hey,

I just finished my Computer Science degree a few weeks ago and to celebrate my friends took me to the casino in Melbourne (Crown Casino). They told me beforehand that we'd be playing baccarat.

So obviously since I was going to play a game with money, I'd want to find out how to maximise my chances of winning, losing is even less fun when you are losing your money.

I ended up learning and using the U2HiSA system from BTC after testing it in a bunch of bodog games and finding that it worked most of the time. I went to Crown and won significantly overall but I actually quit (read: was losing) more shoes than I won. It was a good performance for a first try (around +20 for my first games in an actual casino) but it wasn't amazing or anything, it could be vastly improved.

Following is a quote that is at the heart of my reason for starting this thread.

----------

There's one more Street Fighter story I thought they had to hear before getting to the topic of the law. When I played Street Fighter at the MIT arcade, most players tried to keep secrets from each other about techniques and tricks. I disagreed with this mindset and I did not keep secrets. Instead, I told my competitors everything I knew so that we could all practice against everything. Why? Because the MIT arcade was not the REAL competition. It was the training ground. When I went to play at an international tournament in Japan, that was a REAL competition. The only way to be prepared for something like that is to develop your skills as much as you can in your training ground.

This is the reason that law students should not hide their research from each other. Human nature might compel you to hoard the good secrets you found, but that is the path of trying to be slightly less mediocre than your training partners. Instead, know that a high tide raises all boats and that when law students get together, share research, and discuss cases, they reach a level of understanding of those cases that is far deeper than would be possible without the discussion.


Game Design, Psychology, Flow, and Mastery - Articles - Professor Sirlin and the FourthAmendment

----------

(If you don't understand how this quote relates to the baccarat community, then read it again, it's not difficult)

We are not even against eachother in this game, yet the hiding of secrets is rampant in this community.

For instance, people are selling systems for insane prices, why? We are playing against the casino, not eachother, besides if the system being sold is so good why do you need to sell it? Can't you use it yourself to generate enough income to more than adequately support yourself and your family?

If the baccarat community continues to behave in this manner then the casino will simply keep winning.

I think this problem within the baccarat community is a reflection of a major problem around the world..

We all keep secrets especially governments. For example..who do you think really built the pyramids? I would not put my trust in what the "history" books tell us about this topic..

We keep secrets for many reasons, I think a primary reason is fear. How will the people react if they discover the secrets of the world and the lies of government..How will the casinos react if they discover our secrets?

I think that the only solution ot his problem would be a total spiritual reawakening to all of mankind somewhat to the extent of what some people predict will happen in 2012 (not the destruction of the world but the end of the world as we know it). And even if this were to happen I think that baccarat would cease to exist because the entire world would change.

I don't think this will happen so to summarize..it is what it is, we are stuck with it. The best thing we can do is adapt and figure things out and find a few people who you can share with and not give a crap about the majority of the people who probably don't care about you. Which is yet another problem with the world. Until things change at least...if they ever do.


And to back up some of what I said, google this guy "Nassim Haramein" -- I think that a lot of people need to start listening to him.

He has a lot of interesting videos on youtube. I know that this may have nothing to do with your topic so sorry for starting to get off topic.

As far as baccarat secrets, I don't think we need to be paranoid. Assuming we were given a winning system. Many of us would criticize it or dismiss it. Others would not try to understand it and use it ,and others would use it and abandon it. So how many of us would actually benefit if we were given the HG? Not many. No need to hide anything from anyone on this forum. User

well said but is only natural to be a bit paranoid i guess

When I go to learn a new fighting game I go on the forums for that game. The forums are where all the information is reported, discussed, collated, made easy to find. There are sticky threads with links to the information I need. I don't have to wade through tonnes of garbage just to get a piece of information on a part of the game I struggle with.

This could happen to this forum, most posts I read here are about bashing certain members. Here's what I'd like to see:

Sticky: Glossary
Sticky: Online Casinos
Sticky: Matching a System to a Table Type
[Choppy] System X
[Streaky] System Y
[Unknown] System Z
[Choppy] System A
[Choppy/Streaky] System B

Now you may think, hey I think it should be done in x way, this way is stupid. This is a great way to miss the point, the point is that the forum should be organised in such a a way that such information is easy to find.

