Casino Orchestration (Shoe Bias) explained.

[danielsan]

What Ellis deems Casino Orchestration are mere standard deviation in the long term. I have simulated thousands of shoes that heavily favored one in each of the "six disparities" (P/B, Chop/Streak, OTB4L/TB4L) at a time. Heck, you can even have a session on just one table playing with one of the disparity. It just seems like an oddity in a few shoes but when the events are talllied up in the hundreds or thousands it returns to the mean. You see, creating bias is not even necessary when it happens in nature. And it's still a random game.

Honestly, it would have to be quite counter-intuitive, if it's at all possible to even orchestrate a certain disparity - shoe bias - (unless it has been proven factually and not just conjecture), to thwart subjective players such as himself or even mechanical players (as newbie gambler goes, it's a moot point). In fact, it would be monumentally idiotic. How any impulsive gambler would not pick up on the oddity after hours of play is beyond me. You may thwart one mechanical player favoring the weak/opposite disparity strongly, but you are also likely to have another mechanical player whose system perfectly fits the bill favoring the dominant disparity. Subjective players are even more of a threat with their continuous quest to find the bias in the moment and maybe gain an edge. It just doesn't add up even - and especially - if it was on a shoe by shoe basis as well. The best policy is to let randomness prevail which sounds pretty ridiculous to even contemplate in the first place.

What is conceivable though is cheating from the dealers. That I believe is more of a bottom line intuitive action - from the Casino's perspective - to thwart players. That I believe Ellis is right on about.

Nice to be back on the forum. Don't take this as anything other than a counter point which I strongly believe in.

[Keith Smith]

Standard Deviation has little to do with the point you are trying to make in my opinion. Standard deviation is a measure of variance (one side) of a set of numbers or data sets. I think what you are trying to express, if I am not mistaken is that using a simulator, all of the possitbilities well 99.73% of all the events that happen will occur within 3 standard deviations of the mean. And if equally disperesed will make for a bell curve if plotted. You are correct. As I have mentioned before this assumes randomess.

You indicate simulation, not real world situations where we can identify what I try to get folks to understand assignable cause variation http://www.qfinance.com/dictionary/assignable-cause-of-variation. Quoted from site ( an evident reason for deviation from the norm. An assignable cause exists when variation within a process can be attributed to a particular cause that is a fundamental part of the processan evident reason for deviation from the norm. An assignable cause exists when variation within a process can be attributed to a particular cause that is a fundamental part of the process") An example of assignable cause variation would be what you indicated dealer cheating. In the short term, if not caught, and if the results of the game were plotted, it would not form an equally distributed bell curve of the game statistics, but in the end they would all, if you play long enough over no time frame would disappear in randomess or endless samples. To your point, anything can and will occur in a random game, true but we are not playing random. There is card prep, dealers and any other procedure the casino can place into effect that will afftect the shuffle and order of the cards.

YOur simulation uses population ( all the games) data where you eliminated all causes of process variation. You will get a bell curve of data. We take samples of shoes from games in a casino, apply hypothesis tests and the test statistic falls outside of the realm of random with a 95% confidence level http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_statistic. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma . In other words the sample data when plotted indicates a process that is flawed or manipluated. We play short term games not endless possibilities of long term math. We are looking for process variation in Baccarat Games same in Blackjack with card clumping.

Keith

Edited March 2, 2013 by Keith Smith

[ECD]

Standard Deviation has little to do with the point you are trying to make in my opinion. Standard deviation is a measure of variance (one side) of a set of numbers or data sets. I think what you are trying to express, if I am not mistaken is that using a simulator, all of the possitbilities well 99.73% of all the events that happen will occur within 3 standard deviations of the mean. And if equally disperesed will make for a bell curve if plotted. You are correct. As I have mentioned before this assumes randomess.

You indicate simulation, not real world situations where we can identify what I try to get folks to understand assignable cause variation http://www.qfinance.com/dictionary/assignable-cause-of-variation. Quoted from site ( an evident reason for deviation from the norm. An assignable cause exists when variation within a process can be attributed to a particular cause that is a fundamental part of the processan evident reason for deviation from the norm. An assignable cause exists when variation within a process can be attributed to a particular cause that is a fundamental part of the process") An example of assignable cause variation would be what you indicated dealer cheating. In the short term, if not caught, and if the results of the game were plotted, it would not form an equally distributed bell curve of the game statistics, but in the end they would all, if you play long enough over no time frame would disappear in randomess or endless samples. To your point, anything can and will occur in a random game, true but we are not playing random. There is card prep, dealers and any other procedure the casino can place into effect that will afftect the shuffle and order of the cards.

