System 40: Ellis Clifton Davis

[Archer]

Thanks for the support guys! Sorry I can't be here every day but I have other duties. I just finished my 4th and last BJ manual/book, whatever, and I'm right in the middle of a Bac manual. Still lots of editing to do.

Look, as an X math professor with a 160 IQ, after tens of thousands of casino shoes all over the world, after thousands have watched my live casino exhibitions wherein I won in both BJ and Bac, all I can tell you is how I won, what tools I used. I won through observation of the game. What really happens. Not what books say, or what non playing gurus say but what really happens. Whether you choose to believe me or not is entirely up to you.

Back in my Math Professor days, there is a standing joke among math teachers everywhere. "He's so dumb he thinks he can beat random numbers." So you'll have to excuse me if I take some of you with a major grain of salt. Math Professors everywhere agree on one thing. Possibly only one thing. Random numbers can't be beat. No progression can beat random numbers. No bet placement scheme can beat random numbers.

I believe you when you say you are winning - most of you. But recognize that if you are winning, esp. those who are winning flat betting. You are proving that the cards are not random. The notion that all is purely random and you are winning anyway is preposterous. Forget it. The very notion is a joke. "Random" means "unbeatable". Mostly random is like mostly pregnant. The cards are either Random or Biased. There is nothing in between.

Recognize that every system there is, not just mine, but ALL systems play biases. TB4L for instance plays the repeat favorable bias along with RD and F2. OTB4L plays the neutral bias and so does Net Betting.

If you are playing a system and you are winning consistently you are playing a bias or biases and proving the cards are biased.

Let's look at the other side of the coin. If its random, lets play Random. Bet Bank when the last card in the prior round was black and Player when the last card was red. Now you are betting pure random. Will you win? Hell no! Why not? Because you are betting randomly and the cards are not random.

Those were quite the posts Dave and John wrote. Dave, I only see one misconception you have that I haven't already addressed. Dealers don't control anything and are not privy to anything. In hand shuffled cards all shuffle procedures are numbered. The call of which shuffle will be used is made at a higher level than the pit boss.

In machine shuffle NOTHING is controlled in the pits. All is controlled from upstairs after monitoring the cameras. You might ask yourself these two questions: Why do ALL hand shuffle casinos or pits have many standard hand shuffles? Why not always use the same one??? Why do machines have many different program chips? Why not always use the same one?

Casinos are far more complex entities than the average gambler ever imagined. Now, sorry but I've got to get back to my own forum.

Oh, one last question: Why is it that the only winning players we see here are guys from my forum or guys playing one of my systems???

Archer? he's never posted any results one way or another. Garnabby? He doesn't play.

?????????????? LOL, You are definitely the master!

WOW!!!! The above bull___t speaks for itself and needs no response! LMAO. I really do think that crap is all people need to see who you really are Ellis.

I really thought that davel's post might have done you in since you had no answer for it but. . .this is the answer - ignore truth and just shovel it deeper and deeper!

Don't let the 50 bucks burn a hole in your pocket! LOL

Archer

[Archer]

Ha, both of them. "Proven"? Archer, just because you or Garnabby says something certainly does not make it "Proven". In fact, it makes it suspect. Go back to beating random numbers. It just could be that every mathematician in the world is wrong and you are right. Ha, fat chance. you are wasting my time here and everyone else's.

Oh, but if Ellis decides out of the blue that the numbers are not random then. . . Random numbers? What a clown you are! The old cause and effect trick! Why don't you once and for all post a thousand shoes and show that they are not random. If you add up all the runs and they are different than the mathematical model they are not random. If they are the same then they are random. How much simpler can it be? Snake oil!! You haven't demonstrated one thing that you sell yet. All smoke and mirrors.

No, as usual Ellis is all talk!

A

[John1234]

You finally said something that shows you sobered up!

haha you need to start reading some science journals and exploring the field of quantum physics before accusing me of being drunk. First of all I don't drink, I never have and I don't smoke anything. Second, I do respect your opinion however I find it hard to take you serious when you write things about sobering up.

It is worth highlighting. "my next play is a guess and will forever be a guess no matter how much I bet and no matter how many triggers point to the same decision" Ellis' guess systems are neat, innovative and fun and worth 50 bucks a month for those who don't have the time or disposition and want to play around with gambling. But why won't Ellis say what you just did?

Look, dudes, they put a module on Mars using mathematics and computers dealing with gravity, sunspots, etc. Trust me, Baccarat ain't that complicated!

Well I hope that you realize that they put multiple modules on mars most of which are no longer effective and were only effective for a brief period of time. Our society is not as advanced as we think and like the world, baccarat is probably far more complicated than you think..probably to a degree that non of us can imagine. But in the end does it really matter if you win with a system that everyone says shouldn't win? I have always thought that the most important thing is winning, who cares how you do it.

Archer: I hope you realize that I am not attacking you, we both have different opinions. Your opinion is probably one that is supported by the majority, I am not saying that you are wrong about anything. I am just presenting my point of view.

[davel]

Back in my Math Professor days, there is a standing joke among math teachers everywhere. "He's so dumb he thinks he can beat random numbers." So you'll have to excuse me if I take some of you with a major grain of salt. Math Professors everywhere agree on one thing. Possibly only one thing. Random numbers can't be beat. No progression can beat random numbers. No bet placement scheme can beat random numbers.

I believe you when you say you are winning - most of you. But recognize that if you are winning, esp. those who are winning flat betting. You are proving that the cards are not random. The notion that all is purely random and you are winning anyway is preposterous. Forget it. The very notion is a joke. "Random" means "unbeatable". Mostly random is like mostly pregnant. The cards are either Random or Biased. There is nothing in between.

Ellis,

Your comments about random make me wonder whether we're talking about the same concept at all.