This sort of thing will only work if people stop hoarding secrets and let each other know things they have found out about the game. When people start contributing instead of hoarding then we can work with a larger amount of information, develop strategies and so on, here's an example.

Bob has a bet placement strategy and progression that works well with choppy tables. George has a very good money management system. Now suppose Bob uses a really dodgy money management system in his system. Now that George has published his money management system Bob can incorporate it into his system (at least as an option). Now Greg comes along with a progression that is better than the one Bob has, so Bob incorporates it into his system. Bob's play is improved, everyone using Bob's play strategy gets better results. Smiles happen

This is how collaboration works.

This is the reason that law students should not hide their research from each other. Human nature might compel you to hoard the good secrets you found, but that is the path of trying to be slightly less mediocre than your training partners. Instead, know that a high tide raises all boats and that when law students get together, share research, and discuss cases, they reach a level of understanding of those cases that is far deeper than would be possible without the discussion.

Plasia,

That would be great, were there a "table type". (Or anything else Ellis/Grab, including their own keeping of "secrets", which worked. The one deletes anything factual at his board; while the other "folds up his tent faster than an Arab", in a huff, but "conveniently" leaves behind all of his "valuable" posts. LOL.)

Oh, sorry for "bashing" you, as you chose to put it, but most of this forum is already far from that. And even then, sometimes the "shoe fits".

Asfaras "secrets" go, the only ones prospering from those yet are the casinos and scammers, and (hopefully) to a lesser exent the owners of these (public) message-boards. Baccarat has yet to be consistently beaten, not a shred of evidence to the contrary... which is why anyone contemplating such a course of action(s) ought to be given all the facts at hand.

Are we that greedy, self-centered, and/or mean-spirited that we would rather no one move on, however, with even this basic information?

P.S. It's great when one can speak his own mind... not to promote/sell anything to anyone, or to play any of the other truly-bashing games.

So, P, If you or anyone else doesn't like anyone's posts/replies, or this forum in general, then either don't read those, or have Mike ban you, as Grab and littogage did (, and in the latter case, don't re-register the next time you want to switch usernames)... couldn't care less.

I assume that there are table types based on my research, in a casino and on dublinbet. You assert there are no "table types", there is a discussion there is there not? But alas, where do I find the thread where you explain thoroughly why there is no table type and it is discussed? Do you get what I'm trying to say here?

I agree in principle, if baccarat has yet to be consistently beaten as you say and considering that's exactly what we want to do (win). Should not all the facts and information be easily accessible? Perhaps then we could get closer to this goal.

I guess with my example of a secret I led everyone on to thinking about all the systems being sold. I guess I was hoping that people would read the quote and apply it to baccarat and deduce that there are big secrets and small secrets.

It's very improbable that one person can come up with everything. The secrets I'm more interested in (as I'm not currently convinced with these paid for systems) are of the smaller variety.

For instance: I want to know what betting strategies beat what streaks. I feel like I'm re-inventing the wheel by testing so many different things on the shoes I have recorded*.

As a recent graduate (well I hope, I get my results November 30th) in Computer Science I have made dozens of programs based on previous work. I don't re-invent how to implement an array whenever I need one, it's already done for me. So I can concentrate on creating the program using those already implemented things as building blocks. This is how I could see these baccarat forums operating, if a lot of information is posted and organised then we can build on those to create better systems. Why should we re-invent the wheel when someone else already has? My main area is programming (I am making a card shuffler atm, it is NOT a RNG, it will be x decks in a shoe, I hope I finish this and it helps people ) and programming is all about making complicated systems that work out of small simple systems. I believe this approach can be applied to baccarat. I have certainly seen it been profitably applied to other games.

* That's another thing, how about a shoe thread with a variety of shoes for people to test things on? I've had to record all my own since I've hardly found any online. It would be a good thing to start with

Plasia, These two guys believe that all shuffles and all shuffle machines are designed to and in fact make all cards random in spite of abundant evidence to the contrary which they disregard out of hand.

That makes life very simple. If all cards are purely random it doesn't matter a hoot how you play. Since random can outlast all progs and defeats all bet routings there is, in their world, no way to win. That gives them the perfect platform from which to ridicule ALL those who try to win as well as ALL methods. They brush off all demonstrations to the contrary by simply declaring that such demonstrations never occurred. Even when they watch you win its completely meaningless to them because it doesn't fit their declarations.