YOur simulation uses population ( all the games) data where you eliminated all causes of process variation. You will get a bell curve of data. We take samples of shoes from games in a casino, apply hypothesis tests and the test statistic falls outside of the realm of random with a 95% confidence level http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_statistic. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma . In other words the sample data when plotted indicates a process that is flawed or manipluated. We play short term games not endless possibilities of long term math. We are looking for process variation in Baccarat Games same in Blackjack with card clumping.

Keith

Bloody hell Keith...Between the two of you...you have succeeded in making me feel like a total dumbarse.

Could we perhaps try writing in English next time...You gave me a headache...lol

I will never come even close to grasping your mathematical concepts...but the good part is...I don't have too.

As long as we are winning by utilising the results of your (and Ellis's) years of research...that's good enough for me.

Now... you two intellectuals go out and play and leave me to treat my headache.

Cheers

Oz

[Guest]

Well, I just finished ten hours of sleep so let me see if I can put it a little more plainly:

First, the important conclusion to draw from all this is that the cards are NOT random when we view them in the short term of single shoes. THAT is what gives us our edge both in Baccarat and in BJ

It is easier to understand this from the standpoint of BJ. BJ is where the casinos learned the value of "orchestration".

First recognize that Basic Strategy alone beats BJ when the cards are random and Basic Strategy was developed 30 years ago when BJ was the number one casino profit maker. Basic Strategy merely tells you the best BJ play choice assuming random cards for each of the 500 play choices in BJ.

Casinos were doomed unless they could figure out a way to avoid random cards in BJ. And they did!

Their first attempts were clumsy and obvious - using two discard shoes - one for the low cards and one for the high cards. But they were quickly accused of cheating and some casinos were closed down for this such as The Playboy Club on Cable Beach in the Bahamas.

But the casinos quickly found a way of separating highs from lows legally. They simply picked up the mostly low break cards first and then the mostly high non break cards. This worked extremely well and also passed muster. Now all they needed were ways of shuffling that enhanced clumping rather than dissipate it. This was relatively easy since all the casino control boards required was 3 shuffles. Hence the birth of shuffle technology. In fact the casinos got the control commissions to reduce their requirement from 3 shuffles to 2. And some casinos only shuffle once. This was easy to do given the fact that control commissions are ultimately paid by the casinos.

These efforts increased casino BJ profits in AC and Vegas from 6% to 15%. Highly effective.

So then the casinos turned their efforts to Baccarat where there profits were only 3 %.

They quickly noted that when they deal streaky shoes the casino loses. When they deal choppy shoes they win. And when they deal neutral shoes they win even more.

So now Bac profits became a simple function of which shuffles produce which shoe types. And they have tons of empirical data to work from. So it wasn't long before casinos could present streaky or choppy or neutral shoes at will regardless if the cards were shuffled by hand or by machine. Hence 26% Bac profits which were only 3% a couple years before.

This is not rocket science. Put yourself in the position of a Bac pit boss and you note that you are getting killed on this one choppy Bac table over here. What are you to do? Simple - change the shuffle from a chop shuffle to a streak shuffle and catch all the players with their pants down. Get it? Now you know what pit bosses are for. THAT is their job.

Now lets look at the whole thing from the players standpoint. Lets take BJ first. If the cards are not random, what are they? The word you are looking for is "precictable". What is going to happen if you deal predictable cards to a heads up player like me? Three guesses.

What is going to happen if you deal choppy cards to heads up Bac players like us? Three guesses. What is going to happen if you deal us streaky cards? So they fall right into our trap and deal us Neutral cards (OTB4L). Since we are the ONLY winners at the table- everyone is happy, especially us.

But now lets look at it from the mathematician's standpoint: Guys like Dave, (Virtuoid) say: Bull shit - because when you look at the results of thousands of shoes they always meet the random requirements. Well, of course they do. You have one table dealing chop, another dealing streak and yet another dealing neutral - what is the overall result? RANDOM.