By random, I am referring to an event that is described by a probability distribution, such as the result of a coin toss, or thermal noise in electronic components (the basis of hardware random number generators). In this sense, the result of baccarat hands can also be described as random. It has been demonstrated by many independent researchers and authors that over a large number of baccarat shoes, the frequency of events in baccarat is characteristic of a random set, (ref: Secrets of Winning Baccarat by Dr. Brian Kaysar and The Mathematics of Gambling by Dr. Edward Thorp). Indeed, the SAP is based on the expected frequency of events in such a random distribution.

It is a fundamental feature of random sets that they frequently exhibit apparent biases which can be unexpectedly pronounced and persistent. This is easily demonstrable by simply flipping a coin and examining the resulting sequence of heads and tails.

Try this to prove for yourself that System 40 (and many other methods) can beat random:

Go to RANDOM.ORG - Integer Generator

Enter the following:

Generate 80 random integers.
Each integer should have a value between 0 and 1.
Format in 1 column.

When I did it, it generated for me a random sequence of 0's and 1's:

01101010101001111101101111101111101010111100011000 11100000010111111000010

I took 0 as Banker and 1 as Player, so the above random sequence is equivalent to the following baccarat shoe:

B12111111112512151511111432336116411

I played it with System 40 (my variation of it, which I prefer, since it seems to work better for me). By hand 10, I was up +11u, which is past your target of +10u when you played System 40 for the 40 consecutive wins. I could have quit there and declared that I had won (by your definition) against a random sequence. Continuing on in the shoe, I reached a high of +27u by hand 38, and even though it took a nasty dip between hands 40 and 54 (where it encountered an ugly 3233 pattern, nearly four consecutive back-to-back 3s, which was the culprit at the time), it recovered nicely to end the shoe at hand 80 with a score of +13u, after the SAP indicated a switch to using 2s as the culprit. (I used strict U1D2M2 throughout; had I employed some MM, as I would if there were real money at stake, I would've probably exited with +25u, or at the very least, +20u.)

Here is my scorecard playing the above random sequence with my variation of System 40.

I also played the same random sequence with other methods, and the ending score was over +30u without any drawdowns. I'm pretty sure John1234 can use his version of ADOT to demonstrate the same.

If I had the time, I could repeat this exercise 40 times and match your 40-consecutive wins (as you define it, specifically a target of +10u per shoe) with System 40. Indeed, if I had a lot of time, I wouldn't stop at 40!

Better yet, you can do it yourself and demonstrate to yourself that "random is beatable."

Perhaps there should be a new joke among baccarat players about someone who is "dumb."

[Ellis]

Right Dave! All works out to random over many shoes. All events eventually hit their normal frequency of occurrence. BUT we play the game in the glimpse of time of single shoes. Single shoes virtually never hit all event frequencies. There is always an MC and an LC. IF, in the end, you played accordingly to whatever happened to be LC and MC in that shoe, you did the best that could be done and you usually win just as you have clearly demonstrated. The exact definition of random is a semantical argument, not a mathematical argument. That argument will go on forever but like John 1234 notes, it is of no consequence. If you are winning with consistency stick to what you are doing and try to improve. System 40, when played more or less to my instructions usually wins. And it usually avoids large losses to boot. THAT is the important fact. Why is of no consequence and not worth arguing about. Whether a bias is in fact a bias or just a random accident is of no importance if you win regardless. If you want to believe that you are winning due to random accidents rather than biases, that's fine with me - as long as you are winning. The rest is mere semantics.

[davel]

Right Dave! All works out to random over many shoes. All events eventually hit their normal frequency of occurrence. BUT we play the game in the glimpse of time of single shoes. Single shoes virtually never hit all event frequencies. There is always an MC and an LC. IF, in the end, you played accordingly to whatever happened to be LC and MC in that shoe, you did the best that could be done and you usually win just as you have clearly demonstrated. The exact definition of random is a semantical argument, not a mathematical argument. That argument will go on forever but like John 1234 notes, it is of no consequence. If you are winning with consistency stick to what you are doing and try to improve. System 40, when played more or less to my instructions usually wins. And it usually avoids large losses to boot. THAT is the important fact. Why is of no consequence and not worth arguing about. Whether a bias is in fact a bias or just a random accident is of no importance if you win regardless. If you want to believe that you are winning due to random accidents rather than biases, that's fine with me - as long as you are winning. The rest is mere semantics.

Ellis,

I appreciate your encouragement, but I need to point out a very important distinction that has nothing to do with semantics. I am not saying that we can consistently win, according to your words, "due to random accidents rather than biases." Not at all. I know exactly why System 40 (and any other robust method) wins, and I know you do, too, at least I hope you do.

The point is that such methods can win a random set, not that they are randomly guessing. That is a big difference that has nothing to do with mere semantics. And to complete the argument, if we have methods which can win against a random set, then we can (and do) win at baccarat (and roulette and craps) without having to assume that casinos purposely control the shuffle (or spin or throw).

Now, I agree that whether or not casinos actually do control the shuffle to intentionally foil customers is not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things, even though I think reason and evidence suggest intentional shuffle control does not routinely occur in practice.

Like you and John1234 said, as long as we're winning, that's the most important thing. I guess I'm just someone who likes to think for myself and make sense of the world as rationally and simply as possible. I appreciate your wanting to do the same.

Thanks again for the stimulating dialogue. Best to you and everyone else at the tables!

P.S.

With regards to trying to beat baccarat by random guessing (even though this is not my point), I do personally know someone who flipped a coin at the baccarat table to decide which side Player or Banker to bet, while using U1D2M2. He was using black, and he won $1000 (+10u) very quickly. (I should mention that he is a well-known student of yours, and he did this out of frustration because he couldn't successfully use your methods in the real-world, not because they are inherently ineffective, but because for some reason, he just couldn't play that way despite trying very hard. So, he went on to develop his own methods, which worked quite well for him, so well, in fact, that he now has his own forum and following.)

