Thread: Short Term "Real Play" Probability Question

Hey guys,

I am working on a new theory and wanted some opinions on real life play. If you see a shoe where there are a couple long runs of lets say, bankers in the first third to half of the shoe (ie:banker results for at least 65% of the 1st half of the shoe), do you find it more often than not that player percentage will "catch up" in the second half of the shoe.

ex:

b
p
bbb
pp
bbbbbbbb
p
bbbb
ppp
bbbbbb
pp
bbbbbb


then will we assume that the player has an above average chance of catching up from here on?

I know the stats point to a long term close to 50/50 game, but has your actual play shown anything short term down to a single shoe.(If, of course, the shoe starts out completely lopsided like above ex.)

I ran into a similar shoe recently where the player did come out predominantly from there. Also, the hot-shot dealer said "I told you that was going to happen, it always does". Obviously I was on the wrong side of that shoe from the start. Hah.

It got me thinking...

Originally Posted by BOND

then will we assume that the player has an above average chance of catching up from here on?

Unlike blackjack, a game in which probability constantly changes and card counters can gain an advantage when they know there's a higher ratio of high value cards left in the shoe, baccarat's probability remains exactly the same despite what you've seen in previous hands. The cards in baccarat have "no memory" of past events.

I have seen plenty of real life shoes where banker or player dominated the entire shoe. I have also seen shoes where one of them dominated the first half of the shoe and the other one "caught up."

Remember, if you flip a coin and get 10 heads in a row, the probability of the next flip being tails is still 50%.

So then your answer is 50/50 for a single shoe. That is, there is no better chance that the end of the shoe will produce slightly more player results. Not only that, you have not seen it more dominant one way or the other in your play?

Also with your coin flip example, it is also true that the probability of a streak ending gets higher as the streak gets longer.(If you look at the steak and not the individual flip)

Baccarat shoes are pre-loaded and bound by the draw rules for the entire shoe. I am trying to determine if there is a somewhat finite amount of results that can happen to either side during one shoe if certain parameters are met. I did say somewhat. That's not to say that you can't have an entire shoe of b's, but that is something that I would go all in against it happening. I am just looking for what people see the majority of the time.

What is the highest percentage of any one side dominating a shoe that you have seen during your actual play?

Thank you for your reply!

I would also like to say that the "card counting" theories don't swing the odds enough to make me believe that it is a solid way to win at blackjack. I have mastered the game as much as it is possible. I know it inside and out. I have turned my losing friends into winners. Basic stategy is no way to play religiously. Card counting also gives the house a higher probability to get great hands(that depends on the type of players at any given table and the amount of players). Believe me, I can go on all day about blackjack.

In my short "career" in baccarat I am up. My simple system works most times. I do need to understand the game more so I can form my own independent theories. That is what I strive to do daily. Maybe it is impossible to come up with a new way. I do think that math can be beaten with math.

Originally Posted by romogracie

Unlike blackjack, a game in which probability constantly changes and card counters can gain an advantage when they know there's a higher ratio of high value cards left in the shoe, baccarat's probability remains exactly the same despite what you've seen in previous hands. The cards in baccarat have "no memory" of past events.

I have seen plenty of real life shoes where banker or player dominated the entire shoe. I have also seen shoes where one of them dominated the first half of the shoe and the other one "caught up."

Remember, if you flip a coin and get 10 heads in a row, the probability of the next flip being tails is still 50%.

True enough, it's 50-50 every time. But your $10 will get you my $50 that you can't flip 10 successive heads or 10 successive tails in your next 10 coin tosses. Pays 5-1 on a 50-50 proposition? If you believe that, I wish you lots of luck.

Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Website

Originally Posted by Sethbets

True enough, it's 50-50 every time. But your $10 will get you my $50 that you can't flip 10 successive heads or 10 successive tails in your next 10 coin tosses. Pays 5-1 on a 50-50 proposition? If you believe that, I wish you lots of luck.


Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Website

LOL.

A guaranteed wager is betting that Sethbets has shit for brains!

Hi Bond. I am new to Baccarat. I think the most important thing in playing Baccarat is always follow the trend and never fight the trend. I see a lot of people on the wrong side of the bet and keep on fighting the trend and end up losing all their bank roll. I do not look at Baccarat game as 50-50 change. If I see banker or player has a run I will follow it or not betting at all. I saw many times banker or player run more than 13 time in the roll. If you on the wrong side for 10 times in the roll it hurt. I like second bank or second player bet and stop.

Originally Posted by LOTI

LOL.

A guaranteed wager is betting that Sethbets has shit for brains!

