Thread: Imspirit's WOO 1,000 Target bets are online at last, and guess what - we all won!

I want to thank the wizard behind the Imspirit curtain for finally yielding to a couple of weeks of restrained pleading on my part and putting up a line-by-line breakdown of one of his Target "tests" where anyone can look at and learn.

Turns out Target didn't get a sound thrashing after all. It kicked and punched its way through 1,000 shoes generated by the Internet's highest-paid house shill (the Wizard of Bodog), and came out alive to the tune (according to Imspirit's numbers) of +2.18% of its total action.

The tracking chart looks like this and I have put the data Imspirit has so generously shared into the Target SkyDrive folder.

I know for sure that my two most vocal critics here won't be in the least impressed by a win against 1,000 really nasty shoes, so I'm hoping that now there's a crack in the vault door, Imspirit will also share his Target results from the beloved Zumma 600 and Zumma 1,000 data sets. But then, they won't be enough either. Banker's Boy will demand another million shoes after dismissing Target on the basis of half a shoe with a 49% house edge, and Carl/Johno/Nick/Egalite won't have anything to say about the math, but will find some excuse to get nasty all over again, no doubt.

Dave's results confirm that he didn't fully apply the Target rules published here on Day 1, and since, like Benn Gunn, he allowed bets that far exceed Target's 5,000u max, it's a miracle my method came out alive.

Imspirit is now taking the tack that I am testing his "tolerance" by asking questions on his blog, and I have to say that coming from a fellow blogger, the charge that I'm engaged in "self-promotion" comes as quite a surprise. I'd like to remind everyone that I am not selling my ideas - never have, never will, in spite of some aggressive bleep-stirring by Messrs. Bitter & Twisted - and all I'm out to do is make everyone gambling with their hard-earned wages to understand that flat or random betting will always lose in the end. You can fool yourself with all manner of fancy feints and tricks and dodges, but without consistent, persistent progressive betting, you will always be a long-term loser.

And of course, as a blogger, I'm promoting myself and my ideas. Imspirit is too.

The file I have posted has all of Dave's bets, plus corrections where for some reason he thought it "fair and accurate" for Target to bet in excess of $400,000. Where DOES he play baccarat? In 70 rounds, Banker's Boy applied a bet of over half a million bucks, so I guess the Imspirit version is an improvement of sorts.

I admit, I have enjoyed the extra attention my blog and my website have received as a result of my, um, discussions in this forum. I'm not making money out of all those extra clicks, and wouldn't if there were ten million of them every day. But I'm happy if I can encourage a few dozen more would-be gamblers to think carefully before feeding their paycheck into a shredding machine. You can win - the house edge is not unbeatable - but you need to have a ton of money and a lot of guts to get the job done.

If you can't afford to win, don't play. That's all I'm saying.

Target on SkyDrive

Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Home

New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs

Big deal you charlatan! I have beaten around 20 000 shoes with less than 1000 unit bet! It was quite comical to see you ranting and raving on Imspirit's blog. You really are obsessed and are obviously a sick and deluded individual.

Get some help LOL

virtuoid Says:
October 12, 2011 at 12:00 am Benn,
In all except one of the cases above, always betting Banker netted more than always betting Player. The one exception was in the 10K data set with a 10,000u bet cap, where always betting Banker was unable to recover, and thus ended in the negative, while always betting Player was able to recover, albeit after a recovery run requiring 462 steps!
Of course, this was due to variance, and it is clear in the results of the longer 1M data set, the Banker bet catches up and eventually loses less than the Player bet in the long run, as it must.

Originally Posted by LOTI

Big deal you charlatan! I have beaten around 20 000 shoes with less than 1000 unit bet! It was quite comical to see you ranting and raving on Imspirit's blog. You really are obsessed and are obviously a sick and deluded individual.

Get some help LOL

OK, everyone, let's agree how funny it is that a semi-literate (and I'm being kind) individual whose specialty on this board is to rant and rave and spew expletives like a drunken sailor in a brothel, actually accuses me of ranting and raving.

Imspirit's blog is definitely worth a visit, and I think we owe it to Banker's Boy to scroll through my recent dialogue with the blog's author and see if it qualifies as "ranting and raving."

Now, here we also have a genius who is saying (for the first time) that he has a strategy that beats 20,000 genuine baccarat shoes without betting more than 1,000 units. What he doesn't realize, apparently, is that if true, his claim would earn him a hallowed place in baccarat history.

Seems to me Benny-boy should have Imspirit test this brilliant method of his against oh, how about 12,600 shoes (the number Target beat, all told), so we can all bow down at the feet of the mighty and agree that, just as he says he is, he's truly unbeatable.

He'll need to be sure to get the rules straight ahead of time, because Imspirit, when he's misguided by someone with an axe to grind, quite often gets these little details wrong, it seems.

Target on SkyDrive

Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Home

New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs

Originally Posted by Sethbets

OK, everyone, let's agree how funny it is that a semi-literate (and I'm being kind) individual whose specialty on this board is to rant and rave and spew expletives like a drunken sailor in a brothel, actually accuses me of ranting and raving.

Imspirit's blog is definitely worth a visit, and I think we owe it to Banker's Boy to scroll through my recent dialogue with the blog's author and see if it qualifies as "ranting and raving."

