Special thanks to Herb at a near-by roulette site for agreeing to lend us this. I'm sure it applies equally to baccarat. Looks like he put a lot of work into it; and it looks like a new invention to me.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Herb writes)


Here is it is, the new quack meter. In recent months, the number of quacks on the board has gone up very quickly. Some of these quacks are regular people that just make an occasional outlandish claim. Others are people like James Wendall that are completely out of touch with reality.

How do we determine if a poster is worth reading, or whether it's delusional gibberish by someone that is a real quack?

Well, here's the solution to the problem. It's the QuAcK meter. Delusional posters like James, whom we all agree is a bonified quack, use certain key phrases and words that immediately demonstrate to everyone that they are a certified quack. By using a point system for these key words and phrases, we can rate the quack level of each thread and post the results at the front of each thread. If each thread on the forum has a quack rating that we can immediately view, then it will greatly reduce the time required to find the more interesting posts.

Below is the new point system. Please feel free to add on to it as you recognize the words that quacks use.

1. The poster can't form a sentence, but claims to be smarter than Einstein. 10000 points.
2. The poster claims to be smarter than Einstein: 5000 points.
3. The poster claims that ordinary math doesn't apply to their system. 500 points
4. The poster substitutes other letters to represent either R for red or B for black. For example, they may use H, M, L, or W...So far, I've seen several examples. 200 points.
5. The poster claims that they use numerology to win regularly. 500 points.
6. The poster claims that ancient monks invented roulette, not Pascal. 500 points.
7. The poster claims to have made millions using their secret system based on the law of the third. 500 points.
8. The poster claims to beat lotteries, horses, and all casino games with their system. 300 points.
9. The poster claims his system can't be tested by a computer, but Two Cat Sam shows it to work. 200 points.
10. The poster claims that there's a bet that wins consistently. 200 points.
11. The poster believes the "holy grail for roulette" will be discovered any day now! 100 points.
12. The poster claims to find patterns in randomness. 100 points.
13. The poster claims to surf the dispersion of hits in randomness. 100 points.
14. The poster claims to donate most of his winnings to children's charities. 200 points.
15. The poster offers hints in his avatar. 500 points.
16. The poster talks about himself in a daily diary. (Yes, like James for example.) 300 points.
17. The poster claims that there is a secret flaw in the layout of the roulette wheel that can be exploited. 500 points.
18. The poster claims to win $50 or more a day by just using gaming discipline and money management. 200 points.
19. The poster claims to win every time he plays. 500 points.
20. The poster claims to have a successful system that enables them to win on the outside in the long run. 200 points.
21. The poster claims that there is a consistent winning bet in roulette. 300 points.
22. The poster thinks that you can win if you can find "just the right progression." 100 points.
23. The poster thinks that the "hemi" or "bow tie" is a long term winner. 100 points.
24. The poster claims to win in the long term by making educated guesses. 400 points.
25. The poster claims to make educated guesses that are correct more than 50% of the time. 300 points.
26. The poster keeps an online journal of his betting results on the outside bets. 100 points.
27. The poster has either the family dog or cat as an avatar. 200 points.
28. The poster has an Animee figure as an avatar. 200 points.
29. The poster refers to educated people as "Math Boys." 200 points.
30. The poster claims to have developed a long term winning system. 200 points.
31. You believe "Win With Math" is real. 500 points.
32. Someone is going to find and post the "Holy Grail" any day now. 200 points.
33. You belong to a numerology study group. 200 points.
34. The poster claims that using his method that, "It's harder to not to hit the lottery then hitting it. Yes my method in fact it's not even possible to lose." 10,000 points.
35. The poster believes Dysexlic's, or Murph's posts. 100 points.



Ratings:

If you score:

Over 2000 points: You're James Wendall. You should be in a straight jacket. You belong in an institution. You believe in gov. conspiracies. You're heavily medicated and drift in and out of reality. You're blissfully ignorant and blowing spit bubbles.

1000 points or more: You're definitely a big quack. Chances are, you believe in gov. conspiracy theories as well. You should not be allowed to handle money. Other people should administer your medications. Someone else should manage your daily affairs and finances. You're blissfully ignorant and blowing spit bubbles.

700 points or more: You're a big quack. You might believe in gov. conspiracies. You probably should be medicated. You should only be allowed to hold small amounts of money at any given time. Someone other than you should manage your finances. You're ignorant and sometimes blow spit bubbles.

400 points or more.. You're probably a quack. You might believe in gov. conspiracies. You should have your wife or another family member provide you with a limited weekly allowance. Also, tell your wife to hide the checkbook if you're married.

300 points or more.. You might be a quack. You might just be ignorant. Either way, stay out of the casino, unless you go with a close family member that can monitor your gambling activities.

200 points or more.. You could be a quack. You might just be ignorant. Read more information about probability and the mathematics of gambling before going to the casino.

Listed above is just a partial list. I'll add more to the list as I find time. Please feel free to add your own suggestions, unless your a quack.