In the same spirit, every year, a well-known group of traders decide which stocks to invest in by throwing darts at a board, and their performance consistently matches or exceeds the best professionally managed funds available.

So, there might be something to be said about using random to win at random, but that is a much deeper discussion than ours at hand.

[John1234]

With regards to trying to beat baccarat by random guessing (even though this is not my point), I do personally know someone who flipped a coin at the baccarat table to decide which side Player or Banker to bet, while using U1D2M2.

I have also tried this and it worked very well for me with roulette.

[Ellis]

Ellis,

I appreciate your encouragement, but I need to point out a very important distinction that has nothing to do with semantics. I am not saying that we can consistently win, according to your words, "due to random accidents rather than biases." Not at all. I know exactly why System 40 (and any other robust method) wins, and I know you do, too, at least I hope you do.

The point is that such methods can win a random set, not that they are randomly guessing. That is a big difference that has nothing to do with mere semantics. And to complete the argument, if we have methods which can win against a random set, then we can (and do) win at baccarat (and roulette and craps) without having to assume that casinos purposely control the shuffle (or spin or throw).

Now, I agree that whether or not casinos actually do control the shuffle to intentionally foil customers is not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things, even though I think reason and evidence suggest intentional shuffle control does not routinely occur in practice.

Like you and John1234 said, as long as we're winning, that's the most important thing. I guess I'm just someone who likes to think for myself and make sense of the world as rationally and simply as possible. I appreciate your wanting to do the same.

Thanks again for the stimulating dialogue. Best to you and everyone else at the tables!

P.S.

With regards to trying to beat baccarat by random guessing (even though this is not my point), I do personally know someone who flipped a coin at the baccarat table to decide which side Player or Banker to bet, while using U1D2M2. He was using black, and he won $1000 (+10u) very quickly. (I should mention that he is a well-known student of yours, and he did this out of frustration because he couldn't successfully use your methods in the real-world, not because they are inherently ineffective, but because for some reason, he just couldn't play that way despite trying very hard. So, he went on to develop his own methods, which worked quite well for him, so well, in fact, that he now has his own forum and following.)

In the same spirit, every year, a well-known group of traders decide which stocks to invest in by throwing darts at a board, and their performance consistently matches or exceeds the best professionally managed funds available.

So, there might be something to be said about using random to win at random, but that is a much deeper discussion than ours at hand.

All good points Dave and yes, I've had days when nothing made sense and I felt like flipping a coin. Usually a good time to try OTB4L or Net Bet. But sometimes those aren't indicated either. Then, your best bet is to change tables. If that doesn't help go home. There is nothing wrong with admitting you can't beat a certain table. In fact, The sooner you admit it the better off you are. The idea is to find the tables you can beat the easiest. Same is true in BJ. You can't beat all the tables all the time. Whatever you do, don't try heroics. Go home. Some days that is your best play.

[Steve]

Interesting area of debate, but I am having difficulty in understanding how any consistent strategy can win against a random set.

(Not aware of any of the cited mathematicians published work which would argue that you can gain an edge over a random set -Claude Shannon did some work and had a redistribution stock trading strategy which relied on reversion to mean).

By definition a random set includes all members in the class. So a true test of any betting strategy is to compare against all sequences in that set.

A simple test for a random set would be to assume a 50% vs. 50% game in which B is just as likely as P, with no commission, and then list all the sequences...

For clarity take three hands (you can use more hands if necessary), we get eight equally likely outcomes as listed:

BBB
BBP
BPB
PBB
BPP
PBP
PPB
PPP

Any one outcome may give us a profit, (e.g. BBP if flat bet 1 unit on B then net win +1 unit)
But if we consider the complete set of eight outcomes we get $0 total profit betting B or P or mixture according to any consistent strategy rules.

Flat betting B gives $0
Flat betting P gives $0
+1 on win, -1 on loss gives us $0 (minimum bet 1 unit)
-1 on win, +1 on loss gives us $0 (minimum bet 1 unit)

Test it yourself... use a longer sequence if necessary.

________________________________________

Example using quasi-D'Alembert on B to win

+1 if loss last bet, -1 if win last bet (minimum bet 1 unit)

BBB +1+1+1 =+3
BBP +1+1-1 =+1
BPB +1-1+2 =+2
PBB -1+2+1 =+2
BPP +1-1-2 =-2
PBP -1+2-1 = 0
PPB -1-2+3 = 0
PPP -1-2-3 =-6
________________________________

Total $0
________________________________


Whether or not Baccarat is bias or random is another matter. Evidence of casino shuffle bias has been posted in prior thread.

[Ellis]

Beating tough games is NOT the object. The object is to identify and beat the easiest games while avoiding the tough games altogether.

In BJ I could only beat about half the tables. The difference is, I knew which half that was. I carried the same tactics over to Baccarat. In Baccarat, you can see the prior shoes. In BJ you can't.

In either game, anyone who confidently sits down W/O the advantage of table selection is in for a tough day. Why do that?

[davel]

All good points Dave and yes, I've had days when nothing made sense and I felt like flipping a coin. Usually a good time to try OTB4L or Net Bet. But sometimes those aren't indicated either. Then, your best bet is to change tables. If that doesn't help go home. There is nothing wrong with admitting you can't beat a certain table. In fact, The sooner you admit it the better off you are. The idea is to find the tables you can beat the easiest. Same is true in BJ. You can't beat all the tables all the time. Whatever you do, don't try heroics. Go home. Some days that is your best play.

Yes, I agree - in fact, on the days I can't make it to the tables, I comfort myself by thinking that those are the days I'd be losing anyway .

