I've Beaten Baccarat and published the code in a book on Amazon

Quote: BFevBBWC

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: BFevBBWC

Quote: DRich

Quote: BFevBBWC

Quote: 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

You 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.
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

ev = 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.
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

Even 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.

Quote: Slotenthusiast

Even 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: MDawg

He 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.

Quote: Slotenthusiast

Even 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

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: Slotenthusiast

Oh wait it’s only for online? lol

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.

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?

In the excerpt from his book on Amazon, the author claims what he does is based on the so-called 'law' of the third. This has been discussed ad nauseam on roulette forums for the last 20 years. The concept is interesting but it is also essentially erratic, and therefore undependable as a basis for a betting system. How the author has found something 'new' to use it for is a mystery. The law of the third works until it doesn't, like almost everything else.

Quote: ChallengedMilly

Quote: Slotenthusiast

Oh wait it’s only for online? lol

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.

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

read the amazon sample

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

.

It has to be heavily modified to make it work.

If nothing else maybe Wiz will take a stab at roulette "law of third" meme and see if there's anything to it. We already have confirmed that roulette wheels that aren't properly calibrated, and had more favorable bouncing nooks and crannies, regularly end up developing 'hot/cold' spots and those have been exploited in the past. The infamous 1.6 million from $100,000 bankroll by the eastern European dude at a London casino, being an example of it.

Quote: BFevBBWC

It 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: BFevBBWC

It 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: lilredrooster

Quote: BFevBBWC

It 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: lilredrooster

Quote: BFevBBWC

It 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.

Quote: BFevBBWC

(snipped to relevant part}
Mike is getting a free copy. There are no flaws.
link to original post

Well, I warned ya.
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.

It'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.

Quote: Morstana

It'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

Well not this time.

Quote: BFevBBWC

Quote: Morstana

It'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

Well not this time.
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?)

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Quote: BFevBBWC

Quote: Morstana

It'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

Well not this time.
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

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: BFevBBWC

The simulator is proof that it works has bugs to make it look like it works...

...hope you don't mind I fixed that for you... as a former 10+ year professional programmer.

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.

Quote: Romes

Quote: BFevBBWC

The simulator is proof that it works has bugs to make it look like it works...

...hope you don't mind I fixed that for you... as a former 10+ year professional programmer.

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

i sent him a pdf, no word on if he downloaded it.

So on roulette it is truly random in a perfect situation assuming no real world material defects. But for a shoe of baccarat it is not truly random now is it? Could there be something late in a shoe about the player or the banker winning an inordinate amount of hands in the shoe so far impacting the result of the remaining 10% of hands?

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: Talldude90

Probably 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.)

If 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.

Quote: gordonm888

If 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

lol ... ok thanks..