Really? Well OK then, why not prove it by posting an unedited video of you tossing heads 10x in a row or tails 10x in a row? Should be easy for a self-proclaimed genius, who can also figure out the Excel formula that will provide the odds against 10 consecutive wins or losses in a 50-50 game. Then we'll all know how clever you are! Who knows, you might even be as clever as you think you are.

Mind you, the last time you had to show that you can follow a very simple set of instructions, you made a total hash of it...


Seth T.

Blog
Website
Egalite’s “tough” shoes (Target betting all B, then all P)
Offset for Bank Tax XL file on SkyDrive
Testing Romogracie’s 5-step Marty XL
Spread wide to win!
The truth about bet spreads: Why wide wins...
Target Sports

Hi Sethbets. I am new to this forums. I went to your web pages. I learn about LTD and NB. I think it will work. May I ask you if open loss of 1 unit can you just 3X PB instead of 5X because my bank roll is limited.

Originally Posted by Sethbets

True enough, it's 50-50 every time. But your $10 will get you my $50 that you can't flip 10 successive heads or 10 successive tails in your next 10 coin tosses. Pays 5-1 on a 50-50 proposition? If you believe that, I wish you lots of luck.

Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Website

Wow what a deal by shit for brains Seth. He really does not understand arithmetic or basic probability.

He is paying 5-1 on a 512-1 proposition. LOL What a clown.

Get a clue shit for brains!

Originally Posted by LOTI

Wow what a deal by shit for brains Seth. He really does not understand arithmetic or basic probability.

He is paying 5-1 on a 512-1 proposition. LOL What a clown.

Get a clue shit for brains!

OK then, so now LOTI the boy (self-styled) genius gets it! - on the one hand, your chances of getting the result you want on any baccarat decision are a tad less than 50-50, but on the other, the chances of making the wrong choice twice in a row are about 4-1, three in a row, 8-1 and so on. That's why it's smart to stick with B or P consistently, rather than helping the house by hopping back and forth.

The reason I offered 5 to 1 on what LOTI's math says is a 512 to 1 probability but is actually 1024 to 1 is to emphasize the seeming contradiction in the math of gambling.

LOTI and other supporters of the house position say over and over again that you'd have to be crazy to bet a very large sum of money "just to win 1 unit." It's indicative of a pathetic misunderstanding of the math.

Because you will almost always lose more often than you win, you must bet in such a way that when you win, you win more money on average than you lose when you lose. So if you bet 100 times and lose 51 wagers, you're in the hole if you bet the same amount every time (either by betting randomly, or by betting a fixed sum every time) but if your average win is worth, say, 20% more than your average loss, you will come out nicely ahead in spite of negative expectation.


Seth T.

Blog
Website
Egalite’s “tough” shoes (Target betting all B, then all P)
Offset for Bank Tax XL file on SkyDrive
Testing Romogracie’s 5-step Marty XL
Spread wide to win!
The truth about bet spreads: Why wide wins...
Target Sports

Originally Posted by Sethbets

OK then, so now LOTI the boy (self-styled) genius gets it! - on the one hand, your chances of getting the result you want on any baccarat decision are a tad less than 50-50, but on the other, the chances of making the wrong choice twice in a row are about 4-1, three in a row, 8-1 and so on. That's why it's smart to stick with B or P consistently, rather than helping the house by hopping back and forth.

The reason I offered 5 to 1 on what LOTI's math says is a 512 to 1 probability but is actually 1024 to 1 is to emphasize the seeming contradiction in the math of gambling.

LOTI and other supporters of the house position say over and over again that you'd have to be crazy to bet a very large sum of money "just to win 1 unit." It's indicative of a pathetic misunderstanding of the math.

Because you will almost always lose more often than you win, you must bet in such a way that when you win, you win more money on average than you lose when you lose. So if you bet 100 times and lose 51 wagers, you're in the hole if you bet the same amount every time (either by betting randomly, or by betting a fixed sum every time) but if your average win is worth, say, 20% more than your average loss, you will come out nicely ahead in spite of negative expectation.


Seth T.

Blog
Website
Egalite’s “tough” shoes (Target betting all B, then all P)
Offset for Bank Tax XL file on SkyDrive
Testing Romogracie’s 5-step Marty XL
Spread wide to win!
The truth about bet spreads: Why wide wins...
Target Sports

Actually Seth, it is 512-1! You should do your homework, kid! You said 10 consecutive heads OR 10 consecutive tails LOL. Nice try though.

