Thread: Winning Method

Does anybody want to explore a way to win? - not card counting. Here is what I propose. Start with a good bet placement method based on patterns. Why? Because the only thing we have to go on is past history and the dynamics of the game. Determine what we call a "default" bet placement method. We know it won't give us a positive Expected Value (EV). So we will need to figure a way to switch when the time is right. After that we will explore a bettiing method. We already have a good suggestion and examples from GetTheGold but there may be others.

I'll start and we'll see what kind of interest we get. Please disagree and state why. Please offer alternate suggestions.

IMO, the single most effective mechanical bet placement is the old Time Before Last (TBL). Anybody know why or disagree?

Archer

Hi Archer,

Sounds like a plan, how about if following TBL, you get three straight losses, stop betting until TBL gives you another winner, then continue betting TBL.

Originally Posted by Archer

Does anybody want to explore a way to win? - not card counting. Here is what I propose. Start with a good bet placement method based on patterns. Why? Because the only thing we have to go on is past history and the dynamics of the game. Determine what we call a "default" bet placement method. We know it won't give us a positive Expected Value (EV). So we will need to figure a way to switch when the time is right. After that we will explore a bettiing method. We already have a good suggestion and examples from GetTheGold but there may be others.

I'll start and we'll see what kind of interest we get. Please disagree and state why. Please offer alternate suggestions.

IMO, the single most effective mechanical bet placement is the old Time Before Last (TBL). Anybody know why or disagree?

Archer

flat bet is the best way.

Seems to me you are right about capturing patterns & i also like tb4l & otb4l. The problem i always find is the switching between them. For example if you see a shoe favoring tb4l you go that way to start but when you hit losses--will you switch to otb4l on 2 losses? Or for example say on 3 losses?? Then what about the return from otb4l to tb4l?? On the same number or is another optimum?? For example switching one way on 3 losses & back on 2 losses?? Thoughts anyone??

Originally Posted by LENNY

Seems to me you are right about capturing patterns & i also like tb4l & otb4l. The problem i always find is the switching between them. For example if you see a shoe favoring tb4l you go that way to start but when you hit losses--will you switch to otb4l on 2 losses? Or for example say on 3 losses?? Then what about the return from otb4l to tb4l?? On the same number or is another optimum?? For example switching one way on 3 losses & back on 2 losses?? Thoughts anyone??

That is the main reason it is hard to win at baccarat one uses a certain bet selection to switch the problem is when you switch the shoe switches and thats where the shoe from hell happens from time to time ones bets get horribly out of sync with the shoe

Limiting the dispersions would make a method being close to the holy grail

Originally Posted by clare12

flat bet is the best way.

I think flat bet is the best way to test and on a winning method is certainly an appropriate way to play. Look at Guetting. It is flat bet that sacrafices a half unit on a WWL combination but otherwise it outperforms flat bet. Next we have Turnaround or modified Turnaround. This is simply recovery bettiing. Get The Gold has laid out a fine example of this. I would recommend that everyone familiarize themselves with this kind of betting. Use GTG example.

Originally Posted by LENNY

Seems to me you are right about capturing patterns & i also like tb4l & otb4l. The problem i always find is the switching between them. For example if you see a shoe favoring tb4l you go that way to start but when you hit losses--will you switch to otb4l on 2 losses? Or for example say on 3 losses?? Then what about the return from otb4l to tb4l?? On the same number or is another optimum?? For example switching one way on 3 losses & back on 2 losses?? Thoughts anyone??

The age old problem, huh? When to switch? But do we have to switch? Flat betting OTBL wins all chop backs, all runs of 1, and runs of 3. Breaks even on runs of 3 if u continue and wins on all runs of 4 or more. It loses to runs of 2 and loses to repeat following repeat.

Archer

Originally Posted by natural9

Limiting the dispersions would make a method being close to the holy grail

Yes, it would, wouldn't it?

Archer

Originally Posted by Archer

Does anybody want to explore a way to win? - not card counting. Here is what I propose. Start with a good bet placement method based on patterns. Why? Because the only thing we have to go on is past history and the dynamics of the game. Determine what we call a "default" bet placement method. We know it won't give us a positive Expected Value (EV). So we will need to figure a way to switch when the time is right. After that we will explore a bettiing method. We already have a good suggestion and examples from GetTheGold but there may be others.