Now, here we also have a genius who is saying (for the first time) that he has a strategy that beats 20,000 genuine baccarat shoes without betting more than 1,000 units. What he doesn't realize, apparently, is that if true, his claim would earn him a hallowed place in baccarat history.

Seems to me Benny-boy should have Imspirit test this brilliant method of his against oh, how about 12,600 shoes (the number Target beat, all told), so we can all bow down at the feet of the mighty and agree that, just as he says he is, he's truly unbeatable.

He'll need to be sure to get the rules straight ahead of time, because Imspirit, when he's misguided by someone with an axe to grind, quite often gets these little details wrong, it seems.

Target on SkyDrive

Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Home

New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs

Enough with the lies Seth, I think you have told enough already LOL

This is not the first time I have mentioned I beat around 20 000 shoes, just like I never stated that betting banker is the only way to win long term. You really should get your facts straight before you make stupid statements. But then again you are the king of stupid statements. Statements such as saying a progressive system will do better betting on player as opposed to banker in the long run LOL That is a real gem!

Well wouldnt The large bets that this Target thing requires to go from losing to a positive balance really hurt Banker bets? A lot of big commish takeouts on large bets?

Originally Posted by Jamesbac

Well wouldnt The large bets that this Target thing requires to go from losing to a positive balance really hurt Banker bets? A lot of big commish takeouts on large bets?

While it is true that a large bet on banker will net you less than a player bet because of the commission, this is more than compensated by the hit rate of banker as opposed to player. So his target system will do better in a long term computer simulation betting on banker, as opposed to player and that is a fact!

Originally Posted by Jamesbac

Well wouldnt The large bets that this Target thing requires to go from losing to a positive balance really hurt Banker bets? A lot of big commish takeouts on large bets?

Hey, James! That's exactly the point I keep trying to make, providing links that demonstrate that the "5%" commission sucks up so much of the pot that the "wins more often" advantage is offset and then some. But people really devoted to the casinos' line that Banker is Best don't want to see sense, it seems.

In the large data set (a little shy of 60,000 rounds) I took a look at, Player won 83% more than Banker's net win, betting the same strategy against the same outcomes. Now, I agree that 60,000 isn't definitive, but when you take a hard line, you'd better be right a lot more often than you're wrong, and the sample demonstrates that in eight separate blocks of baccarat shoes extracted at random from the Zumma sets, Banker came out ahead just once, and even then by only a hair.

Tough to get through to some people. And I don't see why this news is so hard to accept. Who wants to give the casinos extra money?

Target on SkyDrive

Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Home

New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs

I would guess that just because of the nature of this bet, when in recoup mode if playing banker, one would actually have to add units to the banker bet to compensate for commission to recoup lost monies with a 1 unit profit which in itself would add to the inherent danger especially on the harder recoups. (almost an escalating negative progression on its own for the Bankers commission?) Not really sure maybe the author will clarify?

Originally Posted by Jamesbac

I would guess that just because of the nature of this bet, when in recoup mode if playing banker, one would actually have to add units to the banker bet to compensate for commission to recoup lost monies with a 1 unit profit which in itself would add to the inherent danger especially on the harder recoups. (almost an escalating negative progression on its own for the Bankers commission?) Not really sure maybe the author will clarify?

Imspirit hasn't posted his Banker bets, but argues quite reasonably that not having that adjustment in place whenever a mid-recovery win triggers a loss-to-date plus (LTD+) bet puts Banker at a disadvantage. I have modeled that myself in the past, and came to the conclusion that the best baccarat option is to ignore Banker completely. Sure, Banker wins about 2.5% more often than player, but the 5% commission blows that edge to bits. That its job!

I also have a problem with the "Banker loses less" argument tossed into this discussion as an irrelevant distraction, because it plays into the casino-supported (as well as casino-supportING) assertion that you can't win in the end no matter what you do, so learn to enjoy losing. I have taken the bait on that more often than I should and I apologize for paying undue attention to something that I have helped become a sideshow. But what can I do when I take great pains to demonstrate that Target consistently delivers an average winning bet exceeding the value of its average losing bet by at least 10%, and group members interested solely in flaunting their innumeracy keep asking, "Where do they pay 1.1:1 on a winning Player bet?"

When I'm in a casino (which is often!) I probably spend more time watching other players than actually betting myself, primarily because I believe that there is always something to be learned from observing and listening. I favor Blackjack because it's straightforward and relatively uncomplicated, and if that makes me a simpleton, then so be it, I'm a happy moron. Obviously, baccarat players should make whatever choices they see fit. I just know from both watching and doing that hopping from one primary option to the other while at the same time having to bet the "right" (meaning optimal) sum adds to the overall loss probability (the old zig-zag factor). That's how the game was designed. So at baccarat, I bet Player, at roulette, I stick with R or B, O or E etc., very rarely venturing an inside bet or a 2:1 proposition.

It's all about choice, which, naturally, is excluded from all sims and trials against very large data sets, verifiable or not. Those trials invariably support progressive betting and Target specifically, as we have seen from Imspirit's sterling work. But real play does an even better job.

Target on SkyDrive

Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Home

New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs

I don't know what planet you are from, but Imspirit's work does not support your Target system at all! His stats clearly show it to be a loser in the long run, and that betting on banker as opposed to player WILL MAKE YOU LOSE LESS IN THE LONG RUN.