Again, you are not able to prove you can do as you say with winning more on average than losing! Test your system over enough shoes and you will be heavily negative. It in inevitable!

LOL

Originally Posted by LOTI

Actually Seth, it is 512-1! You should do your homework, kid! You said 10 consecutive heads OR 10 consecutive tails LOL. Nice try though.

Again, you are not able to prove you can do as you say with winning more on average than losing! Test your system over enough shoes and you will be heavily negative. It in inevitable!

LOL

If your coin can land either heads up or tails up, your chances of calling it right once are 1 in 2, and with Banker or Player as choices in baccarat, your chance of backing the winner are 1 in 2. So now we're down to semantics! We both end up with a number higher than 500-1, confirming that if you bet against the house winning once, as a flat or random bettor does each time he bets, you face different odds than if you bet against the house winning several times in a row, as the progressive bettor does as his wagers escalate.

You have a better shot at being right 10x in succession if you stick with heads or tails (or B or P) on every call than if you keep changing your call in response to some imaginary trend. I recently posted an analysis from the 3,600 shoes that we all have access to in which FLD did marginally better than OLD or DBL, and yet forum members continue to promote "the hop" - perhaps in some cases because they know that it favors the house.

Target has been tested against the same 3,600 shoes and beat them all.

It also beat the booby-trapped sequence from two Zumma shoes in which you deliberately mangled the strategy rules in order to inaccurately and dishonestly support the conventional wisdom, which also happens to be supported by the casino biz.

You proposed a maximum bet of more than 100,000 units, which is impossible. You ignored Target's 10x cap on the value of any bet vs. the prior bet. And you ignored the bounce rule that's even in the bare-bones strategy. You then passed the same deceptive LOTI rules set to Imspirit, and he had to push all the way out to a million shoes before recording a fatal crash and burn.

So don't pretend that you give a damn about honesty and accuracy.

Seth T.

Blog
Website
Egalite’s “tough” shoes (Target betting all B, then all P)
Offset for Bank Tax XL file on SkyDrive
Testing Romogracie’s 5-step Marty XL
Spread wide to win!
The truth about bet spreads: Why wide wins...
Target Sports

Originally Posted by Sethbets

OK then, so now LOTI the boy (self-styled) genius gets it! - on the one hand, your chances of getting the result you want on any baccarat decision are a tad less than 50-50, but on the other, the chances of making the wrong choice twice in a row are about 4-1, three in a row, 8-1 and so on. That's why it's smart to stick with B or P consistently, rather than helping the house by hopping back and forth.

The reason I offered 5 to 1 on what LOTI's math says is a 512 to 1 probability but is actually 1024 to 1 is to emphasize the seeming contradiction in the math of gambling.

LOTI and other supporters of the house position say over and over again that you'd have to be crazy to bet a very large sum of money "just to win 1 unit." It's indicative of a pathetic misunderstanding of the math.

Because you will almost always lose more often than you win, you must bet in such a way that when you win, you win more money on average than you lose when you lose. So if you bet 100 times and lose 51 wagers, you're in the hole if you bet the same amount every time (either by betting randomly, or by betting a fixed sum every time) but if your average win is worth, say, 20% more than your average loss, you will come out nicely ahead in spite of negative expectation.


Seth T.

Blog
Website
Egalite’s “tough” shoes (Target betting all B, then all P)
Offset for Bank Tax XL file on SkyDrive
Testing Romogracie’s 5-step Marty XL
Spread wide to win!
The truth about bet spreads: Why wide wins...
Target Sports

Thanks Sethbets, I agrees. I will surely try your method this coming Saturday night.

Originally Posted by Sethbets

If your coin can land either heads up or tails up, your chances of calling it right once are 1 in 2, and with Banker or Player as choices in baccarat, your chance of backing the winner are 1 in 2. So now we're down to semantics! We both end up with a number higher than 500-1, confirming that if you bet against the house winning once, as a flat or random bettor does each time he bets, you face different odds than if you bet against the house winning several times in a row, as the progressive bettor does as his wagers escalate.

You have a better shot at being right 10x in succession if you stick with heads or tails (or B or P) on every call than if you keep changing your call in response to some imaginary trend. I recently posted an analysis from the 3,600 shoes that we all have access to in which FLD did marginally better than OLD or DBL, and yet forum members continue to promote "the hop" - perhaps in some cases because they know that it favors the house.

Target has been tested against the same 3,600 shoes and beat them all.

It also beat the booby-trapped sequence from two Zumma shoes in which you deliberately mangled the strategy rules in order to inaccurately and dishonestly support the conventional wisdom, which also happens to be supported by the casino biz.