[davel]

Beating tough games is NOT the object. The object is to identify and beat the easiest games while avoiding the tough games altogether.

In BJ I could only beat about half the tables. The difference is, I knew which half that was. I carried the same tactics over to Baccarat. In Baccarat, you can see the prior shoes. In BJ you can't.

In either game, anyone who confidently sits down W/O the advantage of table selection is in for a tough day. Why do that?

Absolutely - whatever makes reaching your goal easier helps.

Something that helps me, too, is realizing that the goal is not to finish the shoe with a glorious score, and it's not even to necessarily finish the entire shoe at all. Rather, have a realistic units goal per shoe and session, and when I hit it, take the money and run! Of course, in especially smooth shoes, it makes sense to stick around and carefully try for more. Well, I think they call this smart money management, and it is as important as anything else in successfully playing the game - and nearly all other aspects of life.

[garnabby]

And how does Garnabby get that deduction from that totally unrelated statement. He makes it up as he is so prone to do. Garnabby go back to one of your exclusive clubs that has solved Baccarat, or did you make all that up too. Garnabby has said that if he ever finds a way to beat Baccarat the last thing he would do is tell us. That proves two things: He has never found a way and he is admittedly useless to us.

Hardly, a lot can be learned by just reversing EVERY single thing written by the scammers and comedians among us.

Eg, New Blackjack, Same Old Baloney: Review of E. Clifton Davis' NBJ and WCB Blackjack Systems .

I wish maverik mark was as resilient as u are and come to post his final revision as well..After all he did say he wanted to teach for the good of mankind...with a 1000.00 trust factor.

Sounds more like some sort of fixation, or a delusion or two. Or like John1234 dropping the term 'quantum physics'.

[John1234]

Sounds more like some sort of fixation, or a delusion or two. Or like John1234 dropping the term 'quantum physics'.

This coming from a person who posts his fake math degree on a baccarat site. You probably have no idea what quantum physics is.

[garnabby]

This coming from a person who posts his fake math degree on a baccarat site. You probably have no idea what quantum physics is.

Who really does? Shows how much you know about it, lol.
__________________________________________________ _____________

Anyway, if i may use that word 'anyway' with all you high-society "beauty queens"... someone complained about such an informal usage the other day at the Wizard's new message-board, getting back to my feeling that we've "turned some sort of corner" here.

Now that i'm finally fairly caught up with the real stuff of life, was poking around with the idea today of some more ways of just putting them "out of their/our misery". We could gather some case-specific instances of their fraudulent activities, to generate some police-reports; we could report them to the IRS, and Dept's of Commerce; we could threaten/launch criminal and/or civil law suits against them personally, their server-hosts, et al involved with each "set up" further "down the line". Really, who knows what else!

Just for "hellry" of couse, not to divert from our real mission here.

Hey, here's a response from sniperbaccarat's hosts, from just a moment ago...

Hi Michelle,

Please, clarify the issue in more detail.
Specify the exact links and some evidences of the fraudulent content.
Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you.
__
Kind regards,
Oliver Leach,
Just Host
www.justhost.com
View our online Video Tutorials here:
http://www.justhost.com/video-tutorials

[Archer]

Ellis,

Your comments about random make me wonder whether we're talking about the same concept at all.

By random, I am referring to an event that is described by a probability distribution, such as the result of a coin toss, or thermal noise in electronic components (the basis of hardware random number generators). In this sense, the result of baccarat hands can also be described as random. It has been demonstrated by many independent researchers and authors that over a large number of baccarat shoes, the frequency of events in baccarat is characteristic of a random set, (ref: Secrets of Winning Baccarat by Dr. Brian Kaysar and The Mathematics of Gambling by Dr. Edward Thorp). Indeed, the SAP is based on the expected frequency of events in such a random distribution.

It is a fundamental feature of random sets that they frequently exhibit apparent biases which can be unexpectedly pronounced and persistent. This is easily demonstrable by simply flipping a coin and examining the resulting sequence of heads and tails.

Try this to prove for yourself that System 40 (and many other methods) can beat random:

Go to RANDOM.ORG - Integer Generator

Enter the following:

Generate 80 random integers.
Each integer should have a value between 0 and 1.
Format in 1 column.

When I did it, it generated for me a random sequence of 0's and 1's:

01101010101001111101101111101111101010111100011000 11100000010111111000010

I took 0 as Banker and 1 as Player, so the above random sequence is equivalent to the following baccarat shoe:

B12111111112512151511111432336116411

I played it with System 40 (my variation of it, which I prefer, since it seems to work better for me). By hand 10, I was up +11u, which is past your target of +10u when you played System 40 for the 40 consecutive wins. I could have quit there and declared that I had won (by your definition) against a random sequence. Continuing on in the shoe, I reached a high of +27u by hand 38, and even though it took a nasty dip between hands 40 and 54 (where it encountered an ugly 3233 pattern, nearly four consecutive back-to-back 3s, which was the culprit at the time), it recovered nicely to end the shoe at hand 80 with a score of +13u, after the SAP indicated a switch to using 2s as the culprit. (I used strict U1D2M2 throughout; had I employed some MM, as I would if there were real money at stake, I would've probably exited with +25u, or at the very least, +20u.)

Here is my scorecard playing the above random sequence with my variation of System 40.

I also played the same random sequence with other methods, and the ending score was over +30u without any drawdowns. I'm pretty sure John1234 can use his version of ADOT to demonstrate the same.

If I had the time, I could repeat this exercise 40 times and match your 40-consecutive wins (as you define it, specifically a target of +10u per shoe) with System 40. Indeed, if I had a lot of time, I wouldn't stop at 40!

Better yet, you can do it yourself and demonstrate to yourself that "random is beatable."