Telling people to bet player only, because you have to pay commission on banker, is really bad advice. The fact is that the house edge is worse on player and thus you will lose more money betting on player, especially with progressive systems because your are putting more money at risk.

I guess some people can't be helped...

You just gotta admire the guys decorum

Originally Posted by ImSpirit

3. Truth cares not one iota upon others’ opinions. The darker the night, the brighter the stars. So, if you feel ever-persecuted by biased, agenda-filled, incompetent, deceptive, and treacherous naysayers, why should you care one bit? Best to prove them all wrong by spending your time and effort at the tables, winning and enjoying great fortunes.

Not only smart, classic too. As for Ian Harmer (as in harmya bankroll), nothing has changed from 10 ~14 yrs ago. Carl/Johno/Nick/Egalite/ (and fuk "nose" who else)

Originally Posted by Egalite

You just gotta admire the guys decorum Not only smart, classic too. As for Ian Harmer (as in harmya bankroll), nothing has changed from 10 ~14 yrs ago. Carl/Johno/Nick/Egalite/ (and fuk "nose" who else)

I think I can safely say that Ian Harmer would rather not be known, as Bitter (LOTI) and Twisted (Egalite) are from posts that long pre-date my arrival at BF on October 6, for snide and spiteful, semi-literate attempts to tear other people down.

Target has taken very good care of me for a very long time, but the more time I spend in casinos, the more it confirms that most people who put their money at risk have no idea what they are up against, and have neither the resources nor the discipline to do what it takes to offset the house edge.

They won't learn anything from Bitter and Twisted, that's for sure, unless they are looking for lessons in bad manners, infantile expletives, bad math and worse grammar.

I happily quoted Imspirit's implication that I have a persecution complex because it is truly laughable coming from someone who relies on Benn Gunn for guidance before launching into a million-shoe "test" that he knows full well (from his devotion to the intuitive teachings of his pal Ellis) can have little or nothing to do with real play.

Bitter, remember, started out picking outcomes from two shoes that he probably made up on the spot, bet more than 100,000 units at one point, and pronounced Target an "utter failure" against a data set with a 49% house edge.

Twisted has at least taken a break from breathtakingly vicious and insulting attacks on a well-respected member of this group, to turn his spew on me. That temporary distraction is the one and only good thing that has come out of his posts since he moved on from polluting various other groups and decided last year to come and drag this group down to his level instead: now, his drivel is directed at someone who doesn't take it personally.

Interestingly, Bitter continues to insist that Imspirit's math (I guess Benn's pencil broke so he decided to job out the task to someone better qualified) debunked the Target strategy, but Imspirit's data say otherwise.

The chart I put up yesterday was not actually from the WOO 1,000, which Imspirit confirms Target beat handily. It was from a TEN THOUSAND-shoe test that he ran when Target beat WOO, and Target came out ahead against that data set as well. So, with Bitter no doubt barking mad by then, he ran a MILLION-shoe test, and pronounced Target a failure.

I agree with Bitter that this is all very comical.

Setting aside for a moment the plain truth that mindless sims that prohibit any semblance of human control ("intuition" as Imspirit and his friend Ellis quite rightly call it) are a pathetic substitute for real play, let's consider the numbers: In the WOO 1,000, Dave/Imspirit recorded only two instances where Target's bankroll was seriously threatened.

Without ties, there were some 75,000 rounds, and since Target averages turnaround in SIX rounds or less, we're looking at 2 major threats in more than 10,000 recovery series (12,500 is closer, but Benn can figure that out with his broken pencil!).

Now, Bitter claims to have a brilliant strategy that he devised that thrashed 20,000 actual shoes while never exceeding 1,000u for any bet, but I have looked high and low and can't find reference to it anywhere but in his recent anti-Target tirades.

Bitter says it's not the "holy grail" because 20,000 shoes is too small a sample. Sorry, but judging from his behavior since I came on board, I'd say the more likely explanation is that his claimed strategy does not exist and never will.

I respond to these posts entirely because I know that progressive betting is the ONLY long-term antidote to the house advantage in casino games of chance.

I'd prefer the truth to be otherwise, and I applaud all the efforts I read about to judge shoe patterns ahead of time and predict this, that and the other.

The to bet or not to bet Banker issue is unimportant to me, but I accept that other people have different preferences and that as far as they are concerned, I am wrong and they are right. Fine, but thankfully very few of them will bombard me with insults and expletives, which I see as much more of a problem for the sources of that behavior than it is for me.

Long ago, I ran a few hundred thousand rounds of baccarat with Target compensating for the 5% gouge by increasing those critical LTD+ bets. I concluded that the extra math simply was not worth the bother, and have since stuck happily with betting Player only.

Bitter’s arguments in favor of the Banker bet are deceptive. Banker certainly wins about 2.5% more bets than Player, when things go as they should (and veteran baccarat players know that when things go as they should, that’s a good day!).

Trouble is, the 5% rake on winning bets completely overturns any passing advantage that might be gained from winning “more often.” If you don’t win more money, there’s really no advantage at all. Bitter says you do, I say you don't, and it's time to leave it at that.

As for "persecution," all I can say about that is that from a math or even a truth standpoint, it would have made much more sense for Dave/Imspirit to check the rules with me before devoting several minutes of his time to running tests that could not be claimed as accurate without that first responsible action.