I'll start and we'll see what kind of interest we get. Please disagree and state why. Please offer alternate suggestions.

IMO, the single most effective mechanical bet placement is the old Time Before Last (TBL). Anybody know why or disagree?

Archer

For my "2 cents", the best thing i can write here hasn't to do with baccarat per se... but with the guy behind this.

I've already posted elsewhere (a few times) that of any one across these message-boards, and for one who isn't "equation-driven", Archer has demonstrated a sincere and natural talent for gambling. And he also has all the general baccarat-knowledge, eg, on Ellis' developments from beginning to end. (And has apparently played alongside Ellis a few times.)

Nothing pleased me more here than seeing his return. I know he will not reveal all his "secrets" to any of us, but i'm sure he'll help a lot of us onto "the right track".

Originally Posted by garnabby

For my "2 cents", the best thing i can write here hasn't to do with baccarat per se... but with the guy behind this.

I've already posted elsewhere (a few times) that of any one across these message-boards, and for one who isn't "equation-driven", Archer has demonstrated a sincere and natural talent for gambling. And he also has all the general baccarat-knowledge, eg, on Ellis' developments from beginning to end. (And has apparently played alongside Ellis a few times.)

Nothing pleased me more here than seeing his return. I know he will not reveal all his "secrets" to any of us, but i'm sure he'll help a lot of us onto "the right track".

Why thank you G, nice of you to say so. Let's hope we can all find something that will prove profitable. I do believe it is possible.

Archer

Archer

Archer,

i didn't know you were a friend of ellis, but i do recall him saying on his public forum that his favorite method of play was otb4l with i think a base 2 progression. He did say he used good table selection methods--do you advocate that??

If you were to just flat bet and were not switching...then you would need some pause triggers to stop and wait, rather than have losses mount--right?

Lenny

ARCHER,

In my bag of tricks, is betting OT4BL, after I witness the first win go by. Using negative progression, 1, 1, 2.5, 5, 7.5

You lose 5 in a row to seven in a rows, and six chops in a row. Day risk is two sets, or 34 units. Table goal, is ten units, day goal 20 units.

But, like everything I play, I always let the DAY, decide, where I end up financially.

R/S

Okay folks, I guess I'd like to weigh in here. I really don't know about all these Methods that "Ellis" has taught the folks on this thread, bet placement, betting progressions etc. That having been said, I would like to address the ORIGINAL remark that Archer made regarding PATTERN Betting. I think there is some merit to that; here's the thing, if you INSTALL a pattern for play and HIT a WIN in that pattern, then one would have look at the permutations of that EXACT pattern repeating in let's say in five to six hands, right? The ODDS are in YOUR FAVOR!

That having been said, I ran a program I have against 200 live shoes that have been recently played, and guess what, it comes pretty close to what "The Wizard of Odds" claculations come out to, let's take a look:

See the attached Chart:

So what does the above mean? Okay, the first column tells us that on average in an 80-Hand shoe we should see around 19.85 SINGLE CHOPS like this ... PPBPP or PBP, in the first sequence we see 1-BANK surrounded by PLAYERS, and in the second, we 1-BANK surrounded again by two PLAYER hands, thus again an example for a streak of (3) might look like this ... PBBBP, a streak of five BPPPPPBB, (5) PLAYERS surrounded by BANKS etc. So, if we double those AVERAGE percentage figures, half for the PLAYER and the other half for the BANKER we will arrive at close to 100% figure. Now remember, we are talking about chances of STREAKS happening. Thus, if ADD the figures for the chances of STREAKS of ONE, TWO, THREE, and FOUR hands, we will arrive at a percentage figure of close to 90.68% of the shoe will be comprised of hands that do NOT go past a STREAK of FOUR hands. Thus, if you develop a BET SELECTION Method or a PATTERN considering the above, AND DO NOT place bets past (4) hands, WAIT FOR A WIN while still using your BET PLACEMENT strategy for the "TRIGGER" BEFORE Re-Entering the game; and use a BETTING Method that starts with (1) Unit and INCREASE your progression to let's say (2.5) units for the NEXT series of bets and RETURN to (1) Unit once you have recaptured your losses, you should be on the road to reacapturing losses and placing yourself in the PROFIT category. Again, you need to calculate your progression model with your Bet Placement strategy or PATTERN Strategy, this is KEY! The above is just a sample for the explanation of this commentary.

