Grab The Gold Shoes

[littogage]

I am starting to see what this is all about. I like to know EXACTLY what I am talking about before I open my mouth, and if I don't know, to ask questions. However in this case, the direction given was to do the "detective" work, which I am doing. When I have it down, and understood, I will share what I understand. GTG is a great teacher, guide, instructor, and as I consider myself a student of this, I do enjoy and appreciate the intelligence, wisdom, insights of a great teacher, as I do have the motivation to learn, and look for the pearls, diamonds, and GOLD. By the way, I am a rescue certified scuba diver, and would like to suggest everyone read the story of finding the treasure ship Atocha off key west. Regarding the time, commitment, and sacrifice it took, and yielded to Mel Fisher....emeralds, rubies, and the GOLD!!! It was looking for a needle in a hay stack, puzzling, and I have no doubt, frustrating.....but.....he found it.

[garnabby]

What does the term DP stand for?

Decision point.

[ron90010]

So my next question is then, how do you determine if a shoe is streaky, choppy, or neutral.

I gather that a decision is made after 10 hands, but what happens if that decisions has changed or flipped flopped in the shoe a few times.

Or do the last 10 hands or even 5 determine how we label the current trend in the shoe?

[garnabby]

So my next question is then, how do you determine if a shoe is streaky, choppy, or neutral.

I gather that a decision is made after 10 hands, but what happens if that decisions has changed or flipped flopped in the shoe a few times.

Or do the last 10 hands or even 5 determine how we label the current trend in the shoe?

The obvious thing about baccarat is, any tiny differences in systems will produce enormous ones in predictions. It's awfully easy to turn around and say, "You didn't play it the way i would've."

Anyway, isn't dominance (of the P's over/under the B's) going to be as important as the running of the P's or B's?

Or have i missed something here, which has already accounted for the former?

[Archer]

The obvious thing about baccarat is, any tiny differences in systems will produce enormous ones in predictions. It's awfully easy to turn around and say, "You didn't play it the way i would've."

Anyway, isn't dominance (of the P's over/under the B's) going to be as important as the running of the P's or B's?

Or have i missed something here?

Yeah, dominance and run lengths but I think it is pretty easy to define shoe type although there may be overlap. GTG mentions that if unsure just use Neutral Grids. That makes sense; if it isn't obvious then the shoe is likely Neutral. The idea of using Grid types for shoes will, IMO, give a positive bump since many shoes or parts thereof maintain a specific characteristic. But, yeah, a shoe can change and the last 5 hands are going to dominate the Grid selection as I see it.

A

[Grab The Gold]

I Messaged ARCHER on this, but I thought I would share this with all of you.

His question was that he wasn't sure if there really was a difference or reason to have (3) separate GRIDS in the MGM; answer ... yes there is!

Here's my answer:

Trust me, there is a DIFFERENCE! When a shoe begins to evolve and let's say it starts streaking i.e. PPP-B-PPPP-BBB-P-BB-PPPPP-BBBBB-P-BB-PP-BB-P-B-PPPP LIKE THAT, then your STREAK GRID will KILL that!

Reciprocally, it goes like this: PP-B-PP-B-P-BB-PPP-B-P-B-PP-BBB-P-BB-P-B LIKE THAT, a CHOP GRID will KILL that! Anything else is NEUTRAL!

Hope that helps!

[Grab The Gold]

So my next question is then, how do you determine if a shoe is streaky, choppy, or neutral.

I gather that a decision is made after 10 hands, but what happens if that decisions has changed or flipped flopped in the shoe a few times.

Or do the last 10 hands or even 5 determine how we label the current trend in the shoe?

Answer: Looking back at the previous (5) hands, if there were (3) changes or more, then it's a CHOP segment; if there are (2) changes or LESS, then it's a STREAK segment. (3) changes in (8) qualifies as NEUTRAL.


So, what do I mean by CHANGES? Let's take a look:

P-P-B-P-B ... Between the 2nd "P" and 1st "B" (1) Change, then between the 1st "B" and 3rd "P" Another Change, then another after the last "P", thus (3) changes in (5) hands ... qualifies as a CHOP sequence.

