month later...
I got a bonus at work, so I broke down and bought the book - and discovered two major flaws in his simulator code:
link to original post
Does the author thank him for discovering two major and two minor errors? Does he thank ThatDonGuy for the time, effort, and money TDG has unk into this task? Here is TDG's reward....Quote: BFevBBWC{snipped to relevant part}
The book introduces the real way to card count cards in Baccarat, the strategy too hard to calculate without code, and the code for the simulator and live play app.
link to original post
At the very least, you owe TDG a refund on the book. I am highly reminded of those authors who submit manuscripts to publications, receive feedback on their work, and abuse and insult the editors. Yeah, you didn't get The Wizard, but you did get ThatDonGuy, and <badwords redacted> you ought to be on your knees thanking him for finding out the errors in your work.Quote: BFevBBWCYou forgot to tell them you didn't know how the system worked and were running your own implementation of the system, which was wrong, and may still be wrong.
link to original post
Wizard: I'm sure I don't have to warn you to expect the same should you have any negative comments on this person's system.
ThatDonGuy, I highly recommend that you post your corrections as a review for this person's book. Let other folks know that the author's very own implementation of his very own system was flawed (yet he accuses you of the same failure)
ThatDonGuy implies right at the start that has simulator code that you provided in your book.Quote: BFevBBWCQuote: ThatDonGuySlightly more than a month later...
I got a bonus at work, so I broke down and bought the book - and discovered two major flaws in his simulator code:
1 - when it gets to the point where, in the version where he tracks hands from the Wizard's online baccarat game, it says not to bet (the "yellow box" appears), it is supposed to reset all of the numbers and start over; his simulator does not.
2 - when it gets to the point where it says to "bet Player on the next hand" or "bet Banker on the next hand" (the "blue box" and "red box" conditions), it uses the same hand that created the signal to bet to determine the result. More often than not, a "bet Player on the next hand" signal comes immediately after a hand that the Player won, and a "bet Banker on the next hand" signal comes immediately after a hand that the Banker won.
The combination of these two conditions results in a vastly over-counted number of wins.
There were some minor flaws in the code as well, but these didn't affect the result that much:
3 - one of the things he does is use the difference between the player's hand and the banker's hand; however, instead of taking the actual difference (which is what he does in the app that he used to track hands from the online game), the simulator treated it as if the losing hand was a zero. For example, if the result was Player 8, Banker 6, instead of counting it as "Player +2", it was counted as "Player +8."
4 - for the most part, the shoe that he used had no face cards. Here is how the simulator deals cards: start with a full shoe of 32 "1-value" cards (i.e. aces), 32 2-value cards, and so on through 32 9-value cards, plus 128 10-value (or 0-value, if you want to look at it that way) cards. However, when a card is drawn, a number from 1 to 10 from among the numbers that have any cards of that value left in the shoe is chosen, with equal probability, and that card's count is reduced by 1. In other words, as long as there is at least one 1, one 2, ..., one 9, and one 10 in the shoe, each of those 10 values is equally likely to be the next card.
I ran a simulation of his system, using various combinations of "weights" to replace the ones he uses (I won't go into more detail as I did promise not to reveal how his system actually works), and running 1 million full shoes against each; so far, testing every set of weights where all of the numbers <= 10 and the weights are in order, I have not had a single set return a EV of better than -0.5%.
link to original post
You forgot to tell them you didn't know how the system worked and were running your own implementation of the system, which was wrong, and may still be wrong.
link to original post
Quote: ThatDonGuyI got a bonus at work, so I broke down and bought the book - and discovered two major flaws in his simulator code:
Did you include executable simulator code in your book or just pseudocode?
If ThatDonGuy found major logical errors in code that you provided, then I really don't care that you would prefer to accuse him of not understanding your work. Please provide a point-by-point rebuttal of ThatDonGuy's claims if you think he is wrong. Ad hominem attacks don't cut it here. It is incumbent on you to either defend the code that you wrote, explain how the coding errors don't affect your conclusions, or retract the whole book.