You proposed a maximum bet of more than 100,000 units, which is impossible. You ignored Target's 10x cap on the value of any bet vs. the prior bet. And you ignored the bounce rule that's even in the bare-bones strategy. You then passed the same deceptive LOTI rules set to Imspirit, and he had to push all the way out to a million shoes before recording a fatal crash and burn.

So don't pretend that you give a damn about honesty and accuracy.

Seth T.

Blog
Website
Egalite’s “tough” shoes (Target betting all B, then all P)
Offset for Bank Tax XL file on SkyDrive
Testing Romogracie’s 5-step Marty XL
Spread wide to win!
The truth about bet spreads: Why wide wins...
Target Sports

Listen asshole, you should not even speak of honesty or accuracy. Only a complete fool will write something like:

"You have a better shot at being right 10x in succession if you stick with heads or tails (or B or P) on every call than if you keep changing your call in response to some imaginary trend."

Are you kidding me? LOL. You truly are a self deluded amateur. You have no idea about maths or probability! You tested against what, 3600 shoes? Big deal. ANYBODY can come up with a method that beats 3600 shoes with a 5000 unit max bet! LOL. I find it quite humorous you will not test against say 10 000 or more shoes. The reason is that you know your system will fail, big time.

Simply betting banker for 1 unit every time Sethbets "shit for brains" best possibles system makes any kind of bet, will do better in the long run! That is an irrefutable fact!

I am beginning to think you are some sort of casino shill. I mean normal people usually aren't THIS stupid!

GRIN

Why Lotti and Sethbets keep on fighting???? We here to help each other out to make some money and become better players. Can We All Get Along? Peace!

Brandon.

Originally Posted by LOTI

Listen asshole, you should not even speak of honesty or accuracy. Only a complete fool will write something like:

"You have a better shot at being right 10x in succession if you stick with heads or tails (or B or P) on every call than if you keep changing your call in response to some imaginary trend."

Are you kidding me? LOL. You truly are a self deluded amateur. You have no idea about maths or probability! You tested against what, 3600 shoes? Big deal. ANYBODY can come up with a method that beats 3600 shoes with a 5000 unit max bet! LOL. I find it quite humorous you will not test against say 10 000 or more shoes. The reason is that you know your system will fail, big time.

Simply betting banker for 1 unit every time Sethbets "shit for brains" best possibles system makes any kind of bet, will do better in the long run! That is an irrefutable fact!

Facts are facts, and little boys with potty mouths won't change them - although, by golly, you keep on trying.


Seth T.

Blog
Website
Egalite’s “tough” shoes (Target betting all B, then all P)
Offset for Bank Tax XL file on SkyDrive
Testing Romogracie’s 5-step Marty XL
Spread wide to win!
The truth about bet spreads: Why wide wins...
Target Sports

Originally Posted by gobrandon

Why Lotti and Sethbets keep on fighting???? We here to help each other out to make some money and become better players. Can We All Get Along? Peace!

Brandon.

I'm not fighting. I'm just persisting in telling the truth.

LOTI will never offer proof of his malicious distortions because such proof simply isn't possible.

For example, he says that anyone can come up with a strategy that beats 3,600 shoes of baccarat but he hasn't, and he can't because he doesn't know how.

He once referred to a system of his that netted less than +1 unit per shoe, but as always, there was no proof.

His pal Imspirit couldn't beat Target with 100,000 shoes and had to push out to 1,000,000 shoes to get the job done. That assumes that a) Anyone would ever live to play a million shoes and b) If he/she did, he/she would never apply any commonsense damage control along the way.

Imspirit, like LOTI, deals with final outcomes only and does not explain his methodology. It took him a month to post just one sample of his bets using the mangled Target rules LOTI gave him, and Target beat that sample just as I predicted.


Seth T.

Blog
Website
Egalite’s “tough” shoes (Target betting all B, then all P)
Offset for Bank Tax XL file on SkyDrive
Testing Romogracie’s 5-step Marty XL
Spread wide to win!
The truth about bet spreads: Why wide wins...
Target Sports

Originally Posted by gobrandon

Hi Sethbets. I am new to this forums. I went to your web pages. I learn about LTD and NB. I think it will work. May I ask you if open loss of 1 unit can you just 3X PB instead of 5X because my bank roll is limited.

Target is intended to be adaptable to any player's individual style and resources.

You can dial down any rules you want, as long as you don't mess with the LTD+ response to a mid-recovery win.