Dave first conceded that he worked with just one Target rule (LTD+ after a mid-series win) then changed his tune and claimed he'd used SIX rules, five of which cannot be seen in action in the line-by-line summary of his WOO 1,000 bets that he finally put up for scrutiny after two weeks of ignoring my requests that he do so. I discovered bets far larger than the 5,000u cap that Target very specifically applies, for what reason I will never know, an ethical mystery I guess.

I assume Imspirit's bets for the Zumma 600 and 1000 data sets will also be made available at some point, but I could be wrong: Dave says that by requesting an explanation for his seemingly uncharacteristic inaccuracy, I'm testing his "tolerance"!

People who make a living and/or a name promoting betting methods that ignore the harsh realities of the effects of the house edge naturally get very bent out of shape when someone even hints that what they have been preaching for years (whether for profit or not) is hogwash. I fully understand that.

But the fact remains that casinos abhor progressive betting for one reason and one reason only: It overturns the house edge and poses a very severe threat to their profits.

Large bets, larger than anything most people can afford, are inevitable, just as the house will from time to time have to allow very large amounts to be put into play while relying on "the math" to make sure that those big bucks never have to be paid out in real money at the cashier's window.

They have faith in their numbers, and we have to have faith in ours. It's really that simple.

I just want as many people as I can reach to realize that if they gamble by betting flat or betting randomly, they are certain to lose in the long run.

And for them, the long run won’t be 1,000 shoes or 10,000 or even 1,000,000 shoes. It will be in a time-frame closer to the less-than-a-shoe sample that Bitter, in his proud ignorance and arrogance, deemed the undoing of Target.

Behind all the bluff and bluster, it just comes down to the math.

Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Home
Target on SkyDrive

New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs

Oh, now I know why this sounds so familiar - we talked about it way back in February here (Target Betting System -it's totally free ... well, like I said then, if I could make a $25K bet, I wouldn't be betting! Then I realized, by that time he tells me to make that bet, I'd lost already $25K! Wow, so even playing $5 tables, I need a $50K bankroll. Uh huh. Well, I read mr.Inspire's stuff and what he writes made complete sense to me and did everything righto. Dunno why mr.Ian is so uppity about everything, being very rude and complete arse to mr.Inspire. Well, besides that, mr.Irish confirms, so that's double power. hey - seems like we have mr.senlung back - welcome back mr.dragoon! ;-)

I started reading this and following this discussion at the IMSPIRIT blog, then I checked out the Target blog. What really impresses me is when Targets applied blindly to sports betting. I have followed for a few days and the plays are honestly posted on the blog before games are played with amounts to be bet etc. Results are applied the next day and I see a bankroll that just grows and grows. Its quite hard to ignore something like that, sure makes me interested enough to study further. Anything like that in the gambling world is of interest. Not saying that I would play it that way with the kind of bankroll required but it sure has me thinking! If the average bet is 11 units I think I read, maybe there is a way of tweaking it or taming it down for the more average player?