I often make coding errors at the start of a project. Sometimes the bugs initially make it seem like I found a game that can be beaten. I don't run out and write a book saying that I can beat a common casino game based on my code. I assume that I have made some coding errors and I go root them out.
Anyway i didnt do this for clout, i did it to share the code. I sent mike a pdf because i had to keep updating the book.
The simulator is the weak link, but when it comes to using the live play app all the flaws disappear because you input the data yourself.Quote: RomesSo you're not going to directly address the obvious coding mistakes though? I've rarely, if ever, seen ThatDonGuy post something I don't agree with.Quote: BFevBBWCQuote: ThatDonGuySlightly more than a month later...
I got a bonus at work, so I broke down and bought the book - and discovered two major flaws in his simulator code:
1 - when it gets to the point where, in the version where he tracks hands from the Wizard's online baccarat game, it says not to bet (the "yellow box" appears), it is supposed to reset all of the numbers and start over; his simulator does not.
2 - when it gets to the point where it says to "bet Player on the next hand" or "bet Banker on the next hand" (the "blue box" and "red box" conditions), it uses the same hand that created the signal to bet to determine the result. More often than not, a "bet Player on the next hand" signal comes immediately after a hand that the Player won, and a "bet Banker on the next hand" signal comes immediately after a hand that the Banker won.
The combination of these two conditions results in a vastly over-counted number of wins.
There were some minor flaws in the code as well, but these didn't affect the result that much:
3 - one of the things he does is use the difference between the player's hand and the banker's hand; however, instead of taking the actual difference (which is what he does in the app that he used to track hands from the online game), the simulator treated it as if the losing hand was a zero. For example, if the result was Player 8, Banker 6, instead of counting it as "Player +2", it was counted as "Player +8."
4 - for the most part, the shoe that he used had no face cards. Here is how the simulator deals cards: start with a full shoe of 32 "1-value" cards (i.e. aces), 32 2-value cards, and so on through 32 9-value cards, plus 128 10-value (or 0-value, if you want to look at it that way) cards. However, when a card is drawn, a number from 1 to 10 from among the numbers that have any cards of that value left in the shoe is chosen, with equal probability, and that card's count is reduced by 1. In other words, as long as there is at least one 1, one 2, ..., one 9, and one 10 in the shoe, each of those 10 values is equally likely to be the next card.
I ran a simulation of his system, using various combinations of "weights" to replace the ones he uses (I won't go into more detail as I did promise not to reveal how his system actually works), and running 1 million full shoes against each; so far, testing every set of weights where all of the numbers <= 10 and the weights are in order, I have not had a single set return a EV of better than -0.5%.
link to original post
You forgot to tell them you didn't know how the system worked and were running your own implementation of the system, which was wrong, and may still be wrong.
link to original post
link to original post
Ask The Don if i thanked him.Quote: BillHasRetiredSo, ThatDonGuy goes out and spends part of his bonus to get BFevBBWC's book. And this is the book that lays out the whole system...Quote: ThatDonGuy{snipped to relevant part}
Slightly more than a month later...
I got a bonus at work, so I broke down and bought the book - and discovered two major flaws in his simulator code:
link to original postDoes the author thank him for discovering two major and two minor errors? Does he thank ThatDonGuy for the time, effort, and money TDG has unk into this task? Here is TDG's reward....Quote: BFevBBWC{snipped to relevant part}
The book introduces the real way to card count cards in Baccarat, the strategy too hard to calculate without code, and the code for the simulator and live play app.
link to original postAt the very least, you owe TDG a refund on the book. I am highly reminded of those authors who submit manuscripts to publications, receive feedback on their work, and abuse and insult the editors. Yeah, you didn't get The Wizard, but you did get ThatDonGuy, and <badwords redacted> you ought to be on your knees thanking him for finding out the errors in your work.Quote: BFevBBWCYou forgot to tell them you didn't know how the system worked and were running your own implementation of the system, which was wrong, and may still be wrong.
link to original post
Wizard: I'm sure I don't have to warn you to expect the same should you have any negative comments on this person's system.