Just some thoughts for the masses.

Originally Posted by LENNY

Archer,

i didn't know you were a friend of ellis, but i do recall him saying on his public forum that his favorite method of play was otb4l with i think a base 2 progression. He did say he used good table selection methods--do you advocate that??

I am NOT a friend of Ellis. I was banned from his group for being too critical. I'm sure he doesn't even know who I am. I like it that way.

OTBL and TBL have been around way before Ellis laid his 1st dollar on the table. No I don't really advocate table selection methods as far as going around looking for certain tables.

If you were to just flat bet and were not switching...then you would need some pause triggers to stop and wait, rather than have losses mount--right?Lenny

Yes, I think so.

Archer

Originally Posted by now here

ARCHER,

In my bag of tricks, is betting OT4BL, after I witness the first win go by. Using negative progression, 1, 1, 2.5, 5, 7.5

You lose 5 in a row to seven in a rows, and six chops in a row. Day risk is two sets, or 34 units. Table goal, is ten units, day goal 20 units.

But, like everything I play, I always let the DAY, decide, where I end up financially.

R/S

Okay, I think that designing to reduce strings of losses is a valid concept. Once that is achieved you can apply a neg. prog. I don't think you can stick with OTBL and achieve that.

Archer

Originally Posted by Grab The Gold

Okay folks, I guess I'd like to weigh in here. I really don't know about all these Methods that "Ellis" has taught the folks on this thread, bet placement, betting progressions etc. That having been said, I would like to address the ORIGINAL remark that Archer made regarding PATTERN Betting. I think there is some merit to that; here's the thing, if you INSTALL a pattern for play and HIT a WIN in that pattern, then one would have look at the permutations of that EXACT pattern repeating in let's say in five to six hands, right? The ODDS are in YOUR FAVOR!

That having been said, I ran a program I have against 200 live shoes that have been recently played, and guess what, it comes pretty close to what "The Wizard of Odds" claculations come out to, let's take a look:

STREAK OF: MY-AVG. WIZ-OF-ODDS

1 .... 19.875 24.84% 25.000%
2 .... 9.695 12.12% 12.500%
3 .... 4.715 5.89% 6.250%
4 .... 1.985 2.48% 3.125%
5 .... 0.905 1.13% 1.560%
6 .... 0.465 0.58% 0.781%
7 .... 0.25 0.31% 0.390%
8 .... 0.095 0.12% 0.197%
9 .... 0.085 0.11% 0.049%

TOTALS 47.59% 49.852%

So what does the above mean? Okay, the first column tells us that on average in an 80-Hand shoe we should see around 19.85 SINGLE CHOPS like this ... PPBPP or PBP, in the first sequence we see 1-BANK surrounded by PLAYERS, and in the second, we 1-BANK surrounded again by two PLAYER hands, thus again an example for a streak of (3) might look like this ... PBBBP, a streak of five BPPPPPBB, (5) PLAYERS surrounded by BANKS etc. So, if we double those AVERAGE percentage figures, half for the PLAYER and the other half for the BANKER we will arrive at close to 100% figure. Now remember, we are talking about chances of STREAKS happening. Thus, if ADD the figures for the chances of STREAKS of ONE, TWO, THREE, and FOUR hands, we will arrive at a percentage figure of close to 90.68% of the shoe will be comprised of hands that do NOT go past a STREAK of FOUR hands. Thus, if you develop a BET SELECTION Method or a PATTERN considering the above, AND DO NOT place bets past (4) hands, WAIT FOR A WIN while still using your BET PLACEMENT strategy for the "TRIGGER" BEFORE Re-Entering the game; and use a BETTING Method that starts with (1) Unit and INCREASE your progression to let's say (2.5) units for the NEXT series of bets and RETURN to (1) Unit once you have recaptured your losses, you should be on the road to reacapturing losses and placing yourself in the PROFIT category. Again, you need to calculate your progression model with your Bet Placement strategy or PATTERN Strategy, this is KEY! The above is just a sample for the explanation of this commentary.

Just some thoughts for the masses.

That's right. Another way of saying 18-1's; 9 - 2's; 4.5 - 3's; 2.25 - 4's, 1.12.5 - 5's, etc. I would suppose that everyone already knows this but if not then now you do. Within this breakdown is why the TBL is a powerful single bet placement method.