P-P-B-P-P ... Between 2nd "P" and 1st "B" (1) Change, then between the 1st "B" and 3rd "P" a 2nd change ... qualifies as a STREAK segment, but just slightly. I favor (1) change in (5) for STREAK but use (2) as a standard to begin looking for a deviation toward the STREAK side.

Remember, it's always important to always take a look at the LONG VIEW, last (8-10) hands to make any BIG SWING adjustments, meaning SWINGING BOLDLY from STREAK to CHOP Grids and bypassing the NEUTRAL!

COUNT the DISTRIBUTION/FREQUENCY of CHANGES between the hands, NOT the hands themselves ... that's the SECRET!

[Grab The Gold]

I am starting to see what this is all about. I like to know EXACTLY what I am talking about before I open my mouth, and if I don't know, to ask questions. However in this case, the direction given was to do the "detective" work, which I am doing. When I have it down, and understood, I will share what I understand. GTG is a great teacher, guide, instructor, and as I consider myself a student of this, I do enjoy and appreciate the intelligence, wisdom, insights of a great teacher, as I do have the motivation to learn, and look for the pearls, diamonds, and GOLD. By the way, I am a rescue certified scuba diver, and would like to suggest everyone read the story of finding the treasure ship Atocha off key west. Regarding the time, commitment, and sacrifice it took, and yielded to Mel Fisher....emeralds, rubies, and the GOLD!!! It was looking for a needle in a hay stack, puzzling, and I have no doubt, frustrating.....but.....he found it.

Thanks for the very kind and considerate observations, much appreciated!

Yes, there has been seven years of hard work I have invested in this, tons of programming, data analysis, psychological examination of my own behavior at the table, you name it.

As I have said many times on this Forum, I am here to offer a means to assist all of you in finding your own END in Baccarat. Many of you have asked great questions and I have tried to answer most of them with the time I have alotted to do this. Great students all of you! I am happy that many of you are now looking at this game from a different perspective, and that's all I really wanted to achieve here.

Many thanks Littogage for those comments!

[Grab The Gold]

All I was trying to get to here was the length. DP is -1 then we have a 5 bet placement Grid that goes 1-, -2.5, -5, -7.5 (If lose). That is only 4 places after the DP loss but we have an extra placement in the Grid which goes 5 places so we never get to use the last Grid placement if we lose the Sequence so why a 5 place Grid? Why not only a 4 place Grid?

What am I missing?

Archer

The DP (Decision Point), the point at which you experienced the FIRST LOSS from a previous sequence. Once you LOSE (DP) you begin the first segment of the sequence ... like this:

You SAW: B-P-B-B-P (DP) NOW you RESPOND with a (5) hand SEQUENCE maybe like this ... O-O-F-O-F possibly, depending on the overall CHANGES that have occured in the last (10) hands. The aforementioned is merely offered as a demonstration, it's NOT the actual sequence I may employ.

The BETTING component could be anywhere, because if you were at (1) unit when you lost, then you bet (1) unit beginning the next sequence, if that loses, then 2.5 units, if that loses, then 5 units, if that loses then 7.5 units, if that loses you are OUT, yet still mentally using your PLAYING Strategy you observe to obtain a WIN, once your PLAYING STRATEGY sees a Win you go back in, your NEW BETTING will start like this at minimum: 1.5, 1.5. 4, 8 , 12 ... it's been a LONG time since I have lost (2) complete progressions, can't remember when. Anyway, you STAY at whatever progression level you have ascended to until you have cleaned-up all your losses, then you RETURN back to your baseline of 1, 1, 2.5, 5, 7.5.

Now then, I use the aforementioned progression because I like to CLEAN-UP all my losses quickly and move on, however, for those who wish to be more conservative there are other more MODERATE progressions one can utilize like 1,1,3,3,6,9 and ascend to 1.5, 1.5, 4, 6, 10 something like that. It will just take you longer to clean-up the losses if you lose your initial progression, which by the way, does not happen with a great deal of frequency as demonstrated in the DEMOS I posted last month.

Remember the KEY is the PLAYING (Bet Placement Strategy), you can adjust betting to whatever serves your threshold of anxiety!

Hope that answers the questions!