Perhaps there should be a new joke among baccarat players about someone who is "dumb."

New joke? My view it is an old joke! How a Professor of Mathematics consfuses random as it relates to numbers is beyond me. Proving Baccarat shoes are random is a simple task. But randomness or not is NOT the question as has been pointed out on this forum many times. PREDICTION is the real issue.

I was looking over the rules for ADOT earilier. The rules though a bit convoluted and unnecessarily difficult in my opinion are firm enough. You like System40. Are these systems not programmable to ascertain which is the more effective? If not why not?

I like the way you posted that shoe - I don't know how to use that so readers will have to suffer the following attachment.

My last BODOG RNG shoe. Played at $15.00 units with a simple bet placement combined with recover betting. Doesn't prove much though does it? It is a mechanical method.

More comments on your post later.

Archer

[John1234]

Who really does? Shows how much you know about it, lol.
__________________________________________________ _____________

Anyway, if i may use that word 'anyway' with all you high-society "beauty queens"... someone complained about such an informal usage the other day at the Wizard's new message-board, getting back to my feeling that we've "turned some sort of corner" here.

Now that i'm finally fairly caught up with the real stuff of life, was poking around with the idea today of some more ways of just putting them "out of their/our misery". We could gather some case-specific instances of their fraudulent activities, to generate some police-reports; we could report them to the IRS, and Dept's of Commerce; we could threaten/launch criminal and/or civil law suits against them personally, their server-hosts, et al involved with each "set up" further "down the line". Really, who knows what else!

Just for "hellry" of couse, not to divert from our real mission here.

Hey, here's a response from sniperbaccarat's hosts, from just a moment ago...

Hi Michelle,

Please, clarify the issue in more detail.
Specify the exact links and some evidences of the fraudulent content.
Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you.
__
Kind regards,
Oliver Leach,
Just Host
www.justhost.com
View our online Video Tutorials here:
http://www.justhost.com/video-tutorials

Wow the comment about your fake math degree must really have pissed you off.

you are an idiot. Let me translate his response for you. You made a claim with no evidence of anything, you are crazy, please leave us alone you nut.

I am not sure what you are trying to prove but the last time I checked sniper baccarat is not selling anything. Go to forum and check it out. We had a person recently submit a payment to us which we refunded because we are no longer selling.

after realizing that people can still buy our products I had to go into the site and change everything. now look at what happens when you go to sniperbaccarat.com --Just Host is going to think you are insane when they see how our website looks. And the forum is now nothing more than a friendly forum. It is pretty bare to the outsider. Again, they will take one look at that and see that you are crazy. But that is old news.

You are no lawyer, you are nothing. don't try to act like you know law. You are just a pathetic washed up piece of shit trying to prove something to an online community because you have nothing better going for you in life. It is very clear.

someone complained about such an informal usage the other day at the Wizard's new message-board, getting back to my feeling that we've "turned some sort of corner" here.

Makes no sense to me.

Now that i'm finally fairly caught up with the real stuff of life,

Who the fuck cares? We all know that your real life is spent on forums.


And now I think that you have reached the point of harassment. Mike aren't there some sort of rules on Harassment? Do I have to file police reports and suits against Garnabby, this host, and this forum? Get real Ganrabby come back down to earth.

[garnabby]

And now I think that you have reached the point of harassment. Mike aren't there some sort of rules on Harassment? Do I have to file police reports and suits against Garnabby, this host, and this forum? Get real Ganrabby come back down to earth.

You've turned into another Ellis "six-shooter sheriff", making up his own draconian laws as he sees fit... maybe you guys should start worrying about your own "office equipment"?

[John1234]

You've turned into another Ellis "six-shooter sheriff", making up his own draconian laws as he sees fit... maybe you guys should start worrying about your own "office equipment"?

I guess that you don't see that I am mocking you. So if you say that I am making up laws then I guess it could only mean that you are making up laws since I basically restated what you said..correct?

Thanks for proving my point

[garnabby]

I guess that you don't see that I am mocking you.

Guessers are losers. (And how relevant is that to most of these baccarat-discussions?)

[John1234]

yup, coming from the person who doesn't even play the game and admitted to losing everything that you won "for fun". Losing is the only thing you must know.

[garnabby]

I am not sure what you are trying to prove but the last time I checked sniper baccarat is not selling anything. Go to forum and check it out. We had a person recently submit a payment to us which we refunded because we are no longer selling.

Still a picture of, and link to, the "play better than the pro's" system? Beyond that, you banned me the other day... remember?

... after realizing that people can still buy our products I had to go into the site and change everything.

Interesting.

You are no lawyer, you are nothing. don't try to act like you know law. You are just a pathetic washed up piece of shit trying to prove something to an online community because you have nothing better going for you in life. It is very clear.

And who exactly are you, if we're to take seriously also yourself? An admitted ex-system-seller, but at least an avid supporter of they still "in the business"? A guy who backs down from his own "challenge" to myself. (Look, i would've said just that, "I don't feel like it any more, i've changed my mind, and here's a picture of the money to show it was a worthy challenge at the time." Not the childish "excuses".)

Who the fuck cares? We all know that your real life is spent on forums.

Who's this "all"? (Usually it's, "THEY say that... .") More of that over-compensating.

Anyway, it's a public site, and 24/7, so if i want to post... i may whenever i please. (Just like the system-sellers, et al, but i don't complain about even their rights to do so.)

[garnabby]

yup, coming from the person who doesn't even play the game and admitted to losing everything that you won "for fun".

Another of "the lies". (But i guess your buddy AD would be struggling with the gull of a link posted up to where i wrote or even implied that.)