Here's a simplification based upon your need to slow down the increase in bet values:-

After an opening loss, NB=PBx2 (your next bet is double the previous bet).
After a second loss, freeze (repeat) the bet value until a win.
After a win, NB=LTD+1 (your loss to date in the current series, plus 1 unit).
If the turnaround (recovery) bet fails, repeat NB=LTD+1, then freeze until the next win.

The last rule above is optional, but I very strongly recommend its use. I even apply it in the bare-bones rules set for Target, which is about as uncomplicated as progressive betting can get!

Following all the rules above might give you a series like this: -1, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, +2, -12, +24 = +1/51 = +1.96% vs. AV (actual value) -6/10 = -60%.

In any casino game, you have to win more money when you win than you lose when you lose in order to overcome your long-term disadvantage from losing more often than you win. In the example above, the average winning bet was 13u and the average losing bet was 3u.

A few months back, a forum member who describes himself as a world-class expert on evaluating betting strategies applied a deliberately-mangled version of the Target rules to a Zumma data set with an overall anti-player edge that was close to 50%.

He ignored all the rules except the first LTD+ in any sequence, because it suited him to do so.

He ended up with the travesty that he fully intended, and then posted it in the hope that it would squelch any further BF interest in the Target method.

He overlooked the fact that the ratio between “visitors” online at any time vs. members is routinely 10-20:1, and that given the standard of discourse much of the time, very few of those visitors will ever return!

Also overlooked was that more than 90% of registered members never bother to post because they are sick of the insults and lies that a tiny minority publish in defense of the casino position that “you can’t win in the end, so learn to have fun losing.”

Most people visiting BF simply want to learn useful ways to improve their winning chances. Half-baked insults and puerile profanity are expressly intended to drive them away.

Target didn’t do much against the biased sample (+0.06% of total action) – but it WON against a house edge that was at least forty times negative expectation for baccarat.

The “test” posted by a self-styled “expert and open-minded systems evaluator” required total action of almost $1,450,000 in $5 units and exposure of close to $600,000.

With the correct bare-bones rules applied, Target actually required $43,000 in total action and was exposed less than $20,000 before winning the battle.

Hardly chicken-feed, I agree. But you can see that honesty and accuracy, let alone open-mindedness, were not part of the self-proclaimed expert’s agenda!

In real play, I wouldn’t have stuck around for a heavily Banker-biased run (or kept on betting Player against it!), and most people reading this wouldn’t either.

But what counts is that progressive betting (especially the Target version!) is the only way to beat the house in the long run.

That does not mean that when the going gets tough, you should risk your entire bankroll because you believe you are invincible.

Sometimes, winning can be very hard work, and there is no sense in making it harder by banging your head against a brick wall.

I have been advocating progressive betting online for almost 15 years now and practicing it in casinos for twice that long.

Never have I said that a Target player should be bone-headed and inflexible. When the going gets tough, take a hike, resuming with the same NB and LTD values at a new location – follow your gut but stick with the rules, in other words.

In a really bad downturn, you will have to move a lot anyway, because you will bump up against table limits from time to time.

That’s not a nuisance, it’s a benefit, because dangerous downturns are relatively rare, and the chances of bad runs repeating in game after game as you move up the ladder diminish with each step.

For the benefit of visitors or new members of BF, or anyone interested in accuracy, I have run the sabotaged sample I mentioned earlier with the correct Target rules applied:

LOTI's crooked test.jpg

(http://www.sethbets.com/therightrules.html)

One thing to note is the value of Target’s average winning bet vs. its average losing bet. As I keep saying, you have to win more when you win than you lose when you lose to make up for the fact that in the long run, you will always lose more bets than you win.

Mark Twain once said that in descending order of truth, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Numbers can tell any lies you want them to, as long as you don’t have to follow the rules or explain your methodology. That’s the LOTI method.

The casinos will cheat, or do whatever else it takes to counteract progressive betting, and online real-money games like the ones enthusiastically endorsed by the Wizard of Odds are by far the worst offenders.

Apparently, some contributors to this forum are not above cheating, either.

I back all my statements with verifiable data, and have posted dozens of files to explain how and why Target works to consistently overcome the house edge in games of chance.

That’s all I can do.

There’s nothing to buy, and the only advice I ever offer (always for free) is: Try it.

I should add that if you tackle the house edge in any game with a BR that's less than 1,000x your minimum bet, your chances of coming out ahead are very poor. To be an ideal casino customer, you need to have a very limited bankroll, an equally limited understanding of the challenges you are facing, and a great capacity for "free" booze, which is not offered as a kindness but to encourage you to make even dumber choices than you would if you were sober! To earn the house's undying gratitude, you should also bet randomly or within a very tight spread (1-5 is popular) and believe that at baccarat, you can gain a long-term advantage by constantly switching from Banker to Player and back again.


Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Website
Egalite’s “tough” shoes (Target betting all B, then all P)
Offset for Bank Tax XL file on SkyDrive
Testing Romogracie’s 5-step Marty XL
Spread wide to win!
The truth about bet spreads: Why wide wins...
Target Sports

Thank You Sethbets for the advice.

Originally Posted by gobrandon

Thank You Sethbets for the advice.

The best advice anyone can give you is that if you can't afford to win, don't play.

I added a paragraph to that effect to the original post above, and apologize for not ending with it the first time.

You are expected by the house to be under-funded and nervous, and to retreat as soon as you start losing.

If you reduce your average bet value in response to a downturn, you will have to win more bets than you lose in order to recover. That's not likely to happen.

If you randomly increase your bets, you will almost certainly burn through your remaining BR and go home broke.

If you follow a proven plan, freezing and then increasing your bets for maximum efficiency, you will be able to recover your losses in fewer bets than it took you to lose the money in the first place.

As always, your choice!


Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Website
Egalite’s “tough” shoes (Target betting all B, then all P)
Offset for Bank Tax XL file on SkyDrive
Testing Romogracie’s 5-step Marty XL
Spread wide to win!
The truth about bet spreads: Why wide wins...
Target Sports

Originally Posted by Egalite

The nut case has changed his rules, after the +2 unit win you bet LTD +1 and if you lose you stay at that bet, however in the little example above, the nut case bet 24 units.

Wrong again, 4-1 for twice in a row? Gimme a break, even a junior school drop-out can spot the obvious, oh yeah there was some bit about beating 3600 shoes which is another fantasy, of course he doesn't actually beat 3600 shoes, cos' when the Banker gets ahead by 5, he leaves the table. Seth Bets or Ian W Harmer is the former Turnaround / Parlay Plus scammer, just so you all know.

A boilerplate response to LOTI and Egalite

Since you two are (independently?) determined to confine yourselves to insults and schoolyard profanity instead of bending your mighty minds to mathematics and substantive rebuttals, I will from now on save myself some time and trouble by posting the same response every time you attack me or Target Betting.

A quick review:

LOTI’s first public response to Target (after asking me to supply him with Excel conditionals that would enable him to test the strategy himself) was to deliberately mangle the Target rules and post a “test” that required a bet of over 100,000 units. He then gave the same inaccurate rules to Imspirit, who had to push his sample out to 1 million simulated shoes before defeating a version of Target that was missing several critical damage-control elements.

Imspirit ignored my request for corroborative data for almost a month before putting a small percentage of his “shoes” online. That sample was soundly defeated by Target – even with the wrong set of rules – and was more dramatically obliterated when the right rules were applied to it.

Egalite, who posts to this and other gambling groups using a wide array of aliases and has sent profane and threatening messages to forum members via e-mail and PM, claims to have won consistently against 10,000 actual shoes of baccarat in real casinos using a narrow betting spread and a stop-loss limit. It is a fact that such a method cannot prevail against even a small sample of shoes (a sample of just 100 shoes would almost certainly defeat it) but he offers no proof of his success, or even clear information about what his method is.

Both LOTI and Egalite have consistently avoided any reference to the large amounts of data that I have made available from time to time to provide actual numbers to back my claims for Target.

LOTI, at least, is honest enough to state repeatedly that baccarat and other casino table games cannot be beaten in the long run, and he has a right to that opinion. Egalite, on the other hand, persists in his claims that switching from B to P and back again under the dictates of an unspecified psychic intuition and using money management (aka progressive betting) with small caps can win. Characteristically, he never offers proof, and of course he never will.


Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Website
Egalite’s “tough” shoes (Target betting all B, then all P)
Offset for Bank Tax XL file on SkyDrive
Testing Romogracie’s 5-step Marty XL
Spread wide to win!
Target Sports

Face up to Ian Harmer, this is a concept only, not tried nor tested with real cash. You sound too bruised to play with real money, you obviously ducked the OBVIOUS once again, just like you ducked those Banker shoes I posted, yeah yeah yeah, we heard it all before, you have already played the Zumma books, what you continually fail to mention is "how many times you took your ass from the table", virtually of course.

