Just When You Thought it was safe to go back in the water...

[kachatz1]

All members, junior, senior, passive, active...

Take a look at the dialog posted on ImSpirit's Blog which takes place between Lee Evans and Ellis...

Not sure how to post a link but just "google" ImSpirit and got to the Lee Evans blog...BTW, ImSpirit ( aka Dave, Virtuoid) is well-versed in mathematics and has been on this BTC forum in the past..met him at one of the seminars...

Easy reading and some very good points about how and why NOR works so well, as contrasted with another person's documented approach to bet selection/ money management..Lee Evans is also articulate and makes some interesting points which Ellis comments on...

Great perspective on ST versus Longterm look at what typically happens

[Guest]

All members, junior, senior, passive, active...

Take a look at the dialog posted on ImSpirit's Blog which takes place between Lee Evans and Ellis...

Not sure how to post a link but just "google" ImSpirit and got to the Lee Evans blog...BTW, ImSpirit ( aka Dave, Virtuoid) is well-versed in mathematics and has been on this BTC forum in the past..met him at one of the seminars...

Easy reading and some very good points about how and why NOR works so well, as contrasted with another person's documented approach to bet selection/ money management..Lee Evans is also articulate and makes some interesting points which Ellis comments on...

Great perspective on ST versus Longterm look at what typically happens

In fact, I wish you guys would post over there on that thread.

Dave kicked me off, he says because I kept mentioning BTC. The fact is, he himself mentioned BTC a hell of a lot more often than I ever did. I suspect it was really because I was sort of taking over his blog.

I could certainly use your support over there in light of the eggheads over there that call me a scammer. I also note that those same people have the spelling and vocabulary ability of a third grader. Oh, I apologize to third graders everywhere.

[Guest]

Maybe it's just my generation but I just don't get Dave's manners. We pay his way to our Pa Bac seminar, I win him $1500 by letting him follow me for 6 shoes of Baccarat, He won't even pick up his own tab at dinner. He was a complete embarrassment for me in front of my friends. So then he kicks me off his blog for something I didn't even do. He needs to stick to research for colleges. He'd never make it in the corporate world.

So the guy set out to prove me a phony and things didn't work out for him. Didn't surprise me none.

Then he says that a 26% P.A. for 6 shoes is mundanely normal play that anyone could do. So what's his total gambling experience? Two weeks.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Guest

[bluetri]

A MUNDANE 26% R.O.I., empires have been built on less than a tenth of that! How could he not see the implications of that?

[Guest]

A MUNDANE 26% R.O.I., empires have been built on less than a tenth of that! How could he not see the implications of that?

bluetri, what would you guess the odds are of hitting 26% PA in ONE shoe???

Maybe 1 shoe in 5? That would be pretty darn good Baccarat, right? Consider that most players will never do it in their lifetime, right?

Buy that?

Accepting that for the moment, what would your odds be of 26% 2 shoes in a row?

5 x 5 = 1 in 25 attempts - sound about right?

what about 3 in a row?

5 X 5 X 5 = 1 in 125 attempts

what about 4 in a row?

5 x 5 x 5 x 5 = 1 in 625 attempts

What about 5 in a row?

5 x 5 x 5 x 5 x 5 = 1 in 3125 attempts

And 6 in a row?

5 x 5 x 5 x 5 x 5 x 5 = 1 in 15,625 attempts. That is simple high school calculus. It is as simple as calculating the odds of 6 heads in a row flipping a coin.

In fact, I seriously doubt that anyone has ever hit 26% 6 straight shoes in a row ever before in the history of Baccarat.

I'm absolutely sure Dave has never done it in even ONE shoe and has no inkling how hard it is. You need to be a pretty darn experienced Baccarat player just to have an idea of just how hard that actually is.

Anyway, I wrote at ImSpirit that the odds of hitting 26% PA for 6 shoes in a row were greater than 1 in 4000. I think I was being extremely conservative.

Dave scoffed at that saying he looked it up on some probability table and the table said it was commonplace. I think he needs to throw his tables out and buy a Calculus book. What do you think?

Edited February 21, 2013 by Guest

[bluetri]

I am certain of one thing; if it truly WERE commonplace, Casinos wouldn't (read COULDN'T afford to) deal Baccarat. In fact, we would be reading about it in History books and not on a Math Blog! If that is mundane to him, I need to meet his stock broker!