[Grab The Gold]

GTG,
I think the most challenging part we are facing is installing the response sequence. There were just too many combination out there and one has to determine a shoe first; whether it's Neutral, chop or streak before getting to the sequence.
After that, we will need to look at last 5 or 10 and put in the so-call "best" sequence and "hope" it will catch some wins. I don't think there's a right or wrong in how we put up with the sequence.
For example:

(Scenario 1)
When you saw P-P-P-B-P ... your response might be [ O-F-O-O-F ]
But I may be installing F-O-F-O-O.
Well, assuming we both are playing at the same table and for scenario 1, let's say you catch a win earlier than me. Say, you got your winning from the first "F" [O-F-O-O-F] and for me, maybe the 2nd "F" [F-O-F-O-O].
Ok, for this scenario you had a better response sequence.

(Scenario 2)
Now for scenario 2. Assuming the same thing happens. We are both playing at another table and we both determine this is a neutral shoe and we both saw the last 5 was P-P-P-B-P. Same thing, you will be installing [ O-F-O-O-F ] as your response sequence and for me, [F-O-F-O-O] will be my sequence. And this time, let say I catch my win from the first "F" [F-O-F-O-O] and you got yours at the 2nd F [ O-F-O-O-F ] because the shoe is now P streaky.

Based on these 2 examples, after we saw P-P-P-B-P, the shoe can either go chops (your sequence won) and it can also go streak (my sequence won).

So, is sequence (Grids you call it) really that important? Appreciate if you could explain more in this area. Thanks

Hi There, I think you'll find that answer in the POST I made below, if not, then please PM me and we'll discuss it further.

[Grab The Gold]

The Mathematics, is it that difficult? Answer: I already gave you the groundwork!

CHOP - (3) Changes in (5) hands
NEUTRAL - (3) Changes in (8) hands
STREAK - (2) Changes or LESS in (5) hands

Lay out your possible previous (5) hand possibilities, the DEVISE (3) GRIDS for the possible responses based on looking back (5) hands for the MACRO view, then (8-10) usually (10) for the overall view to make those adjustments.

Usually you shouldn't make a TRANSITION from STREAK to CHOP or vice versa without visiting a SEQUENCE from the NEUTRAL side, but sometimes a REAL DEVIANT SHOE may require just doing that

You folks are keeping me really busy tonight! Great questions from all concerned!

[sdf1492]

I didn't sit down and try to fully comprehend GTG method, I found it long winded poorly explained and simply switched off. I have explored many option recording in blocks of five, but the more I tested my own methods it was just a matter of time before I found those runs from hell. Hence my lack of effort and unwillingness to spend time trying to decipher what was written.

No matter what your betting criteria (I certainly don't understand the meaning of O or F), it has no bearing on the next group of outcomes.

It may help if somebody could simplfy the approach without having to wade through the endless streams of posts.

F = Follow or Same as Last
O = Opposit or Opposite of Last

And I've translated John's B's and P's into F's and O's

OOOOO
FOOOO
OFOOO
FFOOO
OOFOO
FOFOO
OFFOO
FFFOO
OOOFO
FOOFO
OFOFO
FFOFO
OOFFO
FOFFO
OFFFO
FFFFO
OOOOF
FOOOF
OFOOF
FFOOF
OOFOF
FOFOF
OFFOF
FFFOF
OOOFF
FOOFF
OFOFF
FFOFF
OOFFF
FOFFF
OFFFF
FFFFF

[Grab The Gold]

I didn't sit down and try to fully comprehend GTG method, I found it long winded poorly explained and simply switched off. I have explored many option recording in blocks of five, but the more I tested my own methods it was just a matter of time before I found those runs from hell. Hence my lack of effort and unwillingness to spend time trying to decipher what was written.

No matter what your betting criteria (I certainly don't understand the meaning of O or F), it has no bearing on the next group of outcomes.

It may help if somebody could simplfy the approach without having to wade through the endless streams of posts.

John, you are absolutely CORRECT, as you have not been tracking all these POSTS and been privy to all these ongoing discussions I can only imagine how difficult it has been for you to REALLY understand all of this without printing out tons of POSTINGS. I will make an attempt today at some point to LAY OUT a DEMO shoe with a MORE CONCISE explanation, possibly then, you and others will understand how this all comes together!