What about the number of times a run of 2 or more is followed by a run of 2 or more or interrupted by a run of 1. I call these chop backs., e.g; PPPP B PP.
************
I was hoping to go slow and do betting later but it keeps coming up. GTG's recapture method is well worth looking at IMO. In BJ you have two different performance coefficients. One was for counting and the other was for betting. This concept can paralell Baccarat. Bet placement and bet amount. But without the placement we don't know what to bet. So we then have to rely on some sort of guess progression not based on odds - NG.

Archer

Originally Posted by Archer

That's right. Another way of saying 18-1's; 9 - 2's; 4.5 - 3's; 2.25 - 4's, 1.12.5 - 5's, etc. I would suppose that everyone already knows this but if not then now you do. Within this breakdown is why the TBL is a powerful single bet placement method.

What about the number of times a run of 2 or more is followed by a run of 2 or more or interrupted by a run of 1. I call these chop backs., e.g; PPPP B PP.
************
I was hoping to go slow and do betting later but it keeps coming up. GTG's recapture method is well worth looking at IMO. In BJ you have two different performance coefficients. One was for counting and the other was for betting. This concept can paralell Baccarat. Bet placement and bet amount. But without the placement we don't know what to bet. So we then have to rely on some sort of guess progression not based on odds - NG.

Archer

Thanks, your comment definitely explains the STREAKS better! Sometimes I just can't break my own thoughts down more simplistically ... just getting OLD and TIRED I guess!

ARCHER,

Why don't you try GTG's progression, with TBL. TBL was spoken highly by the BIBLE, meaning the original work of Frank Barstow.

R/S

Originally Posted by now here

ARCHER,

Why don't you try GTG's progression, with TBL. TBL was spoken highly by the BIBLE, meaning the original work of Frank Barstow.

R/S

LOL, Why do I have to do all the work? Why don't u try it and give us some feed back. Besides, I haven't actually reasoned out GTG prog. Doesn't he base it on % loss or does he just do a static prog like -1, -1, -2.5, -5, -7.5?

Archer

Archer, your stats are 100% correct. I learned them 10 years ago, and I am still amazed at how so many long for those long streaks of player and banker runs, when in fact, there are less of them, than streaks of pbpbpb etc. There are 6, 8, 10 and sometimes more run of two in rows. So I consider those streaks as much as a continuous banker or player run. I am also practicing with a tbl and obl method, and combining two other strategies, complex, to the degree when one method gets ahead of the others, is when I switch to that method, and stay with it till another gets ahead, or I am ahead 10 units, which is my win goal and then I stop, and wait for the next shoe.

ARCHER,

TBL, IS already one of the METHODS I use somewhat regularly, it works, I don't need to TEST IT. I only suggested you test it, to prove it to YOUR SELF, that it works.

R/S

TBL works great.....but not when you have two's in a row. I have personally seen 12-16 two in a row in succession, with 4 to 7 of them to be the average in length.

Forgive me, I made a terrible in crediting Archer for the stats, as credit should be given to GrabtheGold for sharing them. Please accept my sincere mistake, and my sincere apology.

Originally Posted by littogage

TBL works great.....but not when you have two's in a row. I have personally seen 12-16 two in a row in succession, with 4 to 7 of them to be the average in length.

This may be as good a place as any to start to put forth a NEW concept about "triggers/switches".

As most of youze have already figured out, i am not "trigger-literate" because (, asfaras comes to my mind now,) simple situational bet-selecting "triggers" have been the only ones i have ever even dabbled in. My reason, i guess, for (shortly, in this reply,) darting to the other end of the "trigger" spectrum is that some of Archer's work (here) renewed my thoughts about this subject enough to "spark" this idea.

Maybe this is really more of only a cryptic "hinting" at something else, because i, myself, don't know where it could lead any of us. Because i don't know if it can even be proved that any (other) "triggers" work; and if so, to which degree(s). IMO, things which should be established before offering (valid) hints, to speed up any process.

But the possibilities of new concepts is what keeps a hold on my own interest in this game here and now. (Somewhat aside from the moneys won/lost, and the time thusly spent.)

The idea has to do with how many shoes must statistically be sampled in hindsight by any "trigger" method, to know that it very-likely won't fail when used by every one here or there at any time in the future.