But these are the same guys who see 34 in a rows and cars self destructing at 160 MPH. Believe them at your own peril.

Never mind the fact that if all cards were random, Basic Strategy alone would have driven all casinos out of business a long time ago. These guys simply sweep aside all facts that do not support their claims. If they were born a few hundred years ago they'd be trying to convince us that the world is flat - that all arguments to the contrary are ridiculous and a figment of our collective imaginations.

For instance. John here solemnly claims that out of the more than 1000 shoes he has played in casino, that only one shoe started streaky and stayed streaky. If that were true, which, of course, it isn't, that would be the betable trend, wouldn't it. Baccarat would be easy, wouldn't it. All we'd need to do is bet that all shoes that start streaky would turn either neutral or choppy. But, in fact, if we played that way we would get killed wouldn't we. Just as thousands have proved. Patterson, for one.

In Our ECD Bac tester of 500 complete actual casino shoes turned in by our players, I can show John 200 shoes that started streaky and stayed streaky. Had you simply bet repeats you would have won. That should be pretty interesting to John since he has only seen ONE in his life. I wonder if it was the same one that had 34 Players in a row?

Now, I'm sure Garnabby will accuse us of screening the shoes we put in the tester. What else can he do when that tester completely defies his stance - there are no trends in Baccarat. Sure, and the Earth is flat.

Ties, sure, that makes all the difference, sure. First you disclaim the statement, now you reclaim it. Which is it? Now you seem to be saying that the casino somehow cheated. That actually makes perfect sense to me. But then casinos never cheat. Just ask Garnabby. BTW, do you have a job? Do they pay you? Well that would make you a lying cheat scammer, wouldn't it. The same standard you use for me.

Well, here's one of my posts from the GG, at Gambler's Glen Message Boards : Baccarat Message Board : How To Win At Baccarat , in which i tried to put this internet-forum thing into perspective. (Mike, i see by the rules you posted, this is spamming... but here it goes anyway.)

__________________________________________________ ______________

gr8player wrote,

"I've posted more pertinent Baccarat play information in any two sentences of my posts than you've posted in your entire term here. Why the relentless personal attack? I know why Johno does it, but I figured you as much more intelligent. Apparently, I was wrong about you, Garnabby. You're just another "forum wannabe", and will forever be on the "outside looking in" at the true winners. Shame, really, I had you pegged for so much more."



garnabby replied,

gr8player,

How is being a "forum wannabe" even possible? Except for the miserable who long for any sort of company, the scammers, the hopelessly-deluded gambling addicts, et al alike; and the few genuinely trying to pass along and/or pick up some good tips, or "shoot the breeze"... these forums are of NO CONSEQUENCE to anything, or anyone. Posters come and go all the time, regardless of what anyone else posts. But it's those who try to put on some sort of aire(s) who are the most-transient, and useless anyway. And it always follows the same patterns then, ultimately ending in the "fault" of some other "evil" poster.

If you have a personal issue with myself, post the offending remark(s). I have told some of the scammers here and there to f*ck off, after having made my case against them abundantly clear, but haven't alluded to that with you. Perhaps your admissions of shame, etc, have been misdirected?

How could you have had me "pegged for more" when you've basically had nothing to do with me (, or anyone else). And, as i already replied to Nathan, i will never again here refer to where else i've posted my own work... because i can sympathize that no site is in the business of actively referring others. This site, like any other though, has its own dynamics and purposes.

If you want better responses, you need to put up better questions. Bill Cashman, johno, and some others did just that... to which i answered specifically, and in no uncertain terms. And i asked you, yourself, some specific questions... but to "thin air", right?

So then you turned to the next stage of this, "Just does, so there."

Madmen aren't really "mad" you know. They possess none of the attributes to properly randomize, search out and employ a wide range of methods, conceal themselves, and communicate this to others. Madmen are only sick, however.

Everyone wants to be "unpredictable, full of surprises, and the gracious diplomat," but most of us know enough to just do the best we can. Trying to be someone else can end only "badly" quickly; instead of setting out w/o claims of any sort, studing others' work, and building on that with one's own experiences as those are re-awakened.

