Thread: The ODD EVEN TIE SYSTEM

I think we can give up on either Garnabby or Archer telling us why this very popular tie system not only doesn't work but actually has you betting ties right into an obvious SHORTAGE of ties.

Then Garnabby and/or Archer can tell us they knew why all along and we can all have a great side splitting laugh.

In review, about 15 years ago the originator (not to mention names) asserted that whenever you have a high % of even cards left or a high % of odd cards left the possibility of ties greatly increases. His reasoning was that all even number cards can only make an even number card total. Likewise, two odd number cards can only make an even number card total. THEREFORE with only half as many card totals possible, ties must double.

It sounds flawless doesn't it. And it is, as far as he went. But I remind you of the Monty Hall 3 door paradox. This is similar. Here's why it DOESN'T work:

Because of the cut off cards you can NEVER have ALL odds left or all evens left. The best you can have is a large disparity in the remaining cards. OK lets take his very best possible scenario. Lets say the remaining cards are 75% even and 25% odd. I'll keep this simple by just using a 4 card deal. The dealer deals 4 cards. What is the mix of those cards most likely to be?

3 evens and one odd, right? A tie is absolutely impossible isn't it. The hand with the odd and even card MUST make an odd total. The hand with the two evens MUST make an even total. They CANNOT tie. Therefore ties don't increase in a high odd/even disparity - they decrease!

See, I told you it was simple 4th grade math. And it was, wasn't it.

I told the originator why it can't work 14 years ago. At that point it became a scam. He quit my forum and is still selling this system as far as I know. That's how it was, heading West. Any questions?

Hey there Ellis,

Here's a link to a thread in which you already made a post like this, at Half-Baked Theory/Observation . Are even you running out of BTC-ads, cult-spiels, and insults? Or just continuing with your disruptive posts here, trying to "impress" someone?

Sort of like "hijacking" that thread, and then "unhijacking" it?

Originally Posted by Ellis

I told the originator why it can't work 14 years ago. At that point it became a scam. He quit my forum and is still selling this system as far as I know.

And only a year ago, February, i pointed out the same about your BTC-board in general, where even the fantasies are fantasies. But...


Wonder what lliEs old sillE on LS.D. from "Beaten by the Casino" is up to? Seriously, i almost hate to check out his latest "wrecks" at BF's. (More time trying to sort out his troubles for him.) So maybe today i'll do it a littly bit differently, as i know Ellis has his "spies" all over these sites 24/7 in case "something" comes up.

The guy who claims to have taught physics and mathematics at some no-name univerity in the States, but can do no better than "openly provide his real name", and can't even perform the grade-school math... but "started a student-bursary for his dead daughter" there. And bad garnabby, shame on me, for bad mouthing his "endless and selfless contributions" to humanity, lol. Ellis, himself, wrote (, over at BF's in the "Analyis of your latest trip-report" thread), "I don't know about the math, so i'll have to take your word for it." Well, that's a good boy E, you can take my word about some other things too.

e-LLIS has no E-ducation, no social E-levation, and certainly no E-mpathy for an other living entity than himself. Very likely lives in a basement room, maybe even from some jail near you... and needs cigarette-change?

How could anyone be stupid enough to pay $500+ to be told you don't know how to "play it right" after losing your "shirt"; and while being laughed at behind your back? Because anyone who would "sh*t on" you with lies like the above would surely also be laughing at your ever-bottomless stupidities, nay, "getting off". Oh, and as Ellis pointed out, "Some of the guys at my board know i taught math and physics, etc." Oooookay.

What other sort of dumb criminal would expect many to believe ever-changing versions of the same old useless FLT, and OLD, will eventually make us all millionaires... at the casinos, yet? And a $50 price, to those who can't get it here or there for free, will keep all of it our big secret? And from the casinos which, according to the dumb criminal, base their strategies on what the players are doing. No IQ either, apparently.

Can't even resolve his childish dares on his own... doesn't take two to prove something. And even when (by chance) i have already posted information he dares me to show... the best he can write is, "I'll have to take your word for that too, as i don't read your posts any more (, but which he's still replying to)".

Furthermore, maybe it's a good time to refresh our realization here that "net betting" is only a round-about way to "flat bet" too much. It's a very-shallow progression to begin with made virtually into "flat betting" by constantly averaging out one side of it against the other. Maybe that's what thebaccaratkid meant when he (correctly) advised you to just "flat bet" (the lesser, non-averaged amount)? But then that would take the lucky few who win by your systems longer to make the membership fee.

So, so much for your MM... to go along with your completely-ineffectual (in any way) bet-selection methods, and your patented ability to "just keep lying" in case there's still anyone out there who'll believe you.

Right, sure, lol, you're a math/physics genius... but if no one falls for that, then the math/physics doesn't matter, and the rest of us are only a "bunch of internet math-guru guys".




Hey plasia,

You went to school, have you ever even hear of any professor on two separate faculties at any university? What's the policy on that?

hey Garnabby,

Maths is included in many faculties.