GTG

[garnabby]

The Mathematics, is it that difficult? Answer: I already gave you the groundwork!

CHOP - (3) Changes in (5) hands
NEUTRAL - (3) Changes in (8) hands
STREAK - (2) Changes or LESS in (5) hands

Lay out your possible previous (5) hand possibilities, the DEVISE (3) GRIDS for the possible responses based on looking back (5) hands for the MACRO view, then (8-10) usually (10) for the overall view to make those adjustments.

Neutral should be 2 1/2 changes in 5 games, or equivalently for this purpose, 3 changes in 6 games, or even 5 changes in 10 games? (Implying a better number for the changes/non-changes determination is in order.) But how many changes on average in 10 games? Go back to the math which was laid out regarding "non-runs". (Use the "Search" feature at the top of the forum to find "non-runs".) Eg, 0-1 for run-grid; 2-3 for neutral; and 4-5 for chop, would be just an intuitive guess... because those distributions aren't linear.

Second, the word 'macro' is synonymous with global, or overall, which case doesn't appear here to be explained here.

Just trying to speed this up a bit, so we can get on to others with, in my opinion, more potential and sincerity in intent.

[Grab The Gold]

Meant to write "MICRO" and transposed them.

And on that 2.5 in five hands, that's NOT my Method, my analysis shows (3) in (8).

You can use your calculations and I'll use mine ... how's that!

[garnabby]

It may help if somebody could simplfy the approach without having to wade through the endless streams of posts.

This is what the "social groups" are for, to open up one's own spot to clearly and concisely outline, edit, and follow up things. To get it together first.

Not to make all sorts of unsubstantiated claims out the open first.

Of course, 1/2 of those who try some aspect of this are going to win a session or two... and the other half "just didn't design it right", let alone not get distracted by "spilt drinks from scantily-clad waitresses".

[garnabby]

You can use your calculations and I'll use mine ... how's that!

That would be great, if you would show yours.

[Grab The Gold]

This is what the "social groups" are for, to open up one's own spot to clearly and concisely outline, edit, and follow up things. To get it together first.

Not to make all sorts of unsubstantiated claims out the open first.

Of course, 1/2 of those who try some aspect of this are going to win a session or two... and the other half "just didn't design it right", let alone not get distracted by "spilt drinks from scantily-clad waitresses".

Hey "EINSTEIN" what is your problem? I know I speak for myself and many others who have Emailed me, they are REALLY tired of your unproductive REMARKS, so put a "SOCK" in it. Nobody cares about what you have to say anymore, you have totally discredited yourself ... you have been "Challenged" by me earlier in this thread, either answer the "Challenge" or be quiet! It's really a wonder that anyone even tries to place a POST here without being "Thrashed" by Mr. "Garnabby" our RESIDENT NUT JOB.

You have contributed ZIP as far as any methods I can see, thus, YOU are the one whom has not substantiated anything from your dubious posts, so who are YOU to make any remarks here? As far as I am concerned you are just a "Wanna-Be", a self-proclaimed EXPERT, LOL, yeah right! Put your money on the table PAL, I'm READY to take you on, let's see if you have the balls to go with that BIG mouth of yours!

I apologize the other members reading this, but I have had just about enough of "Mr. EINSTEIN" here! Clearly, he hasn't "Got it to GO!"

Nuff said!

For those of you awaiting my complete breakdown of my METHOD as promised earlier today in my POST, please PRIVATE MESSAGE ME and I will select to whom my METHOD will go out to; I had planned to POST it this evening, but I will NO LONGER POST my research for guys like this to profit while criticizing me at the same time; thus if you are NOT one of the people I select to receive it, you can thank MR GARNABBY for that, he just ruined that opportunity for you! For those of you who will get the opportunity, once you see these final DIAGRAMS you will be convinced of the efficiency of these methods and will marvel at how well it really does work!