But, eg, as "flipping" a coin in a poker game isn't going to tell anyone the correct bluffing frequency, nor is "following the shoe" going to explain the game-theory mathematics behind baccarat. Even when simple randomization is called for, why get "fancy"?

Finally, i think i have as much trouble discerning what the others write as they do what i write. That's only natural, when trying to work another method while still thinking in terms of one's own. But i still enjoy it all, and certainly harbor no ill-will at those who cast "apersions"... because, as Art(?) might say, "I already know my place in the world."

__________________________________________________ ______________________

BTW, though i haven't asked fishman specifically what the problem is with my ability to log in over there, seems that board apparently intentionally no longer recognizes anything at my end. UPDATE: THAT ISSUE HAS BEEN RESOLVED, AS I MAY NOW LOG IN AGAIN (W/O THE THE MESSAGE "CONNECTION REFUSED", OR THE INABILITY TO SET UP A NEW ACCOUNT.)

Oh well, gr8player was getting a little "over the top" anyway... now i'm reconsidering a past statement of mine about rather being "deluded and still trying than going to lose for the entertainment". I wonder if he (and some of the others there) realize even what he's writing anymore?
__________________________________________________ _____________



Hey Ellis, good to see you back. What a life, eh? How are the cats?

Garnabby, you started this I didn't. You declared I was a scammer out of the clear blue sky and you were going to attack me based on no information whatsoever with no credentials whatsoever. What's wrong? Didn't you ever have anybody hit back before? You invited me here so you could make fun of me. But I'm not defensless like most of the people you pick on. I know my stuff. You don't. Your brains come from other junk sites. Mine come from the tables. I've been there and I've been through it all. You haven't. All you do is make stuff up and quote others who make stuff up. I don't read or post on other forums. They're useless and hopeless. That's your bag, not mine. That's just more crap you made up.

Let's not get off track here.

What do people think of the idea of really getting this forum organised?

John! That last was an excellent post by anyone's standards!

Plasia, Lot's of luck!

Lead, follow, or get out of the way... so far all i'm reading is more "talk" from someone i don't really believe. (And the same old nonsense from Ellis, despite endless opportunities for him to just stop lying.)

Eg, which computer-science program ends in the middle of most university study-terms?

Eg, how could a classically-trained person fall for Ellis' (plagiarized) "net betting"?

I live in Australia, have a look at when semester 2 ends, and when I get the results.
RMIT - 2009 important dates - Higher Education students

I'm sure you mean something else by classically-trained. I thought, and a quick google search backed me up, that classically-trained referred to the teaching of music, which is not at all relevent here.

Correct me if I'm wrong but assuming you meant "How could someone with a university education fall for net betting?":

I don't think I "fell for" net betting. I did research trying to find out the best way to beat baccarat and U2HiSA is what worked best in my testing. Net betting is basically a 1-2-2 progression on the losing side. It was simply the best I came up with in my time period. I'm sure there are better systems, but I haven't found any yet.

Certainly, i meant 'classical' as conventional, (as in 5a of it's actual defining at classical: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com .) Conventionally-trained, or even formally-trained, would then mean the same thing as 'classically-trained'... neither phrase of which seems to be (formally) defined as a word, by any of the on-line dictionaries. In fact, i went to the on-line Webster's Dictionary to check out 'classically-trained', only to receive the reply, "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above." (Finding such a usage on the internet by no means makes that usage a real definition.)

So again, how could a classically-trained person in higher-mathematics (, a necessary part of a computer-science degree,) not realize from the outset that "net betting" logically does nothing else than just betting "on one's own", on one side at a time? It does result in a specific sequence of oddly-averaged bets, which could coincidentally be a "hair" more/less advantageous than than only "flat betting", or betting progressions... but it alone can be of NO distinct dis-/advantage for the player. Boggles the mind... i thought Ellis' stuff appealled only to the most-gullible among us, especially after all the "whoppers" he tells up to that point.

I looked at the schedule you provided by the link. Your school's semester #2 ends at the end of the year, with the exams from Nov 2-13, except the 3d which is listed as a holiday. But on the 18th, you wrote, "I just finished my Computer Science degree a few weeks ago... ." The timing here still seems a bit odd, but not impossible i suppose.

