Jump to content

youngdave43


Recommended Posts

Well, I see that Keith has deleted Dave's thread and for good reason.

We are responsible for what is in our forum and we don't want unwitting novices attempting Dave's system because they will lose.

How do I know this? Because I am a professional.

Look, Dave says he wins 1 unit every time he wins.

Only one progression can do that: 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 up as you lose. So we know his progression.

Dave says his highest bet is 65. Fine, that simply means he caps his 64 bet for good luck.

Dave says he averages 38 units per shoe.

No, he averages 36 units on his winning shoes only.

How do I know that? There are an average of 36 events (1s 2s 3s 4s etc) per shoe. He wins 1 unit on each event or 36 units per shoe.

How much does he lose when he loses his progression? Well add up his bets. 158 units.

But in that same shoe he will also win an avg of 36/2 = 18 units

So his avg losing shoe will be 158 - 18 or 140 units.

How often will this happen? Once every 3.53 shoes.

How do I know this for a fact?

Because no matter how he arranges his 7 bets he will lose to a specific pattern of 7 plays. ALL specific patters of 7 occur once every 254 plays or once every 3.53 72 play shoes not counting ties. But lets give Dave the benefit of doubt and call it once every 4 shoes.

So, out of every 4 shoes he wins 3 totalling 108 units and he loses one at 140 units. So he loses 32 units every 4 shoes on average

Or 8 units per shoe + commission or about 10 units total per shoe played.

THAT is why we deleted the thread. We don't want you trying this!

Look, the Martingale progression is 400 years old. Mathematicians have been trying to modify it to make it win for 400 years.

They can't because it is a mathematical impossibility.

I don't care how Dave modifies it, limiting his progression to 7 bets or capping his last bet, NOTHING can escape mathematical fact and what I am telling you is mathematical fact.

So is Dave lieing? No, probably not. You, in fact do win 75% of your shoes and 143 out of 144 progressions. I guess you could call that 99%. Maybe he escaped the losing pattern for 6 months. But he could just as easily hit it 3 shoes in a row!

Look, Baccarat cannot be beat by math - not mine, not anybody's.

Every Bac site on the internet is trying to teach you a mathematical impossibility. None will ever be successful.

That is not what I teach. Baccarat can ONLY be beat by playing the biases caused by grossly inadequate shuffling.

That is what I teach and I teach it because it works and has been working for 30 years. Any player on the private Bac forum here will tell you that. How many times do I have to go out and prove this??? I've done it hundreds of times. When will people learn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use