But that is meaningless: we don't play 1000 shoes at a time. We play ONE table ONE shoe at a time. And we play according to the bias that we see. Now to you get it? We can't stop casinos from cheating. But what we CAN do is even better. We can use their own cheating against them.

[danielsan]

This is not rocket science. Put yourself in the position of a Bac pit boss and you note that you are getting killed on this one choppy Bac table over here. What are you to do? Simple - change the shuffle from a chop shuffle to a streak shuffle and catch all the players with their pants down. Get it? Now you know what pit bosses are for. THAT is their job.

Now lets look at the whole thing from the players standpoint. Lets take BJ first. If the cards are not random, what are they? The word you are looking for is "precictable". What is going to happen if you deal predictable cards to a heads up player like me? Three guesses.

What is going to happen if you deal choppy cards to heads up Bac players like us? Three guesses. What is going to happen if you deal us streaky cards? So they fall right into our trap and deal us Neutral cards (OTB4L). Since we are the ONLY winners at the table- everyone is happy, especially us.

But now lets look at it from the mathematician's standpoint: Guys like Dave, (Virtuoid) say: Bull shit - because when you look at the results of thousands of shoes they always meet the random requirements. Well, of course they do. You have one table dealing chop, another dealing streak and yet another dealing neutral - what is the overall result? RANDOM.

But that is meaningless: we don't play 1000 shoes at a time. We play ONE table ONE shoe at a time. And we play according to the bias that we see. Now to you get it? We can't stop casinos from cheating. But what we CAN do is even better. We can use their own cheating against them.

You are giving BTC members way too much credit and the average gambler way too little. If the average gambler can't pick up on the dominant disparity than they shouldn't be gambling. And if the Casino are brave enough to change up the disparity hoping that these 'dunces' across the table don't pick up on it, I'd be surprise. I reckon that 90% percent of baccarat players are there to look for streaks whether if it's chops, straights, OTB4L (that specifically may be too advance for the uniformed) am I right? It's innate. That's the first thing newbie would look for (straights to be exact since that is the most obvious to look for) if they were to make a wager for the first time at the bac table, and, in time, I would also reckon they pick up on the disparity changes quite nimbly. It's just counter-intuitive in my humble opinion when you are basically playing Russian Roulette with the players across the table keeping your fingers crossed and wondering on whether anyone will pick up on it. A random shuffle should be the best policy in their case.

Unless they have some kind of recognition software and a state of the art shuffler to read and carefully place all 416 cards in their respective places (unless they have that ability already then I stand corrected) to recreate past choppy, streaky, or neutral shoes, simply finding creative ways to change up the shuffle with no cognitive intent just makes it a random act, nothing more - and a tad superstitious on their part.

Lastly, it is quite convenient to say that if all the orchestrated choppy, streaky, neutral shoes come together we would have random and does not prove for or against your theory. If only I could bring in 6 crafty dealers and designate one disparity for them to produce all day long with no end in sight then that would humble me.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Ellis

[kachatz1]

You are giving BTC members way too much credit and the average gambler way too little. If the average gambler can't pick up on the dominant disparity than they shouldn't be gambling. And if the Casino are brave enough to change up the disparity hoping that these 'dunces' across the table don't pick up on it, I'd be surprise. I reckon that 90% percent of baccarat players are there to look for streaks whether if it's chops, straights, OTB4L (that specifically may be too advance for the uniformed) am I right? It's innate. That's the first thing newbie would look for (straights to be exact since that is the most obvious to look for) if they were to make a wager for the first time at the bac table, and, in time, I would also reckon they pick up on the disparity changes quite nimbly. It's just counter-intuitive in my humble opinion when you are basically playing Russian Roulette with the players across the table keeping your fingers crossed and wondering on whether anyone will pick up on it. A random shuffle should be the best policy in their case.

Unless they have some kind of recognition software and a state of the art shuffler to read and carefully place all 416 cards in their respective places (unless they have that ability already then I stand corrected) to recreate past choppy, streaky, or neutral shoes, simply finding creative ways to change up the shuffle with no cognitive intent just makes it a random act, nothing more - and a tad superstitious on their part.