A final thought. I have made a sincere effort for the membership to view a different prospective on playing this game, the game can be BEATEN, and is being BEATEN by ME and my CLIENTS all the time, but I refuse to any longer to put up with this kind of nonsense from folks who clearly have NO sincere interest in trying it. My time is at a premium, I own a "High Tech" company, I'm a Published Author and Screenwriter, a SEASONED GAMBLER, and quite frankly, I no longer have the patience to endure people whose only goal is to CRITIQUE rather than experiment. I have done my best here, I have substantiated everything in POSTS, Demos, Email's, PRIVATE MESSAGES, and the like, but now I must say that I no longer have the time for nonsense from people like this, I have many other things that I'd rather be doing. I would like to think that I have made some contribution here, but only the members who were steadfast and willing to experiment will know whether I did or not, they know who they are! And, I'm VERY sure that most of them will be converts once they master the MGM! (Thanks for the Acronym ARCHER!) I know that many of you out there still have many questions, but I simply haven't the the tolerance for guys like Mr. Garnabby, thus, I am limiting my dialogue to those whom have shown a sincere interest through Emails and Private Messages previous to this posting.

Most of my methods will be coming out in a NEW book I wrote on Baccarat which has been copywritten last year and will be published very soon, I'm taking some time with my publisher to make some final EDITS, it will be my second published book on gaming, give it a READ, in addition to having my methods explained, it has great stories about my TRIPS to European Casinos, Indian Casinos, a lot of interesting places, it's a FUN READ!

This is my FINAL POST on this Forum for assuredly a long time if not indefinately, my thanks to those who showed an interest and supported my posts, I wish you all well in your Baccarat endeavors!

"The SECRET was always there for those who really wanted to see it!"

GTG

[garnabby]

"The SECRET was always there for those who really wanted to see it!"GTG

Well that's cute. You have a nice day too. I don't take dares, have nothing prove to others, especially to someone who can't properly explain his own ideas even after some help.

[Archer]

Neutral should be 2 1/2 changes in 5 games, or equivalently for this purpose, 3 changes in 6 games, or even 5 changes in 10 games? (Implying a better number for the changes/non-changes determination is in order.) But how many changes on average in 10 games? Go back to the math which was laid out regarding "non-runs". (Use the "Search" feature at the top of the forum to find "non-runs".) Eg, 0-1 for run-grid; 2-3 for neutral; and 4-5 for chop, would be just an intuitive guess... because those distributions aren't linear.

Second, the word 'macro' is synonymous with global, or overall, which case doesn't appear here to be explained here.

Just trying to speed this up a bit, so we can get on to others with, in my opinion, more potential and sincerity in intent.

Wow! Things are getting a little out of hand, don't you think? The first part of your post Garn, is interesting and worth exploring bu the last sentence? What's the point in that?

Look, everyone has the absolute right to follow or not follow GTG's posts. If you have something to say about the method he has alluded to (like you just did, Garn) fine. John questioned why MGM continues in the same mode after a win, e.g.; F or O until lose. OK, another thing that could be explored.

There are a couple of ways that I see MIGHT make MGM's bet placements better as well but this incessant criticism is uncalled for IMO.

If you want to follow a different thread then do so! Personally, I copied all the posts that I thought were pertinent and put them in a separate file for re-reading. This kind of forum is naturally not going to be as concise as some would like. But isn't that the nature of open discussions?

Naturally I take all claims with healthy skepticism. Unless I can see right off the bat that a method doesn't work BECAUSE THAT METHOD WAS EXPLICITLY DEFINED like NEVERDIES' for instance (sorry Never - I don't mean to pick on you) I am going to follow it if I think there may be some merit to it.

Okay, since I have a "head start" because I am familiar with another method which has similar tendencies as MGM I happen to like where MGM is going. (BTW that method is Ultimate Baccarat (UB) for anyone interested.)

I have said the following before: to win 1 out of 4 bets is not a particularly difficult feat in a 50-50 game. To win 1 out of EVERY 4 is a different story. But to analyze a prog for a 1 out of 4 win is not an easy task. One needs a LOT of decisions to in order to get a feel for it's possible positive EV. So when John says that he looked thorugh a bunch of shoes and found some patterns from hell intimating that MGM falls apart, well. . .that just ain't enough. Particularly when he admits that he doesn't quite follow it.

Whether or not MGM ultimately is discovered to have a positive outcome is not known yet.