ThatDonGuy, I highly recommend that you post your corrections as a review for this person's book. Let other folks know that the author's very own implementation of his very own system was flawed (yet he accuses you of the same failure)
link to original post
Quote: BFevBBWCAsk The Don if i thanked him.Quote: BillHasRetiredSo, ThatDonGuy goes out and spends part of his bonus to get BFevBBWC's book. And this is the book that lays out the whole system...Quote: ThatDonGuy{snipped to relevant part}
Slightly more than a month later...
I got a bonus at work, so I broke down and bought the book - and discovered two major flaws in his simulator code:
link to original postDoes the author thank him for discovering two major and two minor errors? Does he thank ThatDonGuy for the time, effort, and money TDG has unk into this task? Here is TDG's reward....Quote: BFevBBWC{snipped to relevant part}
The book introduces the real way to card count cards in Baccarat, the strategy too hard to calculate without code, and the code for the simulator and live play app.
link to original postAt the very least, you owe TDG a refund on the book. I am highly reminded of those authors who submit manuscripts to publications, receive feedback on their work, and abuse and insult the editors. Yeah, you didn't get The Wizard, but you did get ThatDonGuy, and <badwords redacted> you ought to be on your knees thanking him for finding out the errors in your work.Quote: BFevBBWCYou forgot to tell them you didn't know how the system worked and were running your own implementation of the system, which was wrong, and may still be wrong.
However, my "implementation of the system" is how you code it. Whether or not you think it works the way you think it does is another matter. I have already explained to you what it is doing; if you think it is wrong, then tell me exactly what is wrong about it - I already paid for the book, so I expect at least that much.
link to original post
Wizard: I'm sure I don't have to warn you to expect the same should you have any negative comments on this person's system.
ThatDonGuy, I highly recommend that you post your corrections as a review for this person's book. Let other folks know that the author's very own implementation of his very own system was flawed (yet he accuses you of the same failure)
link to original post
link to original post
Yes, he did thank me.
Quote: BFevBBWCI thanked him for finding the errors, but they arent major, because i have a bot that can play on betfair and it doesnt include the simulator code and it beat the betfair exchange until they had to cheat, same goes for the live play app. I include the full code for both apps, no pseudo code. Ive looked over the simulator code so many times its crazy, ive had it for 6 years. Its because i dont code in a linear neat fashion is why there were bugs i couldn't see.
Anyway i didnt do this for clout, i did it to share the code. I sent mike a pdf because i had to keep updating the book.
link to original post
Two of the errors in the simulator as coded in the book are very major. Did you correct them and try to run the simulator again? What results did you get?
As for your BetFair bot, if you are willing to send me the code for that, I will check it out and see (a) how the system that it uses differs from the one you describe in your book, and (b) whether or not it comes even close to consistently making a profit.
It is always hard for a programmer to spot bugs they wrote into the program themselves. That is why you do sanity testing.Quote: BFevBBWCI thanked him for finding the errors, but they arent major, because i have a bot that can play on betfair and it doesnt include the simulator code and it beat the betfair exchange until they had to cheat, same goes for the live play app. I include the full code for both apps, no pseudo code. Ive looked over the simulator code so many times its crazy, ive had it for 6 years. Its because i dont code in a linear neat fashion is why there were bugs i couldn't see.
Anyway i didnt do this for clout, i did it to share the code. I sent mike a pdf because i had to keep updating the book.
link to original post
For example, does the program deal the cards fairly? It should deal four times as many tens and faces as it deals fives or sevens. It sounds like that would have been a good thing to test six years ago.
Also, does the code say that baccarat can be beaten? If so, I think your code flunks the sanity test.
If you did thank him (which TDG has verified), then it must have been via PMs. One of the rules here specifically prohibits the discussion of contents of PMs.Quote: BFevBBWCAsk The Don if i thanked him.
link to original post
But something else bothers me. You thank him in private, then attack him in public? Talk about digging your hole deeper! If you did that to me, I'd tell you to GFY and block you. You are some piece of work.