Anyway, the real underlaying tone of my previous posts was that i don't believe you yet know enough about the game of baccarat, or this board, to thusly presume to better re-organize any of these message-boards, or even enough to comment on where this board is headed. Especially after keying in on the "bashing", when that's just not the case for this board. What are the optoins: the gr8player's sad delusions at GG; Ellis's brainwashing at BTC; or some email-thing ran behind the "veil" of endless privacy and courtesy, of course along with more useless "hints" for a donation, etc? Sometimes the "weeds must be weeded out" along the way... but that's not bashing, etc. (Bashing is all the others have been left; to which Mike, the admin, terms "bickering", and quickly puts an end to.)

As for the baccarat-information in this forum, and that to which it could lead elsewhere, or in the future... there is NONE better.

Actually I haven't had to do any maths. I got an exemption because I did Business Statistics in a previous course.

Also here's what I said in my last post.

I suppose it could look suss, my last exam was on the 4th of November (Professional Computing Practice).

Please remember that I never said "hey I'll organise your boards". My hobby is fighting games and I have learnt a lot of them over the years, they all featured a community that shared information and well organised forums. I know what a good game forum looks like, what a good game community looks like.

What did I find here?
BaccaratForums.com - Social Groups

Invitation only groups..
A FEW CHOSEN MEMBERS
Invited members
...

This is the reason that law students should not hide their research from each other. Human nature might compel you to hoard the good secrets you found, but that is the path of trying to be slightly less mediocre than your training partners. Instead, know that a high tide raises all boats and that when law students get together, share research, and discuss cases, they reach a level of understanding of those cases that is far deeper than would be possible without the discussion.

What I'm seeing here is secrets, people are hiding their findings. I had hoped this thread would spark discussion on the points I raised, not my credentials.

Plasia. I think you are absolutely right about one thing. In spite of your good fortune with the free systems at my site, the instruction could be much better and better organized. Most players end up playing only the chop version and far too rigidly because the streak adjustment of reducing your prog length is in a different thread. ALL instruction needs to be in the same place and more complete. It needs to be restructured and I will do that as time permits but of course the free forum always gets last priority.

But in my experience, you are on the right track. There is such a thing as shoe types. I could show you thousands of examples but three come to mind immediately.

First, while I don't normally play weekends I was at Gold Coast, Vegas for a three day weekend BJ tournament about a year ago. I posted all 20 shoes I played on our private forum. All 20 were played on the same table using a chop system very similar to the free system you did so well with. I won all 20 shoes except one where I caught the last 12 hands of a shoe and broke exactly even. Of the other nineteen I won either 10 or 11 on the partial shoes and 20 or 21 on the complete shoes. Of course my stop wins were +10 on the partials and +20 on the complete shoes which were about half and half. The 11s and the 21s occurred when I happened to hit my last play with a 2 bet.

20 out of 20 would be extremely unusual until you examine the shoes. In all 20 shoes there was only one single straight run that went longer than 4 and it happened to go 7 so I won anyway. That's only half the story. It was very crowded so many times I could not get on "my" table but I always examined the tote board anyway. Except for the single 7 I never saw a run longer than 4 at that table for three days.

Now I realized some here will chalk that up to random occurrence. But in my mind random occurrence can only account for so much coindidence. That table was way outside the envelop of random occurrence.

Second, one of our players, Paul Starr has been a full time professional for many years. Paul strictly flat bets $300 units on shoe trends based on all three Disparities. Paul, who I've played with many times, has the highest hands won rate I ever heard of. Paul has averaged 57% for nine years. I don't think random occurrence can begin to account for his play record.

Third, new cards at Gold Strike, Tunica, MS have highly favored OTB4L for three years straight. I've had several 100% winning trips at Tunica by simply sticking to new cards early in the morning. For the three years before that I did almost as well betting strictly repeats with a 123 prog to a +12. Then new cards changed from streak to chop over night.

I strictly look for and bet these situations. I have the best win loss rate of anyone I know and I know a LOT of Bac Players. The more I play the less I believe in coincidence. So, yes, I think you are on the right track.