Why Garnabby are you hammering this guy? AT worse this is a good exploratory exercise which should help people look at Baccarat in different light and maybe spurn some creative thinking.

Do people here really expect that someone is going to come in here and lay out the "holy grail" of Baccarat? Chill out folks! Have some fun, experiment!

Archer

[Archer]

Exactly sdf; Looking at O's and F's rather than patterns allows one to reduce the patterns by half doesn't it? It actually eliminates the need for side independent betting because it sees PPPP and BBBB, for example as the same. Another way of appraoching bet placments. Archer

F = Follow or Same as Last
O = Opposit or Opposite of Last

And I've translated John's B's and P's into F's and O's

OOOOO
FOOOO
OFOOO
FFOOO
OOFOO
FOFOO
OFFOO
FFFOO
OOOFO
FOOFO
OFOFO
FFOFO
OOFFO
FOFFO
OFFFO
FFFFO
OOOOF
FOOOF
OFOOF
FFOOF
OOFOF
FOFOF
OFFOF
FFFOF
OOOFF
FOOFF
OFOFF
FFOFF
OOFFF
FOFFF
OFFFF
FFFFF

[littogage]

Well said Archer, and cheers to you Sir. I believe it one thing to share, another to engage in HONORABLE DEBATE, and to engage in RESPECTFUL disagreeing. WE are all here to share, learn, help, and support each other. The negative demeaning, humiliation, and destructive communication has no benefit for anyone. Yes I fully understand and appreciate that we have all been scammed in the past, and mislead by those that are less than sincere and honest. However, I look at that as a part of the learning process, IF I want to continue to learn. As I always say, lose, but don't lose the lesson. I will not allow the past, to color my outlook for the future, unless it was positive, and I do away with the negative, forgetting it, and pray that I don't repeat that again. While it isn't easy to keep an open mind, I would HATE TO THINK, my mind would be closed to any new person, new idea, new approach, that would HELP me or anyone on this forum. I look at, think about, observe, and even practice things shared here, in hopes it may become beneifical. If it isn't, I simply discard it, and move forward. I must say, I am sadly disappointed, in the manner that GrabTheGold was communicated to in several negative and demeaning ways. He did NOTHING to deserve it, and I will also say SHAME on those who did so to him. One of the aspects of baccarat that I found attractive, was that it is purported to be a GENTLEMANS GAME. Manners, respect, honor, with a grace and touch of class. I think truly, everyone wants to be treated that way, and in my humble opinion, everyone should treat others that way. I am not living in a dream world, this is simply what I believe, and practice to the best that I can. Gentleman.....be wise as a fox, strong as a wolf, and also be a dove and carry the olive branch of peace.

[NaturalNines]

Well said Archer, and cheers to you Sir. I believe it one thing to share, another to engage in HONORABLE DEBATE, and to engage in RESPECTFUL disagreeing. WE are all here to share, learn, help, and support each other. The negative demeaning, humiliation, and destructive communication has no benefit for anyone. Yes I fully understand and appreciate that we have all been scammed in the past, and mislead by those that are less than sincere and honest. However, I look at that as a part of the learning process, IF I want to continue to learn. As I always say, lose, but don't lose the lesson. I will not allow the past, to color my outlook for the future, unless it was positive, and I do away with the negative, forgetting it, and pray that I don't repeat that again. While it isn't easy to keep an open mind, I would HATE TO THINK, my mind would be closed to any new person, new idea, new approach, that would HELP me or anyone on this forum. I look at, think about, observe, and even practice things shared here, in hopes it may become beneifical. If it isn't, I simply discard it, and move forward. I must say, I am sadly disappointed, in the manner that GrabTheGold was communicated to in several negative and demeaning ways. He did NOTHING to deserve it, and I will also say SHAME on those who did so to him. One of the aspects of baccarat that I found attractive, was that it is purported to be a GENTLEMANS GAME. Manners, respect, honor, with a grace and touch of class. I think truly, everyone wants to be treated that way, and in my humble opinion, everyone should treat others that way. I am not living in a dream world, this is simply what I believe, and practice to the best that I can. Gentleman.....be wise as a fox, strong as a wolf, and also be a dove and carry the olive branch of peace.