[kachatz1]

In fact, I wish you guys would post over there on that thread.

Dave kicked me off, he says because I kept mentioning BTC. The fact is, he himself mentioned BTC a hell of a lot more often than I ever did. I suspect it was really because I was sort of taking over his blog.

I could certainly use your support over there in light of the eggheads over there that call me a scammer. I also note that those same people have the spelling and vocabulary ability of a third grader. Oh, I apologize to third graders everywhere.

Not sure I understood it either, but I guess it's his blog...

And it never ceases to amaze me that people spend their whole lives having to pay for others' expertise, and they think a few $$ to learn a lifetime "skill" of learning how best to leave a casino with the shirt on their back constitutes a scam?

Here's an idea, and it's free...next NOR manual, throw in a few recipes, a couple of plumbing tricks and some information about how to be your own dentist and sales will skyrocket! HA!

Or, even better a copy of the 1995 movie Se7en, starring Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman...nobody, and I mean nobody can win LT @ baccarat without recognizing how the " seven deadly sins" come into play every time one enters the casino ( or plays online)

Gluttony

Greed

Sloth

Wrath

Pride

Lust

Envy

Anyone Recognize them in your own " baccarat personality" ? .

Be honest with yourself...they prevent us all from being better players than we are...

Watch the movie, and you'll see what I mean.

Either way, Ellis, the dialog you had going with Lee Evans was very interesting, to say the least...I know he wants to write a book about his Bac experience, it's just that I would guess that less than 1-in-1,000 people could learn much from it...I wish him the best. And Dave, too.

Let's just keep up the good work here...

[Guest]

I am certain of one thing; if it truly WERE commonplace, Casinos wouldn't (read COULDN'T afford to) deal Baccarat. In fact, we would be reading about it in History books and not on a Math Blog! If that is mundane to him, I need to meet his stock broker!

Ha, he certainly did not think it was mundane while we were playing!

But to take his side for a moment:

Dave must look at it from the standpoint of his blog, ImSpirit

His goal is to increase readership.

People read stuff that favors their point of view.

They don't read stuff that doesn't.

The gambling world is split into two points of view.

Those who know it is possible to win long term.

And those who think it impossible to win long term. (A favorite excuse for losing)

Dave's readership strongly favors the latter.

Therefore Dave tends to prove by math that it is impossible to win long term.

This is easy to do if you accept the mathematical hit rate of 50% in Baccarat as a given.

That way he can preach to the choir and keep everybody happy and reading.

He conveniently overlooks the pro gambler who does NOT accept a 50% hit rate as a given. The pro, through time of day, table selection, and game typing, and knowing how to play, achieves a hit rate much greater than 50%. Then he selects a betting strategy that matches and augments his hit rate. Then he uses cash mgt. that also matches and augments his hit rate. The pro knows when to go for the jugular but he also knows when to retreat. Most importantly, he knows when to play and when not to play. We call this skill. Dave ignores skill.

Dave must pretend there is no skill in gambling to satisfy the bulk of his readership.

Plus, after following me for 6 shoes Dave tried to do it on his own. But, unlike me, he had no idea of where to play, when to play, which tables to play, how to play or how to bet. So, of course he was a miserable failure. Therefore, to him, it is easier to say winning is impossible, rather than to admit that he played stupidly and ignorantly. Hey, nobody ever told him it was easy. Gambling skill takes study, practice, and experience.

So, he takes the side of the majority on his blog and pronounces winning is impossible. He backs that up with conveniently selected bits of surface math.

But now, he can't explain how, following me, we win 6 shoes in a row to the tune of a 26% PA. He knows that a 1 or 2 or even an 8% PA over 6 shoes can be explained by "luck". But not 26%. That is like saying "the Yankees won every game of the season by luck - Skill had nothing to do with it". He can't explain it by any known math. So he simply says I have these tables that say it is mundane.

While any skilled gambler knows that it is next to impossible.

But it satisfies himself and the majority of his extremely small and dwindling readership. And that is his goal. I was a mere stumbling block that needed to be explained away and discarded.

But that whole fiasco and kachatz's notation of it gives me an idea. We need a thread on this forum about "Risk of Ruin". I teach you how to avoid it and that is taught nowhere else. Yet I've never mentioned it - until now.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Guest