No, you're the one focusing in on some sort of credentials, and looking for confrontations... why else all the bother with courses and degree(s), the excessive attempt at being "wordy", or the "secrets" (to anything) which john rightly pointed out don't exist. Not all the social groups are invitation-only; and i allow anyone who asks into the group which i started, having about 15 of the 100 spaces left (in case some of the material there has/will have real value in the casinos)... and that group is continued in another one for the handful of persons able to help each other at that level (who actually got around to seriously talking baccarat.) Do you really expect those persons, who have spent, on average, twenty years at this task to give it up for free (, themselves only to be mocked, etc, by the lazy, time-wasting 'bashers' buzzing around here lately)? And then lay it all at your feet, in "your thread", instead of putting new information in the appropriate thread(s)? At some point, serious work must be treated seriously.

One-Time Opportunity: Private Baccarat System Social Group Forum (Inactive users are now being deleted to make room for new invitations.)

Okay, you did all your 2(?) exams on the 2d, and 4th of this month... because universities schedule such for the average case-load of 6 to 8 courses a term in a spaced-out manner. (Oops, i wrote "spaced-out", please don't accuse me of "being on drugs" as Grab did.) What are the odds a student "goes out" in that manner, only two courses examined straight away? Or do you have some professor-friends who let you write yours whenever you want. Anyway, one has to wonder what the heck is being taught these days to computer-graduates who question things like the phrase 'classically-trained' w/o checking a dictionary, but think a couple (of weeks) is best described by (the minimum of) few; and erroneously programs and reports about a simple betting progression which is a non-starter... information out in the open here, and which you seem to want to just deny before checking. What is your problem?

And give the "law-thing" a rest, you apparently wouldn't know one end of a courtroom from the other. Asfaras "other gaming forums", why not tell us your insights, etc, rather than just spouting that off as more "credentials"? Could it then be that you're the one being "played", wasting his/her time? Make me believe your someone else other than danielson at BTC.

And yes, it wouldn't be the first time a professor laid it out like this to a prospective student, "You have no future here, find something else." Because, respectfully, what i'm "seeing here" is the makings of a bad basher trying to dig up and twist around things wrote here (, and replied to,) a long time ago.

If you have something, even a "secret", about this game... please just post it.

Garnabby I will answer your post but this is the last time. I am disappointed that instead of discussing the ideas I presented in the thread you seem determined to in some way put me down or discredit me at every opportunity.

Notice how in the first post I only mentioned university for context. In the following posts I only mention my (pending) degree to try and get a concept across. You will find if you look through the thread that you have been trying to discredit me all the time and my university education is what you bring up.

Eg, which computer-science program ends in the middle of most university study-terms?

Eg, how could a classically-trained person fall for Ellis' (plaguarized) "net betting"?

So again, how could a classically-trained person in higher-mathematics

...

I'm not sure where you came up with this concept, but it's incorrect. Please understand my idea before you make assumptions. Organisation of the forum mostly involves putting sticky's up that link to the already posted threads. This makes it far easier to find information.

I did 3 subjects this semester, 2 had exams. The other subject could be described as a semester project.

I did 2 exams:
Professional Comp Practice
Electronic Commerce & Enterprise Systems

You can look them up here:
http://mams.rmit.edu.au/d3hpa7378avjz.pdf

Classically-trained is not something that is said here in Australia. When you don't understand something that I say, feel free to look it up, I wont make a big deal out of it

If there is information in the open here it seems to be abnormally hard to find.

What has my knowledge of a courtroom have to do with the point that the quote brings up? I am disappointed that instead of discussing the point that the quote raises you attack me instead. (Please look this up: Logical Fallacies).

As for other gaming forums and how they are organised, please see my second post. The Price of Keeping Secrets

Eg, how could a classically-trained person fall for Ellis' (plaguarized) "net betting"?

Hey Garnabby, the fact that you can't spell plagiarism greatly reduces your credibility on the subject. When I came up with net betting on my own 25 years ago there were NO Baccarat books on the American market whatsoever to plagiarize. Mine was the first. And the internet had not yet been invented. Unbeknownst to you, there was a world before the internet. You have no idea of the concept of when to use and when not to use net betting and have no idea of what you're talking about so I would thank you to keep your slanderous remarks to yourself. If someone in some other country came up with a similar idea before me it would not surprise me in the least. In fact, it is such a valuable concept when used correctly that I would be surprised if no one thought of it before me. The exact same goes for U1D2. I develop my own concepts which is more than I can say of your capabilities. All you can do is quote others. My copyrights have already proven themselves in Federal Court where I won handsomely. I'd intertain the idea of taking you to court for slander but I can't prove damages because nobody gives a shit what you say.

