ImSpirit vs Ellis

[Guest]

While Virtuoid at ImSpirit (Dave) seemed to me to be totally open minded about Baccarat and about me, I've since been told that no, he was initially out to prove that Baccarat can't be beat and that I was a fraud. I'm not sure who is right about that and prefer to believe he was honest and open minded. He certainly seemed a very nice and honest guy to me.

But it makes no difference how it started. What is important is how it ended and it ended just fine for me. Here is the beginning of Virtuoid's third huge thread on the subject which goes on for 20 pages or so complete with photographs - a very interesting read.

"ImSpirit

Ellis’ NOR Seminar in PA and Field Trip to AC

Virtuoid says:

As I had briefly relayed in my previous two posts (Shadowing Ellis and Ellis and I Take on Atlantic City), Ellis convincingly demonstrated to me with real money in live play that he can consistently win at baccarat. Thanks to him, I am a little wealthier today in terms of chips, experience, and perspective.

Ellis Teaching at NOR Seminar, Holiday Inn, Grantville, PA.

At Saturday’s NOR seminar, Ellis explained the mechanics of his NOR methodology to about a dozen of the BTC attendees, a great bunch of guys (and one gal, Lorie, who was in charge of videoing the seminar) of all levels of playing experience. Some had never played baccarat, while others had been playing for over 20 years. Many had their own strategies and perspectives on the game, and they played accordingly. All were very friendly and happy to compare notes."

And then the thread goes on for 20 pages of discussion.

But you know, I've picked up many staunch enemies over the years. Most are involved in the BJ card counting trade. But some, I'm sure, are folks who simply can't read or apply an instruction manual. And one of these posted at the current end of the thread. Here is his post and our replys thus far. WARNING! It ain't pretty.

Tom Says:

June 12, 2013 at 5:50 am

Ellis,

Ellis it is a bunch of horseshit! Baccarat can not be beat. You guys all end up divorced lonely in a game what is 50-50. You see what you want to see. All systems works for a while. Even an ape can win at baccarat. Con artist Ellis. You have no money left Ellis, IF you had you would look a bit better. You look like miserable gambler. LOL

Reply

E. Clifton Davis Says:

June 12, 2013 at 6:56 am

Hi Tom,

The vast majority of people think I look pretty darn good for my age of 73. Most guess me at 10 or 15 or 20 years younger. I’m still a scratch golfer and play a mean game of 8 ball. I usually beat the kids. And my army uniform still fits perfectly.

Your opinion of my looks is going to sound extremely tainted to the many people who know me. You ruin your own credibility especially when you resort to name calling because you have nothing constructive to say.

Yes, the game odds ARE 50/50. But, in actual fact, the worldwide average player finds a way to lose at a far greater rate than the game odds together with the 1.25% commission would dictate.

The fact that there is a way to lose at a greater rate than the odds dictate points to the fact for any thinking person that there must be an opposite way to play that wins more than the odds would dictate.

That is the method I teach. But you must know how the game is presented and all games are not presented the same way.

While far easier than learning winning BJ, It is still difficult for some. Some quit as soon as they see that study and work are involved. But most of my students stick with it and become winning players. They are happy to talk about it and post their casino shoes.

One just posted his last 60 Vegas shoes. He won at a rate of 80% and his avg winning shoe was greater than his avg losing shoe.

Simple good luck? Perhaps. Sure, luck could explain a winning shoe or 2 or even 3. But can luck explain an 80% win rate over weeks of play? – and some of my students are at 90%.

But I’m sure you will find a way to explain that as well. Maybe you could call them names. Maybe that would help your cause. NOT!

Reply

GriffMan Says:

June 13, 2013 at 10:27 am

Well Tom, I’m not a professional but I’m quite certain that looks have nothing to do with Baccarat skills. I wonder why you even bring that up?

But at 73, Ellis is slim and trim and hotly admired by many women as some of the photographs here imply. Perhaps he looks a little rough because he is nearly twice the age of others photographed with him – and more than twice the age of some. But what difference does that make?

I don’t know but maybe the 6 shoes posted here that he won at a 26% PA was just a stroke of incredible luck. I don’t even know if that kind of luck is possible. I’ve never seen or even heard of such a thing myself.

But just how far does luck extend? Two of his students just posted a total of 76 shoes played consecutively in Vegas and CA in several casinos. They both played to an 80% shoe win rate yet their avg losing shoe was less than their avg winning shoe. Does luck explain that too? I don’t think so because it just keeps happening. This thread was not about the first or only time Eliis has done such a thing. Many of his students, including me, have watched him do it.