mr.James, well, if it is just trying to win back to back, there are dozens of ways people have come up with to parlay. This one next was given to me by someone way back when I forget who ... This idea took a long time to develop and in the end it is very simple. Here is how it works: You continue to make bets until you win two times in a row. When you win two times in a row you start over. What is so special about that? The answer is in how you decide how much your next wage is. Here are the combinations that can happen followed by the action you take: First, you make a minimum bet. Next, one of the following three things happens: Lose: Advance to the next wager size on the chart. (See the spreadsheet or play the game.) Win then Lose: Advance to the next wager on the chart Win then Win: You achieved a nice profit. Start over with your minimum bet. NOTE: The included game plays using this strategy. You do not need to know the strategy to play the game as it plays the strategy on every coin flip for you. It is a powerful learning tool. An example using the $5 minimum wager: It is helpful if you first print out the $5 Minimum Wager Strategy from either the spreadsheet or from the game. What Happens When You Win A Bet - Example Your first bet is a $5 wager. You win this wager so you let your original $5 bet ride along with your winnings. Your second wager will be $10. You win the second bet so now you have a total of $20 on the table. $15 is winnings and $5 is your original investment. You just won two times in a row and made a 300% profit of your original minimum wager so you start over with the minimum bet of $5. What Happens When You Lose A Bet - Example Your first bet is a $5 wager. You lose this wager so you look at the chart to see what the 2nd bet would be on a $5 minimum table. In this instance your second bet would be $7. You win this bet so now you have a total of $14 on the table. You are now looking for your second win in a row so you bet the entire $14. This is called, “Let It Ride”. You lose this bet so you look again at the chart and see that the third Wager is $9. Now, if you win the $9 bet you will have a total of $18, $9 is your wager and $9 is your winnings. Again you are going after your second win in a row so you let the $18 ride. Again you win this bet so now there is $36 on the table; your bet of $18 and your winnings of $18 which total $36. Of the $36 you have $21 invested. This leaves you with a $15 profit. You just won two times in a row so you take all of the money off the table and start over with the minimum bet of $5. If this sounds confusing then play the game. It really is simple once you understand how it works. Remember, the only time you move to the next bet size on the chart is when you lose. Take a look at the chart for a $5 minimum bet table. After you have studied it I will give you some examples. Then I will show how it is possible to have money in action and play up to 23 decisions/combinations before you win two times in a row. Each time you win two times in a row you recover all the money you have invested in this session and make a minimum of at least a 300% profit of your original minimum bet An example of the $5 Minimum bet. This is taken from the included spreadsheet. The $5 green box is the minimum bet size. The $475 green box is the required bankroll. Wager Bet Invested 4x Profit1. $5 $5 $20 $15 2. $7 $12 $28 $16 3. $9 $21 $36 $15 4. $12 $33 $48 $15 5. $16 $49 $64 $15 6. $22 $71 $88 $17 7. $29 $100 $116 $16 8. $39 $139 $156 $17 9. $52 $191 $208 $17 10. $69 $260 $276 $16 11. $92 $352 $368 $16 12. $123 $475 $492 $17 If you were to speak out loud here is how you would read this table: “First, you bet $5. You have $5 invested. If you win you let it ride. If you also win the second time you have 4x (or $20) on the table which $15 is profit. If you lose at any time you move to the next wager amount.” If you lose either the first or second bet then you wager $7. You have a total of $12 invested ($5 + $7). If you win you let it ride. If you win the second time you have 4x (or $28) on the table which $16 is profit. If you lose at any time you move to the next wager amount. If you lost on either of those bets then you wager $9. You have a total of $21 invested ($5 + $7 + $9). If you win you let it ride. If you win the second time you have 4x (or $36) on the table which $15 is profit. If you lose at any time you move to the next wager amount. If you lost on either of those bets then you wager $12. You have a total of $33 invested ($5 + $7 + $9 + $12). If you win you let it ride. If you win the second time you have 4x (or $36) on the table which $15 is profit. If you lose at any time you move to the next wager amount. If you hit a losing streak where you can’t seem to win two times in a row you may find yourself at the last wager amount. This is uncommon but it does happen. The last wager for this minimum bet is $123. If you win this then you let it ride. If you win again then you recovered all the money invested and made a $17 profit. If you lose this bet then you have lost your session bankroll. Take a break. Remember you still have your winnings from the times you won two times in a row. Tests show that this amount is usually more than your bankroll so you made it through a losing streak in good shape. If you follow this strategy you can have a streak where you do not win two times in a row of up to 23 times before you lose your bank roll. Here is how that could happen: Wager 1: Won (Let it ride) Wager 2: Lost. Move to the next bet size on the chart (Bet Wager #2) Wager 3: Won (Let it ride) Wager 4: Lost. Move to the next bet size on the chart (Bet Wager #3) Wager 5: Won (Let it ride) Wager 6: Lost. Move to the next bet size on the chart (Bet Wager #4) Wager 7: Won (Let it ride) Wager 8: Lost. Move to the next bet size on the chart (Bet Wager #5) Wager 9: Won (Let it ride) Wager 10: Lost. Move to the next bet size on the chart (Bet Wager #6) Wager 11: Won (Let it ride) Wager 12: Lost. Move to the next bet size on the chart (Bet Wager #7) Wager 13: Won (Let it ride) Wager 14: Lost. Move to the next bet size on the chart (Bet Wager #8) Wager 15: Won (Let it ride) Wager 16: Lost. Move to the next bet size on the chart (Bet Wager #9) Wager 17: Won (Let it ride) Wager 18: Lost. Move to the next bet size on the chart (Bet Wager #10) Wager 19: Won (Let it ride) Wager 20: Lost. Move to the next bet size on the chart (Bet Wager #11) Wager 21: Won (Let it ride) Wager 22: Lost. Move to the next bet size on the chart (Bet Wager #12) Wager 23: Won (Let it ride) At any point in the above example you win two times in a row you recover all you have invested with a minimum of a 300% profit of your original wager! At any time during the above example you win two times in a row you go back to the minimum bet. This strategy makes a lot of money per hour. The exact amount depends on the game you are playing, how much you are using for your minimum bet and if you are playing in a brick-and-mortar or an online casino. Most of the game is self-explanatory. While playing the game and watching the Session Log is fun it will also teach you how to use my strategy. Make sure you understand how the amount of each bet is achieved. The only thing I want to share with you is how to read the Session Log. Here are some lines taken from the Session Log: Even Money System - Coin-Flipping History Report Session Bankroll: $475 LIR = Let It Ride Action: BET $5 on Heads and Lost [1] Balance: $470 P/L: ($5) Action: BET $7 on Heads and Won! [2] Balance: $463 P/L: ($12) Action: LIR $14 on Heads and Won! [2] Balance: $491 P/L: $16 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Action: BET $5 on Heads and Won! [1] Balance: $486 P/L: $11 Action: LIR $10 on Heads and Lost [1] Balance: $486 P/L: $11 Action: BET $9 on Heads and Won! [2] Balance: $479 P/L: $4 Action: LIR $14 on Heads and Lost [2] Balance: $479 P/L: $4 Action: BET $9 on Heads and Lost [3] Balance: $470 P/L: ($5) Action: BET $12 on Heads and Won! [4] Balance: $458 P/L: ($17) Action: LIR $24 on Heads and Lost [4] Balance: $458 P/L: ($17) Action: BET $16 on Heads and Won! [5] Balance: $442 P/L: ($33) Action: LIR $32 on Heads and Lost [5] Balance: $442 P/L: ($33) Action: BET $22 on Heads and Won! [6] Balance: $420 P/L: ($55) Action: LIR $44 on Heads and Lost [6] Balance: $420 P/L: ($55) Action: BET $29 on Heads and Lost [7] Balance: $391 P/L: ($84) Action: BET $39 on Heads and Won! [8] Balance: $352 P/L: ($123) Action: LIR $78 on Heads and Lost [8] Balance: $352 P/L: ($123) Action: BET $52 on Heads and Won! [9] Balance: $300 P/L: ($175) Action: LIR $104 on Heads and Lost [9] Balance: $300 P/L: ($175) Action: BET $69 on Heads and Lost [10] Balance: $231 P/L: ($244) Action: BET $92 on Heads and Won! [11] Balance: $139 P/L: ($336) Action: LIR $184 on Heads and Won! [11] Balance: $507 P/L: $32 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The session starts out where it took three coin flips to produce two wins and, thus, take money off the table. After the two wins the wagering returned back to the minimum bet size. The playing streak is ended with either two wins or a loss of your beginning bankroll and is identified with the dotted line. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Next, it took 19 coin flips before two wins in a row happened. This long streak of win/lose type of action does not happen very often. However, this is an example of what it looks like when a long streak develops. Most of the information on each line is simple to follow. The only exception is the numbers inside the brackets [] Notice these numbers get larger as a losing streak develops. Take a look at the top of this where the betting began. The first 5 lines are[1], [2], [2], doted line and then [1]. This means we used the first wager from the spreadsheet $5 Minimum Bet chart [1] and lost that wager, and then the second wager from the chart [2] and won that wager. For the third bet we do not add any of our own money. We use our last bet [2] and the winnings from the last bet (LIR). We won the third bet. So because we won the second and third bet we made a nice profit and start over with the minimum bet [1] which is the fist line of text after the first dotted line. Once you get comfortable playing the game and watching the Session Log you will be armed with the knowledge of countless time and effort it took to create a strategy that is unmatched anywhere in the world. No system can come close to the win possibility this strategy gives you. How do I know this to be true? I taught computers how to play using dozens of systems and the information contained here beats them all! Keep in mind that the casinos have a built-in advantage. This is called the House Advantage. This is how the casinos take your money to pay their bills. One last thing…Nowhere do I promise or guarantee you will make a profit because you decide which game you want to play and where to place your wager. Remember the fact that I have converted almost every system out there into a computer program. Almost all betting systems are based, in one way or the other, on what happened on the last wager. i.e.; did red or black win? Did the Pass Line win? etc. I proved this to be an expensive bunch of crap. Always remember that dice do not know or even care what happened on the last toss. The Roulette Wheel does not know, remember or care what number came up last, what color won, etc. However, I do believe that random events sometimes have a tendency to run in streaks. The problem with this is you do not know when the streak starts and when it will end. Beating a casino game with a system will fail. Winning money with a powerful money strategy that is designed to keep your investment small and your winnings big is what purchased. You have in your possession the most powerful tool (money strategy) available today to beat the casino. How you decide to use it is up to you. This is gambling and the nature of gambling is risk. Even flipping a coin can have a series of events that would cause you to lose your bankroll. This is rare but it happens. Unlike casino games the coin flipping odds are truly even odds with no built-in House Advantage. The smaller the House Advantage the better the chances you will walk away with another successful and profitable playing session. Know the odds. Play games that offer the best odds. Use a strategy that is leveraged to win. Please share your success stories with us. We love to read about your experiences and they make all of this work worth while! Thank you!