-Herb

I can add a few more:

36. Claims to understand advanced mathematics and physics but can’t calculate simple coin toss examples. 1,000 points.

37. Describes his system using esoteric nonsense like “Let's assume there exists the quantum-relativity device already built into the fabric of space and time, to connect the ordered world of outcomes to the random state of guesses.” 200 points.

38. Claims to be a serious gambler but doesn’t know how to use the ROR calculator on this site. 500 points.

39. Hasn't read any of the relevent books on the subject. 200 points.

Makes the above obviously false and misleading (as-usual unsupported) statements... of course ending with gibberish like Baccarat axiom .

P.S. Your #37 refers, AS I WROTE THERE, not to my "serious system for experts only" but to a "highly experimental method of fiddling". (Do you not read anything before trying to trash it? What an arse.)

UPDATE: June 21. I see he's finally shut up, run out of bull-garbage. Whatever happened to his showing us all about playing baccarat?

40. The poster replies with personal insults instead of answers. 200 points.

Maybe that's your root problem Savant. You utimately interpret (, i think the psychological term for it is 'appraise') others' remarks to be PERSONAL insults, etc. Likely explains your view of myself as a "dominating" force here. (Mike is free to ban anyone not following his rules.) And why you seem to not really read the written words but instead "fudge" things to fit your own mould. And why the obsessive need for popular gambling math, heavy "ramping" of bets to force situations not there, and why all things have to be black-and-white, etc; and when that fails, a "pissing contest" which you suggested you didn't want, in which, eg, you make completely-unsupported statements (of no real consequence anyway) but then appraised only my (turn to) reply to be an "insult". And what's up with your preoccupations with expertise and qualifications? Is that also because you seem to have none? Don't believe everything you read about the authors in books like "Blackjack Attack". And be a little more careful with your own critiquing in areas you are not an expert.

Furthermore, do you often think others are "upset" by you, that they give a damn? If so then you seriously over-estimate your importance. (No wonder we have a self-implied sequencer, etc, here too busy to thus enlighten us but amply wasting that elite-and-profitable practice in a "pissing contest". LOL.) Is that why the poor-little-old-me "i'll leave if you want but only trying to help" sort of speeches? Think you've trapped something? Who cares.

Sorry for taking you away from your valuable "coupon" life, and "insulting" you. And you're welcome anyway (for giving you something to come on to). I certainly thank you for what you've done.

Isn't life great, if only one has some fun with it?

G.

P.S. And no, my use of that word doesn't mean i have, claim to have, and/or want to imply i have any degree(s) in psychology.

It has nothing to do with expertise, only basic competence. If someone is giving advice about baccarat then I expect them to at least understand the fundamentals of the game. If they claim to know about calculus, particle physics, fluid mechanics or gambling system development then they should know what they are talking about. You have talked about all of those things but I have serious doubts about your competency in any of them.

For example, you use 1.17% as the house edge for the banker bet instead of the traditional 1.06%. You said that the difference is that one formula ignores the ties, but clearly they both account for the probability of a tie in their calculations. There must be another reason for the difference. Can you explain the difference between those two numbers? Maybe it has something to do with using a different unit of measurement? And how would you use the 1.17% number to find out how much an average player would expect to lose after an hour of play?

I don’t think the questions can get any easier than this, although my coin/die/roulette question was incredibly simple and you completely avoided that one. I’ll make things more interesting and ask you how much you would bet on each of those three games (if you would bet on them at all).

So let’s see if you decide to answer this post with information or insults. I think I already know how this will end but maybe you will surprise me. It would be nice to get back to talking about gambling for a change.

Yeah, what a great idea. I'm butting in here, to interrupt World War III and get you guys to sign the Mutual Admiration Society leaflet enclosed, give each other a kiss, and get back on deck before the dam ship runs aground, while you two are rearranging your own deck chairs.

Have you checked out Betfair yet, on the latest thread? Look at their ZERO house edge figures and give us an in-depth, insightful opinion on whether we should go there for on-line baccarat or anything else. Distracted? Grrrreat.

My FINAL reply to Savant may be found at the thread: Lead, follow, or get out of the way... .

You will have to scroll to the top of it.

K,

No war like a good war.

That’s exactly the response I was expecting. I asked you some incredibly simple questions that would take about 10 minutes to answer and somehow you responded with a 2000+ word post that didn’t answer any of them. Then you had the audacity to complain about not having enough time to get things done! You even went off on irrelevant tangents by replying to an unrelated private message and re-posting an old discussion you had with someone else. You are so predictable it is scary. On top of that, amongst all your bungling, you gave incorrect numbers for the house edge and standard deviation. You just can’t seem to get anything right. You're a system developer who doesn't know the house edge and a gambler who doesn't know how to bet on a simple coin toss. You are really becoming quite a joke around here. If you could swallow your ego you might actually learn something from the other members here instead of running them off or barring them (like you did to me).

If anyone wants to hear the honest and accurate answers to my original questions (or corrections to garnabby's response above) I’ll be happy to post them upon request. It won’t be the first time I’ve had to pick up the pieces after one or garnabby’s broken posts. If nobody cares about the real answers, I guess this issue has come to an end.