Lastly, it is quite convenient to say that if all the orchestrated choppy, streaky, neutral shoes come together we would have random and does not prove for or against your theory. If only I could bring in 6 crafty dealers and designate one disparity for them to produce all day long with no end in sight then that would humble me.

Hey, Danielsan:

Couldn't agree more with you that the average Bac player these days has 20/20 vision on/into what the tote board is telling them!

12121212

22222222

21212121

132132132

yada, yada,yada ( on and on, and on, etc, etc)

BUT:

What about B11113611522231141411121711123 ( etc.)? NOW,what to do?

do they have a bet progression to see them thru?

do they have the bankroll?

are their other/better tables available to play? Will they leave their comfort zone/friends to do so?

etc, etc...

AND THEN THIS PROBLEM:

Average tote board only displays last 20 decisions

Less than 50% of players record their results,so they rely on Tote Board

Less than half of those have discipline to maintain stop-loss/stop-win goals ( means they mostly lose, or frequently dig into their purse for another $1000 when times get tough) And times are almost always tough!

Less than 1/2 of those who have deep pockets or have "some" dicipline/can refrain from tie betting, or dragon/panda betting

and.............almost nobody knows what to do when shoe turns from chop...to streak...to neutral...back to chop...and, oh, is 11111444442251413121 chop? or is it streak? or neutral?

Remember...with toteboard, they can only see last 20 hands or so, maybe less...

You are absolutely right they can interpret what is right in front of them, copy winning players, etc!! ( but then what happens when game becomes random again? What to do?)

This BTC Forum is not focused on the 10% of the time even a NEWBIE can "follow the tote board"/ do what the other players are doing and stretch their $200 bankroll into $300, before they are down to $50, then $25, then $0

It is dedicated/focuses on those TOP 1% OF ALL WANT-2-BE-WINNING PLAYERS who would be seriously at RISK-OF-RUIN if they do not have a whole bag-full of weapons, a whole arsenal of intelligence, a whole "big -picture" way to evaluate when-to-get-in/when-to-get-out of a shoe....( and what to do next)

And, lest I forget, YES, most everyone soon learns how many 1IAR, 2IAR, 3IAR etc make up the long term...all the while trying to figure out JUST WHAT IS THE LONG TERM??

BUT, very few play to capture /identify the biggest current/at hand/ever-changing disparity ( NOR, NOR+, SAP does this) ...mostly ,everything tells them to bet for the "averages" long term...

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Good post by you!

We all need to be reminded of this every time we even think about playing!

( the tote board is not your friend)... IGNORE THIS FACT, AND ALL PLAYERS ARE GOING TO EXPERIENCE WHAT WE CALL A "HARD LANDING" SOONER, RATHER THAN LATER...

yes, we all get bruised every time we think otherwise...

OUCH!

[Guest]

Hi Danielsan! Well, at least it was a good conversation starter.

So let me get your position clear:

I should give more credit to the average player who loses to a record rate of 26% of the drop in a 50/50 game.

That NOR has no basis in reality and all the NOR players reporting here are just lucky.

That I hit a 26% PA in the AC test by pure luck - that NOR and the shuffle had nothing to do with it.

That a dealer can't deal you a choppy shoe all day long and when that happens it is pure coincidence. BTW, dealers have nothing to do with it. They use the shuffle they are told to use. And they change it when told to.

That 20iars disappeared from the face of the earth by pure happenstance.

That I won some 300 public Bac and BJ demononstations by pure luck and the shuffle had nothing to do with it.

That casinos are the only totally upstanding corporations in the world and would never consider cheating.

That all Bac players know to bet with the bias rather than against it.

Does that about sum up your position?

You never did your homework did you? You never went to a full BJ table on a Sat night and counted tens following tens out of the dealer shoe. If you did, you'd know and you wouldn't be arguing your position. Do that and then see if you still want to argue. Is that too much to ask?

Oh, and try this: walk down any row of Bac tables in any major casino and simply count losers vs winners. It is easy to tell. It should be 50/50 because those are the game odds before commission. Ha, not even close.

Then walk down any row of BJ tables on a Sat night and see if you can find a single winner. I bet you can't. How can that be if the casino edge is only 1/2%. Maybe, like you say, the shuffle has nothing to do with it and perhaps the players are all just plain stupid??? Is that what you think?