Quote: BillHasRetiredIf you did thank him (which TDG has verified), then it must have been via PMs. One of the rules here specifically prohibits the discussion of contents of PMs.Quote: BFevBBWCAsk The Don if i thanked him.
link to original post
But something else bothers me. You thank him in private, then attack him in public? Talk about digging your hole deeper! If you did that to me, I'd tell you to GFY and block you. You are some piece of work.
link to original post
The rules against quoting from PMs only applies when it is done without permission of the other party; moderators usually only act when the other party complains that their privacy has been breached. In this case, BFevBBWC requested that you ask ThatDonGuy, implicitly giving ThatDonGuy permission to answer.
BillHasRetired, I am giving you a WARNING about Personal Insults for the above post. I advise you to dial back your emotions or leave this thread entirely.
i would send it, if it wasnt for the fact that they are rare and hard to code. I got nothing against you donguy, i just dont know if you've understood how G.U.T works, YET.Quote: ThatDonGuy
As for your BetFair bot, if you are willing to send me the code for that, I will check it out and see (a) how the system that it uses differs from the one you describe in your book, and (b) whether or not it comes even close to consistently making a profit.
link to original post
Fair points. Except from the last one, The Law Of The Third works for baccarat, and even better if you tweak it.Quote: MentalIt is always hard for a programmer to spot bugs they wrote into the program themselves. That is why you do sanity testing.Quote: BFevBBWCI thanked him for finding the errors, but they arent major, because i have a bot that can play on betfair and it doesnt include the simulator code and it beat the betfair exchange until they had to cheat, same goes for the live play app. I include the full code for both apps, no pseudo code. Ive looked over the simulator code so many times its crazy, ive had it for 6 years. Its because i dont code in a linear neat fashion is why there were bugs i couldn't see.
Anyway i didnt do this for clout, i did it to share the code. I sent mike a pdf because i had to keep updating the book.
link to original post
For example, does the program deal the cards fairly? It should deal four times as many tens and faces as it deals fives or sevens. It sounds like that would have been a good thing to test six years ago.
Also, does the code say that baccarat can be beaten? If so, I think your code flunks the sanity test.
link to original post
Quote: BFevBBWCFair points. Except from the last one, The Law Of The Third works for baccarat, and even better if you tweak it.
link to original post
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”
― Mark Twain
Quote: BFevBBWCi would send it, if it wasnt for the fact that they are rare and hard to code.
I got nothing against you donguy, i just dont know if you've understood how G.U.T works, YET.
link to original post
Why would "the fact that it is rare and hard to code" prevent you from sending it?
As for G.U.T., you will have to refresh my memory as to where you said it was described - if I remember correctly, it was buried deep in some thread on Reddit.
Meanwhile, how about showing us some confidence that this system works by posting the results of a fixed version of your simulator on YouTube? (And by fixed, I mainly mean (a) if you get a "don't bet" signal, you reset the numbers, and (b) if you get a "bet Banker" or "bet Player" signal, you then deal another hand to determine the result.)
Dog Hand
Quote: DogHandGrand Unified Theory?
Dog Hand
link to original post
I found the reference to it - it stands for "Great Universal Theory."
Apparently, it was first mentioned around 2008 by someone named, or going by the name, "winkel."
The quick version appears to be, in roulette, count how many of the 37 numbers have come up N times and how many have come up more than N times, for pretty much any non-negative integer N; when the difference is 0 or 1, you bet all of the numbers that have appeared N times.
If you watch the YouTube videos listed near the start of this thread (look at the two "Live Play Apps" videos here), you will see something similar, although they are counting something slightly different.
However, even if the theory did hold up in roulette, it would not hold up in baccarat, as the Law of the Third (which, itself, is incorrect) only applies when each of the possible results has an equal chance of happening, which is not true with the results he is tracking in baccarat. Either that, or the probability of a tied hand is always 1/19 (you might want to check out the Wizard's baccarat page to see how accurate that one is).