Originally Posted by Jamesbac

I started reading this and following this discussion at the IMSPIRIT blog, then I checked out the Target blog. What really impresses me is when Targets applied blindly to sports betting. I have followed for a few days and the plays are honestly posted on the blog before games are played with amounts to be bet etc. Results are applied the next day and I see a bankroll that just grows and grows. Its quite hard to ignore something like that, sure makes me interested enough to study further. Anything like that in the gambling world is of interest. Not saying that I would play it that way with the kind of bankroll required but it sure has me thinking! If the average bet is 11 units I think I read, maybe there is a way of tweaking it or taming it down for the more average player?

James - You must be new here. The rule is that whatever the evidence, if it disagrees with your preconceived notions and biases, you ignore it or misinterpret it, misquote it or otherwise distort it. What's up with you, man? Just because the bets are posted ahead of game times every day, and then the post-game results are accurately and honestly reported for all to see, it doesn't mean the strategy has value. Ask Benny-boy - he'll tell you that I cheated. I mean, he does it, so everyone else must do it too, right?

Behind all the bluff and bluster, it just comes down to the math.

Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Home
Target on SkyDrive

New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs

The last person in the world who should be using math in a sentence is Seth LOL The guy doesn't understand basic gaming probability!

LOL

Originally Posted by Sethbets

James - You must be new here. The rule is that whatever the evidence, if it disagrees with your preconceived notions and biases, you ignore it or misinterpret it, misquote it or otherwise distort it. What's up with you, man? Just because the bets are posted ahead of game times every day, and then the post-game results are accurately and honestly reported for all to see, it doesn't mean the strategy has value. Ask Benny-boy - he'll tell you that I cheated. I mean, he does it, so everyone else must do it too, right?Behind all the bluff and bluster, it just comes down to the math. Keep winning! Seth T.