[John1234]

And who exactly are you, if we're to take seriously also yourself? An admitted ex-system-seller, but at least an avid supporter of they still "in the business"? A guy who backs down from his own "challenge" to myself. (Look, i would've said just that, "I don't feel like it any more, i've changed my mind, and here's a picture of the money to show it was a worthy challenge at the time." Not the childish "excuses".)

hmm I don't remember ever stating that people take me seriously. I stated that people don't take you seriously, I never said anything good about myself.

And I did state that you accepted the challenge too late you must have missed that one. And I also stated on this forum that it was more of a joke which you must have missed as well or maybe you just don't know how to read? haha I didn't expect you to go posting your money up on this forum. But maybe that should have been expected and maybe I never have should have even said anything to a person like you. So I messed up big time there.

Another of "the lies". (But i guess your buddy AD would be struggling with the gull of a link posted up to where i wrote or even implied that.)

Nope, no lie. You told me this yourself last year. Not sure if it was through PM or through post but it was on your forum.

[garnabby]

hmm I don't remember ever stating that people take me seriously. I stated that people don't take you seriously, I never said anything good about myself.

How does that really answer my question? As Bart asked, "Who the h*ll are you."

And I did state that you accepted the challenge too late you must have missed that one. And I also stated on this forum that it was more of a joke which you must have missed as well or maybe you just don't know how to read? haha I didn't expect you to go posting your money up on this forum. But maybe that should have been expected and maybe I never have should have even said anything to a person like you. So I messed up big time there.

Nope, that "challenge" post was still standing when i got round to it. Not really that much later, though maybe enough time for you to get lucky and lose it back, lol. Is that what happened?

Nope, no lie. You told me this yourself last year. Not sure if it was through PM or through post but it was on your forum.

And that's that, lol... more of the "not sure" stuff. I wonder if your not "re-constructing" instead of "re-living" old memories. Do you often catch yourself with that, in the more-outrageous cases?

[John1234]

How does that really answer my question? As Bart asked, "Who the h*ll are you."



Nope, that "challenge" post was still standing when i got round to it. Not really that much later, though maybe enough time for you to get lucky and lose it back, lol. Is that what happened?

yea it was standing because I forgot about it because it was mostly a joke. What don't you get about that? One day I will be happy to go on BP and play against you or whatever it is that you want to do but I don't want to do it for money. That is stupid for many reasons and you know it. I admit that I never should have even said that I would challenge you for money. If you do better than me over x number of shoes then you can brag all you want and I'll never say anything bad. That is probably worth more to you than 10,000. I just don't have the time right now.

And that's that, lol... more of the "not sure" stuff. I wonder if your not "re-constructing" instead of "re-living" old memories. Do you often catch yourself with that, in the more-outrageous cases?

What I am sure about is that it is a fact. You told me that a long time ago you spent some time grinding out a couple thousand dollars over the course of years in baccarat. Then you got preoccupied with other things and decided to give it back in a few bets but it was all for fun. You even know this is a fact stop trying to deny it.

[Archer]

Dave, bulldog, stntgr52: As if I haven't given you enough to think about already, that on off on off the run is neat because half the time you not only win the last bet of the run but also the following opposite bet.

Since Dave said he was getting very agreeable shoes, let me show you one more great trick you can deploy when ever you are winning close to half of your initial prog 1 bets. Dave actually lost 3 more first bets than he won yet this trick worked extremely well in his shoe anyway.

When you are doing OK on your 1 bets change your basic prog from 12345 to 23456, Mandatory 3. We call that U1D2 M3 B2 (Base 2). Now you would think you are increasing your risk but you aren't. You actually decrease your risk because you have decreased the SLOPE of your progression. Slope = risk.

See, in a 12345 your 5th bet is 5 times your base bet BUT:
In a 23456, your 5th bet is only 3 times your base bet. = less slope = less risk.

OK, I played Dave's shoe over again with those two changes: on and off the run and with the 23456 prog U1D2M3 B2.

Yep, my score went from + 25 to +41 even though I lost 3 more base bets than I won. Math is funny that way!

And one more point. Yes, System 40 does well in Neutral shoes like this.
The final OR count was -2 but 40 killed this tough shoe anyway. Here is my point. Our OTB4L system does even better in Neutral shoes. So does Net betting System 40!

But look guys, I teach all this stuff in great detail every day on my own forum where I am highly respected. I don't have the time to keep coming over here to teach you Baccarat basics. Plus, I don't appreciate the comments and name calling of the few jealous idiot wannabees you have on this forum. You are all welcome on my forum anytime. Yeah, yeah, it costs a little bit. But you'll make that up ten fold every time you play! My guys do, so can you!

Now have at me Archer and Garnabby. All you are proving is you have no idea of Baccarat basics or system design. Go ahead, prove me right again.

I wasn't following this post until now and just saw this. A friend told me that you are already revising System 40 and calling it System 4S so I decided to check it out.

I have never bashed you for posting any system here Ellis. In fact I and others have been accusing you of being a con man who doesn't post systems and just wants to make money off of fellow Baccarat players. Apparently it paid off. Congratulations.

System 40 as you have explained it is a neat little mechanical system. I like it. But when there are rules for bet placement the method is mechanical and it can be programmed. Results is that it is still a 50-50 game and it wins just under half the bets (about 49.2%). What does this prove? That all your methods are the same. They are no better than what I play or what Maverick plays or what others here play - what DaveL referred to as "any robust" method. Add betting styles and money management and discipline a good player can scrape some units out of this game.

In fact, if YOU believed you could average even 7 units a shoe long term you would have been playing Baccarat all these years instead of selling subscriptions for $50.00 a month.

Get it?

Archer

[jcstrong]

Thanks, Ellis -

I have a question about improving my System 40 play ...

Here is a shoe I just completed at Bodog: 8/23/10 System 40 Scorecard

(Bodog is continuous RNG, so I usually play until hand 80, since there's literally no "end" to the shoe.)