See, you are talking from the standpoint of already knowing to bet with biases rather than against. That is common sense now to anyone on this forum. But this forum is the ONLY place you will ever hear that. It is NOT common sense to the rest of the Baccarat world. What makes sense to them is to bet against biases because everything will eventually catch up. That is why they lose at such an unprecedented rate in a 50/50 game before commission. BJ players only enjoy a 43% hit rate and would love 50%. Yet they only lose at 15% of the drop. If BJ players play stupid, Bac players play nearly twice as stupid. It is all in the shuffle for BOTH games.

"A random shuffle should be the best policy in their case"

Perhaps but "should be" and real world are two entirely different things. Don't be so naive.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Guest

[ECD]

Hi Danielsan,

You suggest the average gambler would see the bias and not loose to it. As a very active and successful NOR player observing all other players at the table, I can say you are highly misinformed on this topic. Almost all bac players are playing AGAINST the overall shoe bias, or play a mechanical system. Those playing against the bias are getting clobbered in any shoe where I do well. Period. Those playing mechanical will win whenever the shoe bias matches their "system" (for example, a streaky part of the shoe when the player is betting same as last decision). These players have an uncanny ability to start increasing and pressing their bets just when the shoe bias changes. It doesn't matter how much the players are betting -- large betters (>$5,000 per hand) fall into these same loosing categories as smaller bettors. The only players I see winning consistently in major Vegas casinos are either NOR players or large bettors who make very selective bets using SAP or at least the concepts of SAP to identify strong shoe bias.

We will continue to be successful at this game as long as all the mathematicians continue to remind everyone that IN THE LONG RUN it is a 50/50 game. The Casinos do not abide by the 50/50 rule, and NOR players do not either. Anyone who does, looses, in the long run. If everyone played like us, the game would change.

Way2fast

[BigVic]

You are giving BTC members way too much credit and the average gambler way too little. If the average gambler can't pick up on the dominant disparity than they shouldn't be gambling. And if the Casino are brave enough to change up the disparity hoping that these 'dunces' across the table don't pick up on it, I'd be surprise. I reckon that 90% percent of baccarat players are there to look for streaks whether if it's chops, straights, OTB4L (that specifically may be too advance for the uniformed) am I right? It's innate. That's the first thing newbie would look for (straights to be exact since that is the most obvious to look for) if they were to make a wager for the first time at the bac table, and, in time, I would also reckon they pick up on the disparity changes quite nimbly. It's just counter-intuitive in my humble opinion when you are basically playing Russian Roulette with the players across the table keeping your fingers crossed and wondering on whether anyone will pick up on it. A random shuffle should be the best policy in their case.

Unless they have some kind of recognition software and a state of the art shuffler to read and carefully place all 416 cards in their respective places (unless they have that ability already then I stand corrected) to recreate past choppy, streaky, or neutral shoes, simply finding creative ways to change up the shuffle with no cognitive intent just makes it a random act, nothing more - and a tad superstitious on their part.

Lastly, it is quite convenient to say that if all the orchestrated choppy, streaky, neutral shoes come together we would have random and does not prove for or against your theory. If only I could bring in 6 crafty dealers and designate one disparity for them to produce all day long with no end in sight then that would humble me.

Danielsan,

Any rational person would agree with what you say but you might as well be barking up at the moon for the good it will do. This is Ellis's business. He makes his livelihood selling his gambling systems which are based in no short part on his theory of the casino orchestration, ie cheating that must go on because after all people lose don't they? He gives hope to losing gamblers by promising them that their losing wasn't their fault but the cheating casinos.

Not that I completely agree or disagree with Ellis on this point, but by arguing about it on his forum you are basically just wasting your time. I hope you can see that.

[Keith Smith]

By the way the terms casino management uses to manipluate a game is called

Game Control.

Also if you think theonly thing that affects the game of Baccarat is reduced to only one variable especially now with card shufflers you are missing the point. Which is what they count on.

Also excellent observation by Way2FAst "Almost all bac players are playing AGAINST the overall shoe bias, or play a mechanical system." they do it in Blackjack where they simply get all the players playing basic strategy and thinking it will win selling the correct way to play. And they sell Baccarat the same way getting you to believe that it will always repeat more.