I agree with Littogage and Archer on this. GTG has been nothing but nice and straight forward with us in the forum. He has offered his time and vast knowledge of the game and should be commended. As Archer has stated before with the parameters that GTG has set in place there is no reason we should be unsuccessful with his method(s). He has a couple of methods that look solid. Thank You GTG for your efforts.

[joshky]

Well said Archer, and cheers to you Sir. I believe it one thing to share, another to engage in HONORABLE DEBATE, and to engage in RESPECTFUL disagreeing. WE are all here to share, learn, help, and support each other. The negative demeaning, humiliation, and destructive communication has no benefit for anyone. Yes I fully understand and appreciate that we have all been scammed in the past, and mislead by those that are less than sincere and honest. However, I look at that as a part of the learning process, IF I want to continue to learn. As I always say, lose, but don't lose the lesson. I will not allow the past, to color my outlook for the future, unless it was positive, and I do away with the negative, forgetting it, and pray that I don't repeat that again. While it isn't easy to keep an open mind, I would HATE TO THINK, my mind would be closed to any new person, new idea, new approach, that would HELP me or anyone on this forum. I look at, think about, observe, and even practice things shared here, in hopes it may become beneifical. If it isn't, I simply discard it, and move forward. I must say, I am sadly disappointed, in the manner that GrabTheGold was communicated to in several negative and demeaning ways. He did NOTHING to deserve it, and I will also say SHAME on those who did so to him. One of the aspects of baccarat that I found attractive, was that it is purported to be a GENTLEMANS GAME. Manners, respect, honor, with a grace and touch of class. I think truly, everyone wants to be treated that way, and in my humble opinion, everyone should treat others that way. I am not living in a dream world, this is simply what I believe, and practice to the best that I can. Gentleman.....be wise as a fox, strong as a wolf, and also be a dove and carry the olive branch of peace.

Amen.

[LordMuffdive]

Well said Archer, and cheers to you Sir. I believe it one thing to share, another to engage in HONORABLE DEBATE, and to engage in RESPECTFUL disagreeing. WE are all here to share, learn, help, and support each other. The negative demeaning, humiliation, and destructive communication has no benefit for anyone. Yes I fully understand and appreciate that we have all been scammed in the past, and mislead by those that are less than sincere and honest. However, I look at that as a part of the learning process, IF I want to continue to learn. As I always say, lose, but don't lose the lesson. I will not allow the past, to color my outlook for the future, unless it was positive, and I do away with the negative, forgetting it, and pray that I don't repeat that again. While it isn't easy to keep an open mind, I would HATE TO THINK, my mind would be closed to any new person, new idea, new approach, that would HELP me or anyone on this forum. I look at, think about, observe, and even practice things shared here, in hopes it may become beneifical. If it isn't, I simply discard it, and move forward. I must say, I am sadly disappointed, in the manner that GrabTheGold was communicated to in several negative and demeaning ways. He did NOTHING to deserve it, and I will also say SHAME on those who did so to him. One of the aspects of baccarat that I found attractive, was that it is purported to be a GENTLEMANS GAME. Manners, respect, honor, with a grace and touch of class. I think truly, everyone wants to be treated that way, and in my humble opinion, everyone should treat others that way. I am not living in a dream world, this is simply what I believe, and practice to the best that I can. Gentleman.....be wise as a fox, strong as a wolf, and also be a dove and carry the olive branch of peace.

What an excellent post littogage, Archer, joshky, NaturalNines and all other forum members that wish to chime in on this matter. GTG has opened our eyes on a different method and way to look at the game and ultimately beating it in the long term. It takes an open mind and willingness to learn and try a different approach. I have personally went back and forth with GTG for a while now and saw the light at the end of the tunnel after taking a week off due to family issues. I have also made my peace with Neverdie14 and he has accepted so good "karma" is coming my way. Once i nail down the grids and get in some more practice, get my cards laminated, then i'm ready to go. This method looks as solid as it gets right now because i have experimented with something like this in the past but never got the parameters down right. Thank You GTG for sacrificing your time to teach us these methods of playing. "Karma" is looking good now.