It would be easily (, conceptionally, at least,) possible to arrive at some incredibly- complicated and lengthy "trigger" over a billion shoes, to explain more than 50% of its "nooks and crannies". But that would be forcing the issue, hence fudging the results.

And most of us already know that the simpler "triggers" just don't stand up after a few hundred shoes... and certainly not in theory. The following thread is a recent thread at the GG, concluded (at this time) by a reply of mine to johno, about FLT. I haven't done this for TBL (, or combinations thereof), but strongly suspect that the results would be the same as for FLT (, given what happens to each of the possible runs for those respective percentages of the time). Gambler's Glen Message Boards : Baccarat Message Board : Any rare pattern you can find? .

Can a compromise between the forced-but-fudged and the simpler-but-mathematically-verifiable be struck... the idea being to simply express the complex? And which don't contradict any of the simple "triggers" already known to work, however. Also, perhaps this is the only way such "biases", as referred to, and experienced, by Archer (, and others with his table-experience), could be scientifically explained... to be reproducible, as noted above.

Eg, my own situational betting/bet-selecting rules involve, eg: betting P/B after a few B/P's, respectively; continuing with alternations of; and following up, eg, PPBB with BBPP. So why not fiddle with something like eg, waiting 1, then 2, then 3, -4-3-2-1-2-3-4-3-2-1-..., etc, games before taking betting action (on these rules) each time?

What would be thusly accomplished? A CONTROLLED-YET-COMPLEX "trigger", which could actually derive from some solid-physical (or always-there, long-running, and regular) mechanism! Just my first attempt, at both the concept and its development, but such could at least possibly "tap into something".

Lastly, and not to continue this here, i want to write that i hope i haven't disrupted A's thread on this topic. Just trying to contribute as best i can... even when it might not always seem like it. (MY only motive here is TO BEAT THE HELL OUT OF THIS GAME, if that's possible, AND NOTHING ELSE.)

TRIGGERS, TRIGGERS, AND more TRIGGERS!

I've READ all of the below POSTS and still maintain that IF one is to make a departure from PATTERN Betting and just stick with the Mathematical Probabilities of REPEATING hands and INSTALL the required TRIGGERS or RULES for ENTRY and EXIT of a shoe, you'll be successful and OUT like a BOY SCOUT everytime!

One more time with NEW DEMONSTRATIONS!

1. RULES FOR PLAY (Shoe Goal is always at least 15 Units)
2. We WAIT (4) hands before initiating play because my BET PLACEMENT STRATEGY REQUIRES at least (3), but I like to WAIT (4) for better accuracy using my methods.
3. We try to play at minimum (50) hands and at the conclusion of Hand. No. 54 (because we WAITED Four Hands) we check to ensure that we are at 14% R.O.W. or better to continue play (TRIGGER), if not, we are DONE with this shoe! If we are OK, we check every (5) hands thereafter to ensure we are in compliance with the (14% R.O.W.) parameter. If we have lost some consecutive bets and the next bet if lost, would place us under the (14% R.O.W.) parameter, we DO NOT make that bet and we are DONE with this shoe and leave with a profit! (TRIGGER)
4. If we lose (5) Consecutive bets we WAIT (because we are out of SYNC with the shoe) while still using our BET Placement Strategy and look for WIN, once a WIN has been seen we RE-ENTER the game and commence bet placement again, if we immediately lose another series of (5) bets we are OUT (TRIGGER), but this hardly ever happens!
5. If we have made GOAL and our R.O.W. is at least (18% or better) we continue play all the while ensuring that ANY bet we make will NOT place us below or minimum R.O.W. of (14%). (TRIGGER)
6. Once we have reached Hand No. 60 - 65 we look for an EXIT Point because we are closing in on the END of the shoe, (remember TIES are NOT listed in the analysis because they are NULL hands to me); we continue to play if we are winning, but once we lose (2) times in row after a WIN past Hand No. 60 (inclusive) +/- a hand or two, we are OUT like a SCOUT! (TRIGGER)

DEMO shoes provided were ACTUAL Shoes played by me on the date indicated. On SHOE No. 3 we increased our UNIT SIZE because of the profits made in SHOES No. 1 and No. 2. You'll see the comments and again the TRIGGERS EMPLOYED for EXITING the SHOES!

I welcome any comments!