The only tweak we need to figure out now is when do we win becasue of random luck and when do we win with absolute bias or variation as I prefer to call it.

Regards

K

[Guest]

So Vic, being such an expert, what did you find the last time you counted tens following tens out of the dealer shoe at a full BJ table? 10? 12? 15? And what are the random odds of that?

[aegis21]

Danielsan,

Any rational person would agree with what you say but you might as well be barking up at the moon for the good it will do. This is Ellis's business. He makes his livelihood selling his gambling systems which are based in no short part on his theory of the casino orchestration, ie cheating that must go on because after all people lose don't they? He gives hope to losing gamblers by promising them that their losing wasn't their fault but the cheating casinos.

Not that I completely agree or disagree with Ellis on this point, but by arguing about it on his forum you are basically just wasting your time. I hope you can see that.

Hi All,

I do not sell anything on this or any other forum, (hopefully you can see I am not biased) no pun intended. Casinos do not play a game, they do not gamble, they therefore do not cheat. The casinos provide entertainment and will charge what the market will bear for that entertainment. I am not saying this, the casinos say this point blank. They present an entertainment product that they control the admission price. They are run by major corporations which have great marketing and totally control the cost of that entertainment. They control the price you pay for this entertainment by presenting non-random games. They spend lots of money to present these games and as ANY corporate executive will tell you, what ever they spend, there is a an expected ROI return on investment! How do you have an expected ROI above the odds of the game, if the game is random? If you think differently, or question what I have written here, just read the legal transcripts from the Atlantic City court proceedings about banning card counters. The casino claimed they weren't paying for their entertainment, plain and simple. So, casinos do not cheat! They raise the price of entertainment.

ok off the soap box and onto winning.

John

[Guest]

Danielsan. Any rational person would agree with what you say ...

Only rational people with no casino or no corporate experience, Vic

We are trying to teach you about the REAL world Vic, not some imaginary non existent world.

We, have vast experience in the real world. All the facts and figures, profits margins and loss rates as well as court cases and bannings back us up. Nothing backs you up.

If you choose, nevertheless, to live in an imaginary Utopia I recommend any card counting forum. You'll feel right at home with all their make believe bullshit.

Casinos would never cheat

If that is what you believe, you have no chance whatsoever.

BTW, I got a call yesterday:

PJ just got back from a very successful Tunica trip - playing solely NOR+.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Guest

[Guest]

What Aegis is trying to say is:

Casinos don't "cheat"

They orchestrate.

Ha, try a little casino orchestration in a Saturday night Poker game. See where that gets you. Try telling those guys you are not cheating, you are merely orchestrating.

But, we LIKE casino orchestration. Both NBJ and NOR were designed by it and for it. Orchestration is how we win.

I have been beating both games this way for 30 years and have been banned by nearly every casino in AC and Vegas. Members right here on this forum know this and have played with me MANY times - both games.

I'm trying to teach you what I know and how I did that while I'm still here.

If you want to know, fine. If you don't, fine. But then, if not, what the hell are you doing here?

[Guest]

Look guys, here is the straight dope:

Casinos MUST orchestrate or go broke like Rebel just did. They have no choice.

Just a glance at game odds tells any thinking person that casinos MUST cheat. Whoops, I mean orchestrate.

Baccarat:

The game odds are 50/50 + commission.

Commission is 1.25% of the money bet

Casinos can't begin to live on that. So they orchestrate until they improve profits from 3% to about 26% depending on which day you look. These are not my numbers. They are the casino's. I just deal with what is. Baccarat is now the no 1 profit maker of all casino table games. And the casinos did this with a 50/50 game. You've got to hand it to them. They did what they HAD to do.

Blackjack:

Original Basic Strategy gives the player a 6% edge. Again not my numbers. They are Edward O Thorp's numbers

But Basic Strategy only produces that edge in random cards. Therefore the casinos had to "orchestrate" or stop dealing BJ. So they make the cards non random or "clumped". This is totally obvious to anyone who wants to take a look. I already told you exactly how to look.

All the other games are totally casino favorable and can't be beat. Some say they can beat Craps and or Roulette but I've never seen this proven. But BJ and Bac I have seen it proven and I have proven it myself.