Using strict U1D2M2 throughout (no MM), the shoe ended at +12u, which is on the lower end of what I usually get for System 40, so it was a tougher shoe for System 40 in mid-play. I use a stop of -20u, and the worst drawdown was -15u, so I never got stopped out ... but had I gone one more level in the progression, I would have been stopped out.

What drew me down was the pattern -4321- between hands 25-33. I had been using the 3 as the culprit, and from the SAP chart, the 3s and 4s were even, so I just chose 3. Well, had the pattern been -433-, I would've been sunk and stopped out, but the -21- saved me from losing the shoe. (Near loss.)

Is this just inevitable, or would you have any suggestions what to do in a situation like this to help improve performance?

Thanks.

I have been having some success playing system 40 as well. However, when to switch culprits can be difficult to judge. I'm confused as to why you switched the culprit to 2s at plays 56-61. 2s were running at their normal frequency by play 57 and 3s were LC. It just seems you hit the nail on the head and dodged quite a loss. Am I missing something? Any help is appreciated!

[Ellis]

I wasn't following this post until now and just saw this. A friend told me that you are already revising System 40 and calling it System 4S so I decided to check it out.

I have never bashed you for posting any system here Ellis. In fact I and others have been accusing you of being a con man who doesn't post systems and just wants to make money off of fellow Baccarat players. Apparently it paid off. Congratulations.

System 40 as you have explained it is a neat little mechanical system. I like it. But when there are rules for bet placement the method is mechanical and it can be programmed. Results is that it is still a 50-50 game and it wins just under half the bets (about 49.2%). What does this prove? That all your methods are the same. They are no better than what I play or what Maverick plays or what others here play - what DaveL referred to as "any robust" method. Add betting styles and money management and discipline a good player can scrape some units out of this game.

In fact, if YOU believed you could average even 7 units a shoe long term you would have been playing Baccarat all these years instead of selling subscriptions for $50.00 a month.

Get it?

Archer

I HAVE been playing Baccarat all these years. Sys 40 and 4S are two entirely different approaches. System 40 is a stand alone chop system to be used when the table overall is favoring chop. I don't see how you can program that unless you have a chop computer. Computers don't take conditions into account and therefore are a waste of time. That is what we play - conditions.

4S is a multi system approach. 4S stands for 4 Systems. I think you need to get yourself a more reliable spy. BTW, if you play so well on your own, why are you spending all your time spying on MY forum????? Lets have the truth! Your own play sucks, doesn't it.

Why do you keep answering questions put to ME??? Are you so infatuated with me that you are beginning to think you ARE me?

[garnabby]

Hey old sillE,

Here's another guy "so infatuated with" you, over at Frauds Them All « ImSpirit . I replied there, but that was deleted, lol. Btw, there's a few pages about on this topic in that blog... just follow the arrows there.




ImSpirit

wishing I were just

« Free Downloads of Baccarat Systems: The Infallible Baccarat System (IBS6, IBS7, IBS8,IBS9), Sniper, Sniper2, Baccarat Assasin, Ultimate System for All Even Bets, Mr. Majik, Leonard Benson’s Parlay Plus Baccarat & Roulette
Ellis is a Coward (and a Fraud) »

Frauds Them All

The more I delve into the world of the gambling community, the more I find frauds, scammers, and snakes. The claim is simple: “You can make a good living by playing the casinos. Be disciplined and use this method (system, strategy). Don’t be greedy. Treat it like a business.”

Well, the common wisdom is that the house always wins. And that is mathematically 100% true! In the long run, the casinos will always win, because they have the statistical advantage. Sure, there are the occasional winners from the gambling public, but they are few and far between. The vast majority lose.

There are the so-called “professional gamblers,” who try to make a living from playing the casino games. I can believe that someone skilled enough might be able to stay ahead in a game such as poker, where chance and luck are only components to the overall game, and where skill also factors in. However, games of pure chance, such as baccarat, craps, and roulette are a different story. Even without considering commissions, the game is at best a 50/50 game of chance. To claim that anyone can consistently beat a 50/50 game is quite extraordinary. In the long run mathematically, the best he can hope for is to break even. Include commissions into the story and in the long run, he must always lose.
A wise man once said, “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.”

So far, I have not found one bit of concrete, verifiable, objective evidence that anyone can consistently be profiting by playing a 50/50 game of chance. It is statistically impossible, and to claim to be able to do so is like claiming someone is able to violate the laws of thermodynamics by getting more energy out of a system than inputting energy into a system (thus solving our energy needs).

At one of the popular forum for baccarat players, most of the contributors are cranky old men who use the forum as their battleground to fight each other. For example, there’s a master marketer named “Ellis” (E. Clifton Davis), who apparently has been around quite awhile, and he can certainly talk the game very well. He claims to have written best-selling course manuals and books on baccarat and black jack, and he owns a private forum for baccarat, black jack, and sports picks. But he spends more time advertising for his forum (a membership which costs $50 per month, or $500 lifetime) than offering genuinely helpful pointers for winning the game. Of course! To get the real meat, you have to join his forum!
Then there’s Ellis’ arch rival, a gnarly guy named “garnabby,” a crabby Canadian (Kitchener, Ontario), who attacks Ellis at every opportunity. Ellis says garnabby is just jealous, and calls him a deranged lunatic liar, who’s never actually played baccarat at a real casino. On the other hand, garnabby accuses Ellis of being a scammer who is more interested in getting people to hand over $50 per month to join a forum where members are scammed into believing they will become consistently winning baccarat players, but instead, they find half-baked strategies that continually need changing and updating (and hence a reason to stay at the forum to shell out another $50 the next month, and the next month, just to keep up with the current flavor of the month).