I called Ellis and asked if I could watch him play just as Virtuoid did. I was immediately invited to Sam’s Town Tunica where I met with Ellis, his son in law Thurstle, and Ann who has been with Ellis since 1994. I remember everything that happened including a black Lexus SC400. Ellis and Thurstle played exactly alike while Ann explained what they were doing. An hour or so and maybe 3 shoes later, they play very fast, they both suddenly quit, up a total of exactly 140 units. Then Ellis treated us all to dinner and drinks at their finest restaurant.

Once Ellis is in the game he is all business. He is in his element. The win came as no surprise to anyone including the dealer and pit boss, who all know him along with many of the players. This is just an everyday occurrence for Ellis. He does what we all wish we could do. He plays Bac and BJ professionally.

And you know what, no one mentioned a thing about the win. There was no bragging, no sales pitch, no strings. It was purely an invitation to watch him play. Nothing more, nothing less – just as he did with Virtuoid and countless others.

But learning does require some intelligence and some work. Which reminds me – check your grammar.â€

[zebra]

I don't know why you are so concerned about Dave and what he has to say.

What kind of a following does he have? How many bac players actually read

his stuff. I certainly never would have until he started following you around.

Why waste time and energy answering his drivel. Just let him go back to his

hole and blog to his small group of toadies. He isn't worth the effort.

Paul

[Guest]

I don't know why you are so concerned about Dave and what he has to say.

What kind of a following does he have? How many bac players actually read

his stuff. I certainly never would have until he started following you around.

Why waste time and energy answering his drivel. Just let him go back to his

hole and blog to his small group of toadies. He isn't worth the effort.

Paul

Exactly right! I think he found out when I don't post there, nobody does. I think that is why he decided to allow my posts again.

He is right about one thing. Baccarat cannot be solved by math. And he lives in a world of math. But I have known that from the beginning. Baccarat can only be solved by biases. It is not about math. It is about casino presentation.

What irks me about it is that even when you show him conclusively and hit your targets numbers convincingly, he allows himself to be persuaded by these 80 IQ, know nothing failures, rather than believe his own eyes.

But you are right. He is a complete waste of time.

[donald]

Dave just goes on repeating that negative expectation games like Baccarat cannot be beaten as per mathematics. We know that. We also believe that some have found a way to beat Baccarat. I wonder why he does not spend $600 and find out for himself whether NOR works or not.

[Keith Smith]

I don't know what more I could have done for Dave, took him to AC played side by side with us in Grantville and Atlantic City, made him money and bought him dinner at a fine restaurant. It isn't pure math it is statistics and assignable cause variation that allows you to find non randomness it's not a hard concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_cause_and_special_cause_(statistics)

Keith

[Guest]

"If casinos actually took the time necessary to actually shuffle the cards to an actual random condition, we'd never get a chance to actually play the game, actually." - E. Clifton Davis

That's the part Dave doesn't get because it has nothing to do with math.

The game IS 50/50 Except for 1.25% commission AND EXCEPT FOR BIASES, BE THEY STREAK, RANDOM, CHOP or Strong Side. Biases created by the shuffle be it by hand or by machine. Casinos can't thrive on 1.25% commission.

And I don't care what Dave's frequency of occurrence book says. I wrote the Frequency of Occurrence Book for Baccarat.

You guys who play a lot of Baccarat and have seen, first hand, how the average player does - What percentage of them will hit a 26%+ Player Advantage in the shoe they are playing RIGHT NOW by pure luck ? - which Dave says the game is.

I already know what you'll say. You'll say ZERO. Am I right?

But let's give Dave the benefit of 1 out of 20 even though we know that is pure BS.

So now, what are the odds he will hit +26% PA in two shoes in a row?

Simple Calulus says 1 out of 400.

And 3 shoes in a row: 1 out of 20 X 20 X 20 = 1 out of 8000

Need I go further?

You show me a player who hits 26% PA 6 shoes in a row and I'll show you a Professional Player!

And if you don't reach the same conclusion, your math sucks!

Dave, when you say 26%+PA 6 shoes in a row is a common occurrence, every real Baccarat player in the world KNOWS you are DEAD WRONG. And insisting on it ruins your math credibility on everthing. End of story.

What you need now is a retraction and an edit.

And if you say that MY odds of hitting 26% PA 6 shoes in a row are better than anyone else's you are admitting that Baccarat is a game of skill. - which is axactly what it IS.

[Guest]

Well at least we just got another sale due, at least in part, to my efforts at ImSpirit. - and Dave's too of course.

And I have to take back everything I said about Dave not letting me post because he withdrew my band w/o a word or warning. I guess he figured out that if I don't post over there - virtually nobody does. At least I create interest - which is the whole purpose of blogs.

He banned me for posting my BTC address. I guess he forgot that he had already posted it, himself.

"Mathematicians - you can't live with them and you can't live W/O them" - E. Clifton Davis