Be my guest John. We'll bring our 1000 shoe computer test data. What will you bring? Garnabby?

You guys keep answering each others mail, folks will think you're one and the same.

I will reluctantly weigh in here. Got nothing else to do for a bit so. . .

First, no question, Ellis, that you know a lot about the game. In essence I agree with your premise that thier are shoe types. But John and G are correct also. We don't know what they are until they are finished! LOL essentially what we have is a guessing game. I happen to agree with you that it is possible to guess correctly more than not. I just don't like the way you go about teaching. An end run basically. By this I mean that you know as well as John and G that a strict mechanical method doesn't beat the game. You have as much as admitted that if one reads between the lines of your posts. Yet you insinuate this falsehood. The idea that folks are going to win $500 with your free systems is a crap shoot. Some will and some won't. You know that, Sneaky Pete! The ones that will, will sign up and you will begin to teach them how to pick and choose - something you can learn here for free if people will stop arguing. Lots of ways to do it. More below.

The implication here is that you have a Bacc book that was written 25 years ago. Pray tell - the title, copyright date and where can we get it?

In another thread here you ballyhoo the flat bet concept. Yet when I was on your site a while back I was ridiculed for espousing it.

I just went through about 150 shoes from Gold Strike and Horsehoe that were played by me (also Grand when they had Bacc). Yeah, mostly in the morning cause that is when I play. Frankly I see no real trend in any of them. Certainly not 20 shoes in a row that have no runs greater than four - or opposite streaky shoes.

Why don't you come right out and admit that you DO NOT HAVE A MECHANICAL METHOD THAT WINS BACCARAT. You want to charge $500, now it is $50.00 I gather (tough times, huh?) to teach people MM and shoe "reading."

A

Ellis,

Never said i was a perfect speller, or even a proofreader. However, participation in a forum such as this, free and open to all, has many other advantages than those stemming from the literal topics.

Thanks for the correction. As i've already pointed out in some PM's and posts, i wish more persons here would correct any mistakes as those arise. (Sorry if you feel this one (of several) mistake to be a critical matter as to the determination of anyone's "credibility" on these boards... because even if it were, where would that leave someone such as yourself, the worst speller of any of us here?)



Plasia,

As long as we're covering some sort of new ground, thereby ending up somewhere, i think it's fair play. In fact, while most courts put the burden of proof on the plaintiff/prosecution, and severely (, in my opinion and experience,) limit the latter's ranges of examination there... until the defence mistakenly claims something outside, which may then be legally questioned in further cross-examination(s). In Mike's recent "Rules of the forum" post, one thing he makes a point of is to try to not post any information which may become a problem later. (Once it's "out there", it's hard to remove, if at all... and any one may question it.)

Asfaras your "Shoe thread", well, why didn't you post yours under the thread Live Shoes for Testing ... like everthing else(?) you've posted could have been put in already-existing threads here? Apparently you've come to the conclusion there's nothing here for you... okay, fine, who cares. What difference could that make to either of us?

But in the mean time, i've taken the time to learn something about your "hometown" university, etc, and how to correctly spell the word 'plagiarism'... and even wasted my time offering you some real baccarat-information for free which can't be found anywhere else.

And if this seems only another "attack" on someone, i guess you haven't learned how to "learn something from every one (, even the losers)".

Garnabby:

That thread you pointed to is 5 months old (not even on the front page, in fact it's deep in the 3rd page), had no directly accessible shoes and a less than epic 1 reply.

I'm not sure where you get the conclusion from that I don't think there's anything here for me, but that's not the case. I'd simply just like to be able to find it! I would like to be able to effectively study baccarat without reinventing everything myself and digging through threads so that I can become educated enough in baccarat to be able to make a contribution.

---

Let's get this thread back on topic:

Garnabby in your post you mention that the rules suggest we should not post information that may become problematic later, do you think this a problem to my idea of forum organisation? Also is this why there are private groups?

Okay Plasia, i think your odd "deflections" no longer warrant any more helpful responses from myself.

Good luck, i've got better things to do.

I'm thinking Plasia won this one.

AD

There's another Shoe thread in the Baccarat Discussion section, maybe this is the one Garnabby was referring to:

The Shoe Thread