[garnabby]

Gentlemen,

I will continue to "call it the way i see it", and by the rules of this board.

With regard to this specific matter, i don't believe i wrote/implied that i fully knew any of the system in question... or then commented upon its ultimate prospects. But merely asked the "tough questions", for which there seemed no reasonable response... ever.

Personally, i have never bought a single gambling system, book, or lesson. There are plenty of libraries, internet sites, and places of general education. In my opinion, true success at something can't be bought/sold, "hinted at" (in a drawn-out manner), or secreted away (in private emails, etc).

And i like to think that when i "walk through a door", those on the other side will know i fully speak by, and for, myself only; and regardless what i know others to believe or not.

[shuttlebus]

I agree with Archer and others regarding this matter. I will be very disappointed to see GTG no longer posting on this board as he made a positive contribution.

[garnabby]

I agree with Archer and others regarding this matter. I will be very disappointed to see GTG no longer posting on this board as he made a positive contribution.

As i already noted, no one has forced him to post, or not to post. And i certainly am not going to endorse, or not endorse, something not fully there, and likely never to be fully anywhere even in part.

The "Garden of Eden", and other such "games", really no longer exist... even if one still chooses to "believe in" those. And as unpopular as all this may seem to some here... i, myself, remain only the messenger at least, and an advocate of my own opinions at most.

Seriously Archer, just because Grab doesn't "get his own way" with everyone?

[garnabby]

I will also add, I lost five of my baccarat friends, team partners, through the use of Dragon Baccarat. They simply didn't want anything to do with baccarat, after it failed. I lost another baccarat friend, playing partner to the issue of the 5% percent commission charge, due to a banker win. He simply refused to play baccarat anymore due to that. My view of it, is simply this, if it is 5% on banker, and no commission charge on player wins, in reality it is only 2 1/2% with the two combined. Two other baccarat friends were lost due to chasing their losses, and the remaining friend was lost due to going against streaks. All things, a person learns early on in casino gaming. So, for the last eight years, I have played, studied, learned, on my own, which gets really lonely. And that is the main reason I joined this forum, as well to continue to learn, observe, and practice, with like minded others, that have the same love of this game, dedication, sharing and willing to learn.

Another reason to sort these matters out long before the "challenges", etc, even for Gold, himself. Even wrt the OVERALL growth of such a message-board.

[Archer]

Gentlemen,

I will continue to "call it the way i see it", and by the rules of this board.

Good, we need a watchdog!

With regard to this specific matter, i don't believe i wrote/implied that i fully knew any of the system in question... or then commented upon its ultimate prospects. But merely asked the "tough questions", for which there seemed no reasonable response... ever.

Garnabby wrote referring to GTG:

You, the big businessman should have learned that a long time ago. . . .Punks like you are a dime a dozen, you want the whole "show" for yourselves.

??????? How do you justify this?

To this point GTG has stated that he has a winning method. He has chosen to give "clues" for folks, if they choose, to try to figure out what the method is. He has explained it in the way he has explained it - maybe he could have explained it better to make it easier to follow, so what. At the very least he has stimulated thinking about the game. AND, he has kept it in the open forum which essentially allows for collaboration among "students" to compare information. He hasn't produced proof positive for his claims. He is NOT obligated to, is he?

Personally, i have never bought a single gambling system, book, or lesson. There are plenty of libraries, internet sites, and places of general education. In my opinion, true success at something can't be bought/sold, "hinted at" (in a drawn-out manner), or secreted away (in private emails, etc).

That is your right, but true success at something CAN be bought, sold. That is a fact. Consider the Wendy's franchise, etc!

There are private invitation only groups right on this site, Garn!

But the important point here I think is that GTG is NOT selling anything. I think people have a right to sell a method. I also think that if they do they should either back it up with some kind of discernible proof or allow it to be verified by an independent party.

This is Ellis' problem. Ellis has a right, IMO, to charge for a subscription service but when he doesn't provide any evidence of his claims for his methods he becomes suspect at best.

Finally, I just don't see the harm in what GTG is doing. Some like to explore it and some don't. It is fair for you or anyone to ask him to show proof and ask questions or raise issues about what he is proposing. Such questions can only add to understanding of the game.

Archer