According to one anecdotal story, Ellis and four of his students held an exhibition match where garnabby attended as a witness. According to Ellis, he and his students won 85% of the hands. But garnabby denies Ellis and his students won anything, or they did not win legitimately. Neither one is able to provide objective, verifiable data or records to demonstrate what had happened in reality. So, it really is one side’s word against the other.

Indeed, sometimes I wonder whether Ellis and garnabby are the same exact person, the product of some clever marketer’s mind who has far too much time on his hands, but using this apparent conflict of personalities to generate interest for Ellis’ forum. I mean, relatively speaking, $50 is little compared to the hundreds and even thousands that other system sellers want, and so the average person may think, “So, let me test to see whether there’s anything valuable at Ellis’ forum, and if I lose $50, so be it.” Meanwhile, Ellis gets $50 richer for every sucker who buys into his sales pitch.

There are others at the forum who have similarly warned me that Ellis is a scammer. For example, a user named John. He comes across as less bitter than garnabby, but he is equally wary of anyone who claims a 50/50 game can be consistently beat. He has done a good job at the forum listing the known scammers, the unscrupulous system sellers who provide nothing but junk for hundreds and even thousands of dollars. He has even provided these systems as free downloads, so as to stop the scammers from defrauding more people.

There is another user named Bryan from Singapore who claims he has played professionally at casinos for the past 15 years using an extremely simple trigger, but his bet frequency is very low. Ellis claims the bet frequency would not be enough to satisfy most pit-bosses in the U.S., but Bryan insists it is quite acceptable in Asia, because otherwise, he would not have been able to use it consistently for so long. Because of the criticism he has received, Bryan refused to post his triggers publicly. He is not impressed with the hostile tone of the forum.

The only one I’ve talked to on the phone so far is a user named steve6969, hailing from Detroit, MI. According to steve6969, he bought one month at Ellis’ forum, where he became very impressed with a few systems posted there, especially Maverick and ADOT. Using what he had learned from others at Ellis’ forum, he claims to have won a lot at casinos in Detroit, and that over the lifetime of his playing, he is up. He sounds like a very friendly guy, and his advice regarding known scammers has already saved me quite a bit of money. He says that if I’m able to master Maverick, he could bankroll my playing. He’s the only one I’ve personally talked to, but I have never met him or watched him play, so at this point, what he has shared with me are still only anecdotal stories, personal opinions, and unsubstantiated claims. He does sound honest, though, and he has not asked me for a dime for his counsel, advice, and helpful suggestions. If only everyone were like him!

So, what’s someone to do in this forest of interesting characters? From the time I found Tony (Anthony) Lango’s ad on Craigslist, I have been researching the validity of whether someone can make a consistent, good living playing a casino game such as baccarat. So far, I have only found others making the same claims, but nothing verifiable.
The search continues.
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• <LI sizset="4" sizcache="0">Ellis is a Coward (and a Fraud) <LI sizset="5" sizcache="0">At Best A Flip of the Coin
• Maverick Ultimate Mentorship

This entry was posted on June 8, 2010 at 2:52 pm and is filed under Life with tags ADOT, Anthony Lango, baccarat, casino, E. Clifton Davis, Ellis, forum, gambling, garnabby, Lango, Maverick, steve6969, Tony Lango. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.


Like
Be the first to like this post.

2 Responses to “Frauds Them All”

1. <LI id=comment-39 class="comment even thread-even depth-1 parent" sizset="25" sizcache="0">
   tom Says:
   July 29, 2010 at 7:40 pm
   
   
   <LI class="comment even thread-even depth-1 parent" sizset="25" sizcache="0">I have read your posts on Lango and can only conclude that since he won’t do it your way and walk you into a casino for a demo and you’re too cheap to pay him his price, then you slam him as a scammer. The bottom line is, you’re upset because he won’t give you what you want for free. Why else would you devote so much blog time to him when you’re not out any money.
   Reply
   • 
     virtuoid Says:
     July 29, 2010 at 7:59 pm
   • Tom,
   • Thanks for your reply. Read my posts again: I never said Tony is a scammer, and I’m not “upset” that I won’t get for free what he is offering. (I have my own baccarat method, so why would I pay anyone else for one?)
     From the first hand experience of two of his students who did pay him $1000 for his material, they reported to me that in their opinion, he is a scammer and pathological liar. This is not my own opinion; I merely reported what others have told me, others who had been taught by him.
   • The reason why I posted about him is because I wanted people to become aware that others have lost money using his method, and I wanted to report the truth. I’m wanting to help people have enough objective information to make an informed choice.
   • I’ve challenged him to prove his method, and I’d be more than willing to objectively, accurately, and honestly report the results. He ignores my challenge, though. Why would he do that if he is offering something real? From the hits I get to my blog, it would definitely be to his advantage to prove himself to my readers, as he would be quite busy teaching new students.
   • But feel free to pay him his tuition to learn his method. If it is your road to riches, start blogging about it and tell the world the good news!
     Reply
2. 
   garnabby Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
   September 9, 2010 at 9:57 pm
3. Hi there, would you be johno?
4. And would it be too easy or much to ask that you discount old sillE’s nonsense purely by his “crazy” one-or-two paragraph “autobiography”? After all, along with his other “seminar” stuff, it reads like a poorly-written carnival flyer. Only a cut-and-dry moron could and would take it all as fact only… it couldn’t otherwise be believed or more-accurately, “swallowed”. (Seems like a lot of work for nothing, above. Or johno’s “good scam-aritan” babble, in which he tries to discredit the other scammers with the same mis-approaches to the game.)
5. Missed also at the other end of the spectrum, by completely ignoring any well-known or new scientific information on the subject.
6. P.S. I’ll post up the link to this at http://www.baccaratforums.com for you.
   Reply