Grab the Gold

Originally Posted by littogage

TBL works great.....but not when you have two's in a row. I have personally seen 12-16 two in a row in succession, with 4 to 7 of them to be the average in length.

Right. What do you mean 4 to 7 the average length? Certainly not that 2's come in succession on average 4 -7 times?

I like TBL as a starting point or default because as a stand alone bet placement method it wins more decisions than OTBL. If we find a way to beat the 2's, say using a trigger, then the game is won, isn't it?

Archer

Originally Posted by Grab The Gold

TRIGGERS, TRIGGERS, AND more TRIGGERS!

I've READ all of the below POSTS and still maintain that IF one is to make a departure from PATTERN Betting and just stick with the Mathematical Probabilities of REPEATING hands and INSTALL the required TRIGGERS or RULES for ENTRY and EXIT of a shoe, you'll be successful and OUT like a BOY SCOUT everytime!

One more time with NEW DEMONSTRATIONS!

1. RULES FOR PLAY (Shoe Goal is always at least 15 Units)
2. We WAIT (4) hands before initiating play because my BET PLACEMENT STRATEGY REQUIRES at least (3), but I like to WAIT (4) for better accuracy using my methods.
3. We try to play at minimum (50) hands and at the conclusion of Hand. No. 54 (because we WAITED Four Hands) we check to ensure that we are at 14% R.O.W. or better to continue play (TRIGGER), if not, we are DONE with this shoe! If we are OK, we check every (5) hands thereafter to ensure we are in compliance with the (14% R.O.W.) parameter. If we have lost some consecutive bets and the next bet if lost, would place us under the (14% R.O.W.) parameter, we DO NOT make that bet and we are DONE with this shoe and leave with a profit! (TRIGGER)
4. If we lose (5) Consecutive bets we WAIT (because we are out of SYNC with the shoe) while still using our BET Placement Strategy and look for WIN, once a WIN has been seen we RE-ENTER the game and commence bet placement again, if we immediately lose another series of (5) bets we are OUT (TRIGGER), but this hardly ever happens!
5. If we have made GOAL and our R.O.W. is at least (18% or better) we continue play all the while ensuring that ANY bet we make will NOT place us below or minimum R.O.W. of (14%). (TRIGGER)
6. Once we have reached Hand No. 60 - 65 we look for an EXIT Point because we are closing in on the END of the shoe, (remember TIES are NOT listed in the analysis because they are NULL hands to me); we continue to play if we are winning, but once we lose (2) times in row after a WIN past Hand No. 60 (inclusive) +/- a hand or two, we are OUT like a SCOUT! (TRIGGER)

DEMO shoes provided were ACTUAL Shoes played by me on the date indicated. On SHOE No. 3 we increased our UNIT SIZE because of the profits made in SHOES No. 1 and No. 2. You'll see the comments and again the TRIGGERS EMPLOYED for EXITING the SHOES!

I welcome any comments!

Grab the Gold

I have no argument with any of the above. . .except the use of the term Trigger. I suppose any change in direction of any sort while playing is a Trigger. What I refer to as a trigger is simply altering from some selected bet method to another bet method based on what has happened to date. Whether that occurrence is pattern, or decision specific or card value specific - a bet change. That's all.

A

Archer, my sharing of the twos in a row, was referring to seeing the average of them in a shoe, (total) 4-7 of them, and not always in a row. OB4L is what beats twos in a row. And the great challenge in it, as in baccarat, is find a trigger to them, in case they continue, and then when to exit, and begin tb4l, and exit tb4l, etc. And of course, sometimes a shoe will produce more than the average, and less.

FOOD for thought, one of GTG, bet selections could be alternating betting, between strong of last five, then betting the weak of last five.


R/S

Originally Posted by littogage

Archer, my sharing of the twos in a row, was referring to seeing the average of them in a shoe, (total) 4-7 of them, and not always in a row. OB4L is what beats twos in a row. And the great challenge in it, as in baccarat, is find a trigger to them, in case they continue, and then when to exit, and begin tb4l, and exit tb4l, etc. And of course, sometimes a shoe will produce more than the average, and less.

Hi guys,

Have been reading this tread but can't seem to understand all the abbrevations used. Can somebody enlighten me what is OB4L, TB4L ect? Would like to join in the chat too. Thanks.

PM me if its a private kind of thingy.

Fann