Let me explain, when I was doing my Business Information Systems degree I did a subject called Business Statistics. That was the business school (or as you may know it better, "faculty"). When I switched to Computer Science, which was in a different school/faculty of the university there was another math subject there. I was exempted from it since I had already done a math subject from my previous course.

I hope that made sense. Basically maths is part of many courses, computer science, business, engineering, physics and probably others too.

I asked the question on another thread Garnabby and answered it on this one. Somebody had to and obviously you could't. You can tell my questions - I usually put one of those crooked thingies after it, you know ????? And when I say "in review", I'm reviewing the question on this thread to save people from having to go back to the other thread. Sorry if that somehow ticked you off. Well no, on second thought I'm not sorry at all.

Originally Posted by Plasia

hey Garnabby,

Maths is included in many faculties.

Let me explain, when I was doing my Business Information Systems degree I did a subject called Business Statistics. That was the business school (or as you may know it better, "faculty"). When I switched to Computer Science, which was in a different school/faculty of the university there was another math subject there. I was exempted from it since I had already done a math subject from my previous course.

I hope that made sense. Basically maths is part of many courses, computer science, business, engineering, physics and probably others too.

No, i obviously didn't mean, nor ask, for that obivious response.

I referred to 'faculties', which are completely separate from one another; and to whether you knew of any professors who belonged to two faculties at the same time at the same institution.

Originally Posted by Ellis

I asked the question on another thread Garnabby and answered it on this one. Somebody had to and obviously you could't. You can tell my questions - I usually put one of those crooked thingies after it, you know ????? And when I say "in review", I'm reviewing the question on this thread to save people from having to go back to the other thread. Sorry if that somehow ticked you off. Well no, on second thought I'm not sorry at all.

John thinks your stuff is baccarat-related, lol.

Originally Posted by garnabby

No, i obviously didn't mean, nor ask, for that obivious response.

I referred to 'faculties', which are completely separate from one another; and to whether you knew of any professors who belonged to two faculties at the same time at the same institution.

Sorry, I misunderstood your question.

The answer is no then, professors only belong in one faculty at a time. The tricky bit is that the maths faculty often runs subjects for other faculties.

Originally Posted by Plasia

Sorry, I misunderstood your question.

The answer is no then, professors only belong in one faculty at a time. The tricky bit is that the maths faculty often runs subjects for other faculties.

Me either... and i know quite a few, personally and just by name.

In fact early on out of curiosity, i emailed the faculty at that school Ellis claims to know about... they never heard of him.

Originally Posted by garnabby

John thinks your stuff is baccarat-related, lol.

And so did you on the other thread when you accused me of rejecting it out of hand with so much "proven" math surrounding it. But as soon as I prove conclusively that in spite of all that higher math, it doesn't work now you want to say that tie systems are off the subject of Baccarat. You're a beaut Garnabby.

Thanks !

Thought Ellis was back.

Originally Posted by joshky

Thought Ellis was back.

He was just swing by and dropped a post on a wrong thread.

Originally Posted by Ellis

I think we can give up on either Garnabby or Archer telling us why this very popular tie system not only doesn't work but actually has you betting ties right into an obvious SHORTAGE of ties.

Then Garnabby and/or Archer can tell us they knew why all along and we can all have a great side splitting laugh.

In review, about 15 years ago the originator (not to mention names) asserted that whenever you have a high % of even cards left or a high % of odd cards left the possibility of ties greatly increases. His reasoning was that all even number cards can only make an even number card total. Likewise, two odd number cards can only make an even number card total. THEREFORE with only half as many card totals possible, ties must double.

It sounds flawless doesn't it. And it is, as far as he went. But I remind you of the Monty Hall 3 door paradox. This is similar. Here's why it DOESN'T work:

Because of the cut off cards you can NEVER have ALL odds left or all evens left. The best you can have is a large disparity in the remaining cards. OK lets take his very best possible scenario. Lets say the remaining cards are 75% even and 25% odd. I'll keep this simple by just using a 4 card deal. The dealer deals 4 cards. What is the mix of those cards most likely to be?

3 evens and one odd, right? A tie is absolutely impossible isn't it. The hand with the odd and even card MUST make an odd total. The hand with the two evens MUST make an even total. They CANNOT tie. Therefore ties don't increase in a high odd/even disparity - they decrease!

See, I told you it was simple 4th grade math. And it was, wasn't it.

I told the originator why it can't work 14 years ago. At that point it became a scam. He quit my forum and is still selling this system as far as I know. That's how it was, heading West. Any questions?

What about a 5 or 6 card deal?

I don't like thinking that if a deck has specific cards left that there will be a tie.

The variations of what comes first and third or second and fourth - or any other combination of dealings - are innumerable.

The only way to be certain of a tie occurring as the last of 6 cards is if they are all Monkies.

Monkey:

Ages ago there were playing cards that actually showed a monkey’s face for the face cards. That is how the term came to be. Typically the term monkey is used in blackjack and baccarat. You might hear someone request a monkey when their first up card is an ace or if they are doubling down on 11. In baccarat you would hear it often when the bank is taking a card and someone has bet on the player and the bank’s hand is inferior prior to the draw.