Very interesting that mr.IamHarming has both a persecution complex and a projection syndrome, because everything he accuses others of doing against him, that he is himself is obviously guilty of doing. It's pretty interesting how he sees himself in everyone else like a mirror. Great display of human psychoses of projection. Good timing, since I just learned about it in psych. Thanks for the education. I have to tell my prof to come study mr.IamHarming.

Originally Posted by LOTI

The last person in the world who should be using math in a sentence is Seth LOL The guy doesn't understand basic gaming probability! LOL

"Behind all the bluff and bluster, it just comes down to ego."

Hotdog,
Have you tried that scheme you wrote up? If so how did it fare?

Originally Posted by Jamesbac

Hotdog,Have you tried that scheme you wrote up? If so how did it fare?

Yeah, it works great. I doubled my bankroll in one day on four shoes playing it one time. A few other times, though, I got up to the 11th level, and was sweating balls. This method max bet is at less than 25 units, and you only need less than 100 units BR, which is for all practical purposes the max psychologically. No way for 99% of us to consider betting more - that's pure insanity. Sorry about how the text above got scumped up in a lump like that. For some reason, my editor ignores breaks. In case you couldn't tell, the levels are: 1. $5 2. $7 3. $9 4. $12 5. $16 6. $22 7. $29 8. $39 9. $52 10. $69 11. $92 12. $123 . Of course, multiply by any number for bigger BR. I have a lot more of these kinds of parlay schemes if u r interested.

Sure why not? I use double wins in most of my Baccarat strategies along with triggers that produce consistant double wins. Maybe a new thread on this would be cool, we can all put our favorites and what the pluses and minuses are of the betting strategy?

Originally Posted by Jamesbac

Sure why not? I use double wins in most of my Baccarat strategies along with triggers that produce consistant double wins. Maybe a new thread on this would be cool, we can all put our favorites and what the pluses and minuses are of the betting strategy?

All the really, really smart people who post to this board (for egotistical reasons or whatever!) are unanimous in rejecting the long-term winning potential of any parlay strategy, Target most definitely included. So I am looking forward to LOTI's dismissal of this version of progressive betting after a 30-second analysis with pencil and paper - he's a math whizz, he tells us - and Imspirit's million-shoe follow-up. Egolite will weigh in too, no doubt.

Hotdog says "Yeah, it works great" and then offers more of "these kinds of parlay schemes" so the reaction from BF's self-anointed experts should be very interesting!

Behind all the bluff and bluster, it just comes down to the math. Oh, and ego. Anyone who truly believes he can win consistently without progressive betting has to have a world-class ego - or a death wish.

Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Home
Target on SkyDrive

New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs

Originally Posted by Jamesbac

Sure why not? I use double wins in most of my Baccarat strategies along with triggers that produce consistant double wins. Maybe a new thread on this would be cool, we can all put our favorites and what the pluses and minuses are of the betting strategy?

Here's another ... oh, by the way, mr.IamHarming, the difference is that 99% of us are smart enough to know the difference between gambling and grail. Better check your ego at the lemonaid fountain ;-) Here is another beauty ... 12 RULES OF PARLAY ...1. Start play at any table. You do not need to qualify. Also, start atthe beginning of the shoe. This will give you enough hands to play outthe parlay mode if you should get down.2. You will bring a 22-unit buy-in to the table. You will continue playingI playing shoe to shoe if necessary) until you either win a minimum of fiveunits as part of the Plateau Betting Strategy or lose your buy-in.9 Strategy your buy-in.3. There are two playing modes in the Parlay Plus Strategy: The plusmode and the parlay mode. Whenever you are even or up, you are in theplus or attack mode. Whenever you are down, you are in the parlay orrecovery mode. Each mode uses a different betting progression andbetting strateay.4. Your first bet will always be a one-unit bet in the plus mode. Torepeat, any time you begin a new session with a new buy-in, your firstbet will always be one unit in the plus mode.5. The plus mode uses an up-as-you-win progression: 1-1-2. Thisprogression was specifically chosen because it works with the PlateauBetting Strategy. This is important. Your offense is not just theprogression. It is the progression and the Plateau Betting Strategy(pages 20-21). Both are needed to mount a complete attack.6. When you are in the plus mode you will use a unique bet selectionthat was designed for this mode only. That is, you will bet whateverhappened last. If banker won, you bet banker. If player won, you betplayer and if it chopped two or more in a row, bet the next chop.7. alien you are down, you are in the parlay mode. The parlay mode isdesigned to bring you close to even and at times show a profit withjust one parlay win. It is used strictly for defense. Your goal is toget out of the parlay mode as soon as you can and back into the plusmode.88. The parlay mode uses the following unique up-as-you-loseprogression: 1-1-i-1-1-2-2-3-4-5. Any time you win a parlay (both theinitial bet and the ride bet) and you are down, return to the firstone-unit bet in the parlay progression. As soon as you are even orahead, leave the parlay mode and start the plus mode with a one-unitbet. But if you are down, continue with the parlay mode and the parlayprogression. Note: If you do not have enough money left in your buy-into make a full initial bet, then make it for less. This can happen onthe last bet of the progression. (See page 23, 9 6 for a fullexplanation.)9. When you are in the parlay mode you will use a unique bet selectionthat was designed for this mode oniv. That is, you will always betbatik. Unlike the plus mode that follows the streaks of bank, playerand chop, this mode will only bet bank using the up-as-you-lose parlayprogression.10. Also important to the parlay mode is the FIVE ONES at the start ofthe progression. These five one-unit bets extend the progressionallowing you to lose 11 hands in a row (21 possible g waers) beforelosing your buy-in.wagers To succeed with Parlay Plus Baccarat you must know if you are in theplus mode or parlay mode. This is because each mode uses a differentprogression and bet selection. I have developed a simple TrackingSystem that will instantly let you know which mode you are in andwhether you have reached the minimum win goal. (See Tracking System,page 30.) Remember, it is not enough to simply change your bettingprogression when you change modes. You must also chance your betselection. That means you will have to study the previous decisions todetermine the correct bet for that mode. This will be explained morefully in the video.12. Follow the Money Management and Departure Rules on page 31. Yourbuy-in is 22 units. Your bankroll is five buy-ins. Each session willbe determined by the simple departure rule of either winning a minimumof five units then dropping below your highest plateau or losing yourbuy-in. If you are up after a session, play another session. If youare down after your first session, playa second session. If you arealso down after the second session. stop playing for the day. Any timeyou go up 10 or more units after a session is completed, protect yourwinnings by using the Departure Variation on page 32. This will limityour losses to no more than six units.