If casinos didn't orchestrate BJ and Bac, they wouldn't exist. The casinos couldn't begin to afford it. It is as simple as that.

I don't create the conditions. I don't exaggerate the conditions. I don't have to. They are already worse than you could possibly imagine. I simply design systems to the conditions that exist.

I go by one fact. When cards are not random they are predictable at least to some degree. That is the only edge I need.

I can't tell you any straighter than that. This is not an opinion. These are the straight facts you are up against. If you want to learn how to beat them you've first got to live with the facts of casino life. That is just how it is.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Guest

[Guest]

In fact PJ just called me. He didn't just have a good trip to Tunica, he had a fantastic trip. Played NOR+ just the way I do starting with a repeat at play 2 then U1D2. He won all 8 shoes with very high scores averaging a shade under +20 per shoe playing green. His worst position in all 8 shoes was a mere -3. Now THAT is how you play the game! PJ said it was the best he ever did!

[daytrader77459]

In fact PJ just called me. He didn't just have a good trip to Tunica, he had a fantastic trip. Played NOR+ just the way I do starting with a repeat at play 2 then U1D2. He won all 8 shoes with very high scores averaging a shade under +20 per shoe playing green. His worst position in all 8 shoes was a mere -3. Now THAT is how you play the game! PJ said it was the best he ever did!

Hi Ellis,

Nice to hear again on PJ, perhaps PJ can post shoes he won at Tunica in the NOR+ thread. It would be very helpful for us! Esp ahead of the upcoming April seminar!

We need to have many shoes posted and reviewed using NOR+ so players can get a good feel for bankroll ups, downs, using U1D2. And really nail down Mode 1 vs Mode 3 switches off the 2nd bet results.

Great job, PJ! Pls share shoes, bets, when u hv time to post! Thx.

Regards,

Daytrader77459

[Guest]

Hi Ellis,

Nice to hear again on PJ, perhaps PJ can post shoes he won at Tunica in the NOR+ thread. It would be very helpful for us! Esp ahead of the upcoming April seminar!

We need to have many shoes posted and reviewed using NOR+ so players can get a good feel for bankroll ups, downs, using U1D2. And really nail down Mode 1 vs Mode 3 switches off the 2nd bet results.

Great job, PJ! Pls share shoes, bets, when u hv time to post! Thx.

Regards,

Daytrader77459

Good idea! I'll certainly ask him.

[danielsan]

Danielsan,

Any rational person would agree with what you say but you might as well be barking up at the moon for the good it will do. This is Ellis's business. He makes his livelihood selling his gambling systems which are based in no short part on his theory of the casino orchestration, ie cheating that must go on because after all people lose don't they? He gives hope to losing gamblers by promising them that their losing wasn't their fault but the cheating casinos.

Not that I completely agree or disagree with Ellis on this point, but by arguing about it on his forum you are basically just wasting your time. I hope you can see that.

Thank you.

The reason everyone lose is because the game is random and most aren't keen enough (just keen enough to break even) to find the short term trend as well as Ellis, NOT because every one has cracked the code forcing the casino's hand in having to resort to creating their own counter bias - which isn't possible anyways. Random in itself will kill the gambler; creating artificial bias is actually a risk or at the very least extraneous.

[danielsan]

Look guys, here is the straight dope:

Casinos MUST orchestrate or go broke like Rebel just did. They have no choice.

Just a glance at game odds tells any thinking person that casinos MUST cheat. Whoops, I mean orchestrate.

Baccarat:

The game odds are 50/50 + commission.

Commission is 1.25% of the money bet

Casinos can't begin to live on that. So they orchestrate until they improve profits from 3% to about 26% depending on which day you look. These are not my numbers. They are the casino's. I just deal with what is. Baccarat is now the no 1 profit maker of all casino table games. And the casinos did this with a 50/50 game. You've got to hand it to them. They did what they HAD to do.

From what I read casino hold for Bac can be from -10% to 50%, given the precarious nature of the Whale's winning/losing streaks, on any given month or even year from what I read making it one of the more - if not the most - erratic of the games. When the per wager betting limit are in the hundred thousand, 1.25% commission would still bank quite nicely.