Hey, if this is Soooooo GRRReeeeaaatttt, because you keep banging on about it and it is the only way to win. Why don't you be sooooo kind to meet up with some board member so they can witness / learn / watch this Target betting in action. I mean it is so wonderful, I'm sure you would have nothing to hide. After all it is the only way to win against those dastardly casinos. I'm sure there would be one or two who would like to watch, or are you also going to weasel out with some limp-wristed excuse. There is no better way of convincing people of the merit of any system than a demonstration, and you sure do like trying to convincing people. Oh yeah don't worry I'm the other side of the pond.

Originally Posted by BOND

I would also like to say that the "card counting" theories don't swing the odds enough to make me believe that it is a solid way to win at blackjack. I have mastered the game as much as it is possible. I know it inside and out. I have turned my losing friends into winners. Basic stategy is no way to play religiously. Card counting also gives the house a higher probability to get great hands(that depends on the type of players at any given table and the amount of players). Believe me, I can go on all day about blackjack.

I can assure you BJ played properlly will win the mathematical expectation in the long run. I managed a BJ team for 4 years with up to 12 players and while we fluctuated above and below the ME 2 often sd's either way we trended exactlly along the ME. We had too many players banned and could not keep up with training new playes and when the final principal player was banned we stoped. When we stopped we were right on ME. Out top bet was 2k per hand.

So let me tell you this, with solid training and precision play BJ is a SOLID way to win money. The biggest problem for most BJ players is they are under funded. We played with a ROR of 0.5% and re-adjusted bet spreads if we went below this. Team play with a well financed, well structured and with a fair payout system is the way to play BJ.

Anyway after many years not playing BJ or any other Casino games, I am lurking around here to see if there is a way to beat BAC so far I am not convinced there is!

Originally Posted by Egalite

Face up to Ian Harmer, this is a concept only, not tried nor tested with real cash. You sound too bruised to play with real money, you obviously ducked the OBVIOUS once again, just like you ducked those Banker shoes I posted, yeah yeah yeah, we heard it all before, you have already played the Zumma books, what you continually fail to mention is "how many times you took your ass from the table", virtually of course.

Hey, if this is Soooooo GRRReeeeaaatttt, because you keep banging on about it and it is the only way to win. Why don't you be sooooo kind to meet up with some board member so they can witness / learn / watch this Target betting in action. I mean it is so wonderful, I'm sure you would have nothing to hide. After all it is the only way to win against those dastardly casinos. I'm sure there would be one or two who would like to watch, or are you also going to weasel out with some limp-wristed excuse. There is no better way of convincing people of the merit of any system than a demonstration, and you sure do like trying to convincing people. Oh yeah don't worry I'm the other side of the pond.

Seth sure is obsessed with us. The guy should spend his time trying to come up with a sensible, viable strategy and not some suicidal progressive system that will bankrupt you.

Originally Posted by Sethbets

Here's a simplification based upon your need to slow down the increase in bet values:-

After an opening loss, NB=PBx2 (your next bet is double the previous bet).
After a second loss, freeze (repeat) the bet value until a win.
After a win, NB=LTD+1 (your loss to date in the current series, plus 1 unit).
If the turnaround (recovery) bet fails, repeat NB=LTD+1, then freeze until the next win.

1102	27	B	1
1102	28	B	2
1102	29	B	2
1102	30	P	2
1102	31	B	4
1102	32	B	8
1102	33	P	8
1102	34	B	8
1102	35	B	16
1102	36	P	16
1102	37	B	16
1102	38	B	32
1102	39	B	32
1102	40	B	32
1102	41	B	32
1102	42	P	32
1102	43	B	128
1102	44	B	256
1102	45	B	256
1102	46	P	256
1102	47	B	512
1102	48	B	1024
1102	49	B	1024
1102	50	B	1024
1102	51	B	1024
1102	52	P	1024
1102	53	B	4096
1102	54	P	8192

What a great strategy LOL. Using the above rules, a bet for 8192 is called for! And the more shoes you test/play the worse it will get.

Originally Posted by Egalite

Face up to Ian Harmer, this is a concept only, not tried nor tested with real cash. You sound too bruised to play with real money, you obviously ducked the OBVIOUS once again, just like you ducked those Banker shoes I posted, yeah yeah yeah, we heard it all before, you have already played the Zumma books, what you continually fail to mention is "how many times you took your ass from the table", virtually of course.

Hey, if this is Soooooo GRRReeeeaaatttt, because you keep banging on about it and it is the only way to win. Why don't you be sooooo kind to meet up with some board member so they can witness / learn / watch this Target betting in action. I mean it is so wonderful, I'm sure you would have nothing to hide. After all it is the only way to win against those dastardly casinos. I'm sure there would be one or two who would like to watch, or are you also going to weasel out with some limp-wristed excuse. There is no better way of convincing people of the merit of any system than a demonstration, and you sure do like trying to convincing people. Oh yeah don't worry I'm the other side of the pond.

Funny how you have failed to notice that my every post contains a link to a worksheet that has a bet-by-bet breakdown of why those "Banker shoes" of yours were no threat to Target.

You have also failed to comment on the files I e-mailed you at your request three months ago which did the same thing with a different set of cherry-picked shoes, and also contained a very simple explanation of the Target rules set applied.

Not big on telling the truth, are you? Long after I e-mailed those files to you, you posted a profane harangue about how I had ignored that challenge.

Sad, but I guess not a big surprise from someone who can make criminal threats via PM whenever someone disagrees with him.

As for your latest challenge, I am content to recommend to everyone on this forum that they try the strategy for themselves against any of the thousands of freebie games available on the Net.

LOTI's bleats about big bets that he can't afford ignore the fact that the only way you can win in the long run is with a large bankroll, along with courage, confidence and discipline.

The advice you offer in your posts on the very rare occasions when you are not attacking someone else (me, Archer, GR8...the list goes on and on) is so ineffective and inaccurate that it could as easily have come from a casino pit boss anxious to protect his employer's bottom line.

Bravo, John, your status as the most despicable weasel on this or any other gambling group (how many aliases are you up to now?) remains unchallenged.



Seth T.

Blog
Website
Egalite’s “tough” shoes (Target betting all B, then all P)
Offset for Bank Tax XL file on SkyDrive
Testing Romogracie’s 5-step Marty XL
Spread wide to win!
Target Sports

Originally Posted by LOTI

1102	27	B	1
1102	28	B	2
1102	29	B	2
1102	30	P	2
1102	31	B	4
1102	32	B	8
1102	33	P	8
1102	34	B	8
1102	35	B	16
1102	36	P	16
1102	37	B	16
1102	38	B	32
1102	39	B	32
1102	40	B	32
1102	41	B	32
1102	42	P	32
1102	43	B	128
1102	44	B	256
1102	45	B	256
1102	46	P	256
1102	47	B	512
1102	48	B	1024
1102	49	B	1024
1102	50	B	1024
1102	51	B	1024
1102	52	P	1024
1102	53	B	4096
1102	54	P	8192

What a great strategy LOL. Using the above rules, a bet for 8192 is called for! And the more shoes you test/play the worse it will get.

Correction: the more shoes you play, the more obvious it will become that progressive betting is the only way to beat the house edge in the long run.

Seth T.

Blog
Website
Egalite’s “tough” shoes (Target betting all B, then all P)
Offset for Bank Tax XL file on SkyDrive
Testing Romogracie’s 5-step Marty XL
Spread wide to win!
Target Sports

Ian Harmer (laughed off the Blackjack forums a decade ago) still dodging the OBVIOUS, of course folks he probably gave up playing this, it is only a dream. Which is why he is just another in a very long list of codgers with a winning strategy that can't be witnessed by anybody. Decent minded people would be hard pressed to test anything, when he openly bends the rules even on this site, just to prove a point.

Incidentally I asked you for fuck-all, you bombarded me with these ridiculous Excel spreadsheets, and you avoided everything I did ask for, such as that bad sequence, it took a month for this former scammer to finally fess up, he would have left the table and as everybody can see, he was willing to play those player dominated shoes, but won't go anywhere hear the set of Banker dominated shoes.

Anyway enough of this, I'll leave the final word to the "deluded fool himself"

this was lifted from his blog

UPDATE August 4, 2011: Target finally turned around on July 24 after a struggle that had lasted for the best part of three months, and the new high point came courtesy of a couple of back-to-back winning streaks that to my great surprise UPDATE August 4, 2011: Target finally turned around on July 24 after a struggle that had lasted for the best part of three months, and the new high point came courtesy of a couple of back-to-back winning streaks that to my great surprise

Now tell me, who the hell is prepared to play a system that can have you losing for three months? Well maybe IF you played once a month, it might be acceptable!!!

Seeing you to seem to be clutching at short straws (what's wrong with having other ID's elsewhere, I was John here at one time, you were in denial about your true identity for some time Harmon, also in denial you ever tried selling a system for $1000, rather blaming a rouge employee <snigger>). In regards to myself, I have a low tolerance for shit and idiots, a by product of spending too much "real time" at the tables, unfortunately these type of boards are a heaven for the such like.

<the edit quote isn't mine, I lifted that from a Blackjack forum, by the way, I'm sure you already know that, but others may not>