Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About davelevad

  • Rank
  • Birthday 07/01/1967

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    Chicago, IL

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Congrats, Keith ... a card-carrying Six Sigma member!
  2. Thanks, Kevin! I appreciate the kind words. Didn't know you were watching me play at Rivers. Funny thing is I always won at Rivers. Problem with Rivers, though, is it's so crowded, so a shoe takes forever to play. Seems like everyone has migrated from Horseshoe over to Rivers. Yeah, I wish I were able to witness a lot more real-time play of winners such as yourself and Ellis. Also, Archer (Jim), too, who likewise claims to have attained his own mastery of the game. I can name a dozen others, too, including, of course, Mark Maverick Teruya, all of whom belong to what I call the "Sixth Si
  3. Yes, regular old 3 prong power cord. Wireless would be easy to check with an RF detector. I'm afraid I might get into trouble if they catch me scanning the tables with an RF detector, though, lol - unless I figure out a way to be stealthy about it. My pleasure, Andy.
  4. Quick update: The new version of the Shufflemaster MD 2. I was able to get a pretty good look at the newer version MD 2's in use and one of the older model MD 2. I was sitting right next to one of the new ones yesterday. This newer version of the MD 2 has a video screen, about 2" by 3" like a cell phone screen. The older MD 2 just has a 1" by 4" blue LED readout with 2 lines of scrolling capable info, like 416 cards, shuffling X % complete, etc. The interesting thing I noticed yesterday is that while the machine is in shuffle mode, (the shuffle mode is ON always about 8 minutes), the scre
  5. ktd, For U1D2M2, when you are winning, you would keep betting back and forth between 1u and 2u bets. So, for example, if your current bet is 1u and you won the next 6 decisions, then your bet sequence would be: 1-2-1-2-1-2 .... If your current bet is 3u and you won the next 6 decisions, then your bet sequence would be: 3-1-2-1-2-1 ... If your current bet is 4u and you won the next 6 decisions, then your bet sequence would be: 4-2-1-2-1-2 ... etc ...
  6. If you play systematically by a set rule-based procedure over a random selection of baccarat shoes, I've already performed this "contest" computationally dozens of times, and unfortunately, you will lose. For example, I know you're aware I had tested an earlier version of your Advanced System40, which was a prototype of your present NOR system. The results were posted here: Baccarat Simulation Series 9 Results: System 40S (Advanced System 40). It could not do better than always betting Banker. Nor could any other system or combination of systems. Nor will NOR, ADN, SAP, or any other additi
  7. Ellis, your original question was in the context of computational testing, which assumes baccarat is a fair, random game. In that context, always betting Banker is best. That's the real mathematics of it. Put it another way, if we have a contest of playing 1,000 randomly chosen shoes, and I only bet Banker always, while you play however else you wish, then the odds favor my winning the contest, with or without Banker's commissions taken into account.
  8. Simply because 50/50 is in the long term. These gamblers bust long before approaching that realm. On the other hand, I've personally witnessed pure gamblers win left and right. Ironically, the last time it happened was during my last session in the first shoe (the "shoe from hell.") I wrote at ImSpirit: As I mentioned in my response to Rick’s comment, yesterday was a day when Luck won over Method, because the guy sitting next to me in the first shoe was winning by truly “gambling,†wagering huge stacks on purely intuitive guesses. He was quite a showman, too. Most of the time, as it
  9. With regards to being in the right place at the right time, that is definitely what I would like to be able to consistently do, and it is the fundamental prerequisite of someone hoping to have a consistent, positive edge. Those should be the only conditions under which to play, otherwise, it's just gambling with the usual long term negative expectancies. If only we can figure out how to systematically be at the right place at the right time. With regards to entirely omitting commissions from my testing, by far the best system to play without commissions is Bet Banker Always. That would defi
  10. Actually, betting opposite a losing system does not yield a winning one. For example, betting Player Always is a losing system, and betting its exact opposite (betting Banker Always) is also a losing system. Likewise, betting Repeat Always is a losing system, and betting its exact opposite (betting Opposite Always) is also a losing system. Etc ... for any other system or combination of switching between systems. Indeed, part of my testing of Xin/Sofer's system was to bet exactly opposite its bet placements, and the results were still negative. (See the results in the tables "1M Normal" an
  11. Yeah, I spend a lot of time testing this "Harvard" approach. (Actually, I called Harvard several times to try to verify whether Zuan Xin and David Soffer were actually alumni, but they never got back to me.) Simulation Results: Baccarat Simulation Series 30 Results: Zuan Xin Baccarat Great Learning Discussion: Does A Harvard Education Help You Win Baccarat? I have a lot of email correspondence from David Sofer, and the last one after I posted the results at ImSpirit was the following: Many thanks for the information. Here is what I have to say about this. This is a very cynical age we live i
  12. Clarification - by "convinced," he's referring to the basis of the edge, that is, the premise that baccarat shoes are consistently exploitable because they are non-random. (Not questioning that Ellis is a great baccarat player, irregardless, so I hope you did not misunderstand or were offended.) Well, I was happy to be the guinea pig myself and planned to play 20, 50, 100, 1000+ shoes and document my journey. But I'm afraid I might be stuck at 11 for awhile, out of fear that I have not yet secured that true edge and thus am not presently capable of properly applying this approach to its maxi
  13. Thanks - appreciate the good advice. Speaking of Vegas, my friend Tom provided a great Vegas tips guide that I just posted at ImSpirit: Things to See & Do in Vegas. Also, he asked if during the next BTC meet / demonstration there, if you'd be up to playing more than 6 games. Well, in his words: Personally speaking, 6 out of 6 would not convince me (not counting the 6 shoes already won); 25 out of 30 would convince me; 32 out of 40 would; 39 out of 50 would; 60 out of 80 would; or 73 out of 100 would. 80 out of 100 & i'd be convinced & impressed. 90 out of 100 & I'd be co
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use