Originally Posted by Hotdog

Here's another ... oh, by the way, mr.IamHarming, the difference is that 99% of us are smart enough to know the difference between gambling and grail. Better check your ego at the lemonaid fountain ;-) Here is another beauty ... 12 RULES OF PARLAY ...1. Start play at any table. You do not need to qualify.

You have the right to be as much of a smart-ass as your fellow BF members will allow, but by peddling "systems" with little or no chance of beating the house edge in the long run, you are doing the 99% you refer to more potential damage than I am.

I tell everyone that if you sit down at any casino game with an inadequate bankroll (1,000u at least, and that's just a start) you are in effect committing suicide. And let's use the right language here: a "stop-loss" at the low levels you recommend is really a "guaranteed loss."

Parlaying is a step or two in the right direction, no doubt, but the only way anyone has a long-term shot at beating the house edge is if they have the resources to fight fire with fire. And in this context, for fire, read money.

I can see that what you are promoting here and in previous posts might actually be fun, with OK short-term prospects. But ask any casino employee and he'll tell you that fun = losing.

When I started out here on BF, I did my best to describe my ideas in terms that respected the intelligence and good judgment of prospective readers. Responses from most people matched that approach, but some became very quickly abusive and childish. If my recognition of that indicates a "persecution complex," then I guess that's what I have.

But whatever the extent of my mental illness, as diagnosed by a handful of lunatics, the truth remains unchanged: flat or random betting will always lose sooner rather than later. You're pitching a different perspective, that's all. Neither of us is seeking to personally profit from our recommendations and one of us is clearly wrong. Let's just let all those intelligent, perspicacious BFers out there judge the merits of our differing points of view, and keep it friendly, OK. I have become a little testy at times, but certainly not without provocation!

Behind all the bluff and bluster (and rampant egotism), it just comes down to the math.

Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Home
Target on SkyDrive

New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs

very interesting stuff both of you,
thank you

Ah, ok, mr.IamHarming/Senlung/Dragoon ... I see why the casinos are so afriad of you ... with a 1,000 units BR, you can make a 5,000 units bet. Wow - I really need mr.Irish to explain the math of that one to me, it must be so sophisticate. Hmm, maybe I can switch majors and study maths if I really can wrap my head around this one. I bet my diffEQ prof would be so proud, he might even nominate me for the Nobel Prize. Oh, I forgot, they don't give the Nobel for maths. Awww, too bad for me, I could've secured your place in the history books. Well, who knows, maybe the IgNobels instead might make an exception this time. Let me make a few calls ...

Oh, hey, I forget ... I should've said 99% know the difference between gambling and lunacy. Whew, but thank god for the 1% that can entertain us. Every place needs laughingstock clowns. Thanksfully ours has big enough ego to also be our Weebles, bobbles but don't fall down. Awesome, we can keep punching away every time he bobbles back. Step right up ...

Originally Posted by Hotdog

Ah, ok, mr.IamHarming/Senlung/Dragoon ... I see why the casinos are so afriad of you ... with a 1,000 units BR, you can make a 5,000 units bet. Wow - I really need mr.Irish to explain the math of that one to me, it must be so sophisticate. Hmm, maybe I can switch majors and study maths if I really can wrap my head around this one. I bet my diffEQ prof would be so proud, he might even nominate me for the Nobel Prize. Oh, I forgot, they don't give the Nobel for maths. Awww, too bad for me, I could've secured your place in the history books. Well, who knows, maybe the IgNobels instead might make an exception this time. Let me make a few calls ...

Imspirit's excellent analysis with only partial application of the Target rules showed the max spread limit reached only twice in 1,000 WOO shoes, so I guess we can call that a (wait...LOTI can handle this one) 2/1,000 = 0.2% probability.

Your parlay methods offer a 50%-plus probability of loss, which according to your Nobel efforts is an improvement over Target.

OK, then - play on!

Behind all the bluff and bluster (and rampant egotism), it just comes down to the math.

Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Home
Target on SkyDrive

New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs