Worst baccarat systems

[Woody444]

I was wondering what the worst/ and best baccarat system is that you have ever played? 

My best system was something invented by a guy named Rex that played regularly at the Goldcoast casino during the 80's and 90's. The bet was 1, 3, 7, 15 and always started on player. If you won any of the 4 bets, you started over at 1. If you lost all 4 bets, you jumped over to bank and bet the 15 unit bet. If you won that bet, you increased the next bet by 5 units. If you won the next bet at 20 units, you have gotten all of your money back and you start over on player at the original 1 unit bet! If you lost that bet, you would not increase your bet, and stay flat at 15 units, only increasing by 5 units after every win until you got all of your money back and 1 unit profit for each hand played during that series! If you lost 4 in a row on bank, you jumped back to player using the same format of betting flat until a win and then increasing 5 units after each win until you got all of your money back! 

[ECD]

18 minutes ago, Woody444 said:

The bet was 1, 3, 7, 15 and always started on player. If you won any of the 4 bets, you started over at 1. If you lost all 4 bets, you jumped over to bank and bet the 15 unit bet. If you won that bet, you increased the next bet by 5 units.

[ECD]

3 hours ago, Woody444 said:

I was wondering what the worst/ and best baccarat system is that you have ever played? 

My best system was something invented by a guy named Rex that played regularly at the Goldcoast casino during the 80's and 90's. The bet was 1, 3, 7, 15 and always started on player. If you won any of the 4 bets, you started over at 1. If you lost all 4 bets, you jumped over to bank and bet the 15 unit bet. If you won that bet, you increased the next bet by 5 units. If you won the next bet at 20 units, you have gotten all of your money back and you start over on player at the original 1 unit bet! If you lost that bet, you would not increase your bet, and stay flat at 15 units, only increasing by 5 units after every win until you got all of your money back and 1 unit profit for each hand played during that series! If you lost 4 in a row on bank, you jumped back to player using the same format of betting flat until a win and then increasing 5 units after each win until you got all of your money back! 

This is a "Gee Up"...RIGHT?

[ECD]

Worst Baccarat Systems???...Two that come to mind...ANB and MvD...Guess what the common denominator is...LOL 

[ECD]

3 Hi was pretty bad too.

[Woody444]

I don't know what a gee up is, but it had a stop loss of 500 units and a win stop of 100 units! Never lost with it, until the shuffle master showed up!

[edwin408]

Is this negative progression a shot to the head also?

Betting a flat bet NP on rd1.

Playing 1 shoe rd1 with a stop loss of 10 at 1 unit the whole shoe

If lost play the next shoe at 6units rd1 with a stop loss of 10

Then the next at 36units rd1 with a 10 unit loss. If you win a 2 units of 36. Either continue the shoe betting at 6 units or finish the shoe at 6 units of 36.

 

What are the chances of getting 3 bad rd1 shoes in a row?

[ECD]

3 hours ago, Woody444 said:

I don't know what a gee up is, but it had a stop loss of 500 units and a win stop of 100 units! Never lost with it, until the shuffle master showed up!

With any form of Negative Progression, there is always an "until"...Sooner or later you will lose badly...it is inevitable...and just as inevitable are the excuses that come out for losing...ask Ellis...Those pesky casinos were always changing the cards on him...LOL 

Norm was without a doubt the most respected player ever on BTC and he once called me "INSANE" for daring to make a 7 unit bet. I'll leave it to your imagination as to what he would have said about making a 15 unit bet when already down -26 units.. As I read it...The first B4 in the shoe is gonna kill you...and you don't want to contemplate what I think about a -500 unit STOP/LOSS. You have to win 5 shoes to every one losing shoe just to break even. I operate a -2 STOP/LOSS and can lose 5 or 6 shoes for every winning shoe and still be in front.

I seriously hope that you never revisit this system because it won't end well. 

It wasn't the shuffle master that caused you to lose...it was the inevitability of NP's eventually losing...night following day...

BTW: A "Gee up" is Aussie for "are you winding me up?"...or "are you just taking the piss?"

Edited December 15, 2017 by ECD

[ECD]

2 hours ago, edwin408 said:

Is this negative progression a shot to the head also?

Betting a flat bet NP on rd1.

Playing 1 shoe rd1 with a stop loss of 10 at 1 unit the whole shoe

If lost play the next shoe at 6units rd1 with a stop loss of 10

Then the next at 36units rd1 with a 10 unit loss. If you win a 2 units of 36. Either continue the shoe betting at 6 units or finish the shoe at 6 units of 36.

 

What are the chances of getting 3 bad rd1 shoes in a row?

Edwin...I gotta tell you this...all my friends are commenting on the newly acquired flat spot on my forehead...You do know what has caused this flat spot...don't you Edwin?

It's from me bashing my head on the table every time you think that you have found a new Negative Progression that works. 

The majority of NP's actually win at the start due to the mathematics of the game...but the same mathematics (variance) means that"EVERY NP WILL EVENTUALLY LOSE!"

I don't know what more I can say to you Edwin...There is not a single consistent long term winner on BTC that uses NP's. STOP looking for shortcuts...There aren't any. Every system/idea that you come up with has already been tried multiple times and has already failed multiple times. 

You need to ditch these ideas...STOP looking for the Holy Grail and just put in the time and effort required to beat this game. It can be done...but not your way.

[ECD]

Edwin, you haven’t listened to me.  For your own sake, please listen to what Oz is telling you.

[BronxAl]

I agree with way2fast.  Betting that way is insane!

[avion]

What can you compare a negative progression to?  In some lakes, rivers, warm bodies of water, there is a parasite that enters into a human through their nose.  The parasite then literally begins to eat the human brain.  This is a reality and not some made up science fiction horror movie.  

Yes, a negative progression because of its parasitic nature will eat your brain to deceive you into believing that it actually works...when it is actually eating more and more of your brain to ruin.  It is also like a Trojan Horse, being put inside your mind to ultimately defeat you is a guaranteed certainty.  

So what does a negative progression, a brain eating parasite, and a Trojan horse all have in common......???

Each one of them has two things to accomplish.......to find a nice home.......and to destroy you.  

 

 

[Woody444]

FYI- Rex had a degree in mathematics and showed me many books of computer printouts, the big book kind with holes at each end of the paper, the early printing type! I think it was dot matrix printers that he had access to when he worked at these large corporations! When I said I never lost, I never lost a weekend or a weeklong session playing this very aggressive system! I suggest that you realize that first and foremost, you don't know everything! You haven't been where I have been, and if I told you that there was a company that for the last 30 years has averaged 70% returns on their money, you would come out and say that is hokus pokus and sooner or later this firm will lose big time, too! 

Ya see, mate, there are people who know way more about math than you or I and one of them was Rex! 

As for the company, Renaissance Technologies hires Phd.'s in Math and Science, as well as computer experts to run different systems, derivative trading, historical forecasting and other systems to beat the market! Last year, Mr. Simmons made 1.8 billion and he's been retired for 10 years! But his firm still crushes the market year after year, some years better than others! But averaging 70% return over a 30 year period is mind blowing! And no, you can't invest in their firm, it's by invitation only! 

[edwin408]

You guys are right. but Just think back to your guys first year playing baccarat and all the ideas you came up with. It is true that NP will fail. And even if they did work the 5% commision would wipe out the earnings.

You guys always say don't search for the holy grail, find your style of play and develop it or if you have a winning way stick with it. The only thing is I don't know My style of play because I like to read approaches like tbl, otbl or rd1 and then play shoes accordingly until I have a couple losing shoes

[ECD]

3 hours ago, Woody444 said:

FYI- Rex had a degree in mathematics and showed me many books of computer printouts, the big book kind with holes at each end of the paper, the early printing type! I think it was dot matrix printers that he had access to when he worked at these large corporations! When I said I never lost, I never lost a weekend or a weeklong session playing this very aggressive system! I suggest that you realize that first and foremost, you don't know everything! You haven't been where I have been, and if I told you that there was a company that for the last 30 years has averaged 70% returns on their money, you would come out and say that is hokus pokus and sooner or later this firm will lose big time, too! 

Ya see, mate, there are people who know way more about math than you or I and one of them was Rex! 

As for the company, Renaissance Technologies hires Phd.'s in Math and Science, as well as computer experts to run different systems, derivative trading, historical forecasting and other systems to beat the market! Last year, Mr. Simmons made 1.8 billion and he's been retired for 10 years! But his firm still crushes the market year after year, some years better than others! But averaging 70% return over a 30 year period is mind blowing! And no, you can't invest in their firm, it's by invitation only! 

Woody, the bottom line is this. Mathematicians have never been able to figure out how to beat this game because they approach it from a mathematical point of view using probability of the statistical outcome of cards. Now read my lips "The cards are fixed". The automatic shuffler (Shufflemaster) DOES NOT SHUFFLE. Instead It PREARRANGES the cards in an anti trending order designed to make you lose by a much higher margin than the natural statistical outcome of the cards. This by the way, is a secret that even the dealers dealing don't know. There are algorithms that control the order of the cards and each shoe is programmed different. THAT is why PhDs cannot figure it out. We on the other hand study the most common sequences of the shoe in front of us and find the many biases in the shoe and take advantage of the them. 

Here's some trivia. In blackjack, there was a time years ago where you could win with a single or double hand dealt deck of cards if you learned perfect basic strategy. This was proven by mathematician and Phd Edward Thorp. Now with the introduction of continuous shuffle machines (CSM) it's not possible anymore. Today's preshuffled machines are the equivalent of blackjacks CSMs, BUT we have found ways to take advantage of the biases in baccarat BECAUSE, unlike the CSMs, in baccarat once the cards are in the dispenser, they cannot change. So once we the players figure out the biases in the shoe, we can take advantage of them. The casino at this point does not have the luxury of changing the outcome of the cards.

Moreover, there are certain sequences and events that almost always happen in most baccarat games. These are MC and LC events etc. When you've put in the hard yards to figure out what they are like some of our successful players on this forum have done, then and only then can you beat this game. 

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by ECD

[JimmyBaccarat]

With RESPECT to everyone.....

(and yes, this is going to be a long post from me... )

Obviously, we are all entitled to how and what we think. It is up to each and everyone of use to make the decision to "change our thinking". That is how we progress and make our lives better than what it is. (Sort of like the analogy of the daughter asking the mother why she cut the ends of the ham off before baking it and the mother said that is how her mother did it so she always did it and was teaching her daughter to cut off the ends. The daughter then asked her grandmother why she cut off the ends and the grandmother said that is what she had learned to do from her mother and had taught her daughter to do. So the girl went to her great-grandmother and asked her why she cut the ends of the ham off before baking it and the great-grandmother replied "I cut off the ends of the ham so that ham would fit in the pot my dear.")

I, by the way, am no exception to this and am mostly trying to improve my life. One of my motto's that I try to live by is "Either keep it the same or make it better." (As an example, it irritates me when I go to a water cooler and find that the water bottle is empty because the person before me did "keep it the same" by making sure they changed the water bottle when they emptied it. Therefore, for I could keep it the same and walk away or make it better and change the bottle.)

The stock market was around since the beginning of the country. (As an aside - people would go to where the "wall" was in order to trade their goods and services. That is wall's location is Wall St. in New York and was named after it.)

People tried to "figure out" the movement of the markets and speculate to make a profit. For two centuries, only a few developed the skills to "read the price action" (sounds familiar?) to be profitable at speculating in the markets. A gazillion systems were created touting to be the latest and greatest, infallible, 99.9% winners! The uneducated would "just believe" and follow the systems and get slaughtered because they had not put in the effort of testing the systems to see if they actually worked. They think they are entitled to "knowing" how to win just by being told and will pay large sums of money for this "information". They get slaughtered. This continues to happen even today.

So, a relatively small percentage of people had learned how to beat the markets. 

Then the mathematicians with their Ph.D.s  and with their computer programming skills came along. The use of the computer allowed the ability to be able to "test"  far beyond the actual experience due to the speed provided. They created programs that take advantage of the "biases" in the price action and scalp tiny amounts over and over at such a rapid pace that it all adds up very quickly. Soon, this became must have for all of the commercials and they are able to now manipulate the markets taking advantage of the small percentage that they scalp as they do so.

So what does this have to do with Baccarat?

Math is said to be the "language of the universe" as far as we human beings know it. Everything we assume is governed by some mathematical law. Baccarat is no different.

Mathematicians have looked at Baccarat - yes. But, I would argue that they have not studied it to the extent possible that they have done with the stock market. I don't believe that those mathematicians who have studied, have the resources available and if they do, they may have found that it is simply not worth the effort. Mathematicians looking at the stock market, for the most part, don't make their money investing in the markets because they are risk adverse. Otherwise, they would be making a killing. Instead, they are paid millions to figure it out so that the banks could make their billions and now trillions of dollars. The millions they pay mathematician each year is a drop in the bucket to the banks. And from a mathematician's point of view, they might be able to make the same amount, but, why take the risk when they can make the same  with no risk.

So, in this day and age when we send people to the moon, it seems far fetched that we as humans cannot "figure out" how to win at Baccarat. It is obvious that some people do, just like there were those who could read the price action in the markets. I beg to differ as to whether mathematicians have really/truly studied the game of Baccarat. But, that is only my point of view and my opinion. (I know, I know... Opinions are like..A.....!)

While I am no mathematician ( I am an accountant by profession), I do understand some math having had Calculus as part of my education, but, that does not make me some kind of expert.

Think about this.... as I have presented this line of thinking in a post before....

The expected value of an outcome is the percentage that the outcome would win times the amount won less the percentage that the outcome would lose time the amount lost. Simple right? LOL

EV - (%W x $W) - (%L x $L)

where...

EV = Expected Value

%W = Percentage of the number of times won

$W = Amount in dollars won

%L = Percentage of the number of times lost

$L = Amount of the dollars lost

The two main variables are the percentage of winning/losing and the dollar amount won/lost. This will give you the expected value of the event.

To begin with, lets make it easy....

We assume that Baccarat is a 50/50% game over an unlimited number of events based upon the rules of the game. So, we win 50% of the time and lose 50% of the time. Let us assume that we are going to flat-bet 1 unit on each of these events. However, those in the back of the room may be thinking, that the bet on banker only pays out 95% due to the 5% commission. So, to make things easy and look at it from the perspective of being the most conservative, lets assume that we always bet on banker and only win $0.95 for every dollar wagered. The would be 0.95 of the one unit wagered.

So our variables are:

50% Win

50% Loss

0.95 Unit Win

1 Unit Lost

Plug these into the EV formula and calculate it:

EV = (50%W x 0.95) - (50%L x 1)

EV = 0.475 - 0.500

EV = -0.275

A losing proposition flat betting 1 unit. This means that for every outcome, it is "expected" to lose 0.275 of a unit. Sure, the person may win this hand and the next and the next. But, over time, the "negative" number means this is how much the person can expect to lose. Very much like the slot machine that takes 17% of every dollar put into it. Sometimes the person will win, but, over time, they can expect to lose 17 cents for every dollar put into the machine.

But... That is not the whole story.

Due to the nature of the shuffling of the cards, where hand shuffled or pre-shuffled in a box, the shoe is fixed (as CT70 said). It is predetermined. Since the shoe is not an unlimited number of hands to be able to bear out the 50/50% of outcomes dictated by the rules of the game, there are only 70-80 hands dealt which creates a bias.

The same line of thinking is show in a coin toss. There are only two outcomes - heads and tails - which means heads should come up half the time or 50% and tails should come up half the time or 50%. But, we all know that it doesn't happen that way. Over the flipping of the coin 10 times or 20 or even 70 or 80 times, heads and tails will have only a minute probability of coming up exactly half of the time. The other percentages reflects a "bias" during the coin toss.

The same thing happens in Baccarat due to the shuffling arrangement of the cards fixed in the shoe. There is a "bias" (and often times more than one bias) in the shoe. Just look at any tote board that shows the number of hands (or the percentage) that have been played for banker and player. If it is not 50/50, then there is a bias.

Again, this is just my humble opinion...

The winning players here on BTC have done what the few of the people who had learned how to read the price action in the markets. They have seen the myriad of systems. Instead of just blindly just following them thinking they were going to make a killing, they have learned how to "read" the shoe each in their own way. They put in the time. They did the work. They have the ability to "see" (for lack of a better word) the biases in a shoe and are able to take advantage of it.

While they may be flat betting, they are also able to make the correct selection a higher percentage of the time. This is where it is not just about one variable, but, two. Let's take an approximate guess.

Let's say instead of 50/50, the "pros" are able to read the bias in the shoe, make the flat bet of 1 unit and are able to win 53% of the time (only 3% more than guessing or jsut always betting on one side) which means they will lose 47% of the time. Plugging the numbers into the formula:

EV = (53%W x 0.95) - (47%L - 1)

EV = 0.5035 - 0.47

EV = 0.0335

Since the number is positive, that means they will expect to win 0.0335 units for every event over time. Of course, this is pretty close to the minimum percentage of wins needed to be profitable. 

To give some perspective on this, I went to the "Advance SAP Exploits" thread that is on the Public Forum and looked at some of the scorecards posted by Pappa Joe. I did this because it was easily accessible for me and because he had a tendency to write the number of wins/losses on the cards. Just as a quick sample, he would win between 57% and 63% regularly as shown on the scorecards. Even though he was using a progression, let's look at it from a flat bet perspective using the low end of 57% (I'll leave it up to the reader to do the work for the 63%):

EV = (57%W x 0.95) - (43%L - 1)

EV = 0.5244 - 0.43

EV = 0.0944

Again a positive number means the expected value return for each event would be 0.0944. A positive number means you are making money. Do what you are doing. Rinse and repeat and you will be profitable.

That is math.

Now let's look at negative progressions.

To keep it simple, let's look at the Martingale which is doubling your wager after every loss and keeping your wager the same after every win.

Now, we know using the Martingale would be a winning system, if... IF, there was no limit to the amount that could be wagered AND you have the funds to be able to do it (think Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerburg). However, to stop this form happening, the casinos have put a limit as to how much could be bet thus forcing the bettor into a losing situation as they would not be able to double up in order to win the one unit bet.

So, for this "experiment" let's say we make the progression 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 - 16. That means if using the progression, doubling with each loss and losing five times in a row, the bettor would have lost 32 units. (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 = 32 units)

Of course the Martingale is looking to win 1 unit.

So let's look at the 50/50 proposition running the numbers through the EV formula.

EV - (50%W x 1) - (50%L x 32)

EV = 0.50 - 16

EV = -15.50

Disastrous!!! Just like a slot machine! The bettor is losing and expected 15.50 units.

So, now the question becomes "Is there a point where the negative progression would become profitable?" After a bit of trial and error (which you did not need to see) I came up with a 97% win rate. This means losing 3% of the time. Let's plug the figures into the formula:

EV = (97%W x 1) - (3%L x 32)

EV = 0.97 - 0.96

EV = 0.01

This is a positive figure. That means that if the bettor can win 97% if the time and limits the negative progression of doubling up to 5 losses in a row before starting over with a 1 unit bet, this is a profitable situation over time.

A negative progression can work.

However....

Is it practical?

Maybe. Maybe not.

Here is Pappa Joe's percentages (using the high end of 63%):

EV = (63%W x 1) - (37%L - 32)

EV = 0.63 - 11.84

EV = -11.21

Clearly..... a losing proposition.

While I don't know what some of the other pros have as a winning percentage, it is unlikely they have a 97% consistent win percentage over time and therefore, if they used a negative progression such as this, they would not be profitable.

What they have done is to learn how to Follow The Shoe or read the shoe, each in their own way, and have been able to exploit the biases in the shoes by being able to win a high enough percentage of time to make flat betting profitable for them. 

That is the bottom line.... Profitable!!!

Now, some mathematician might be able to come along and write a computer program that might be able to win 97% of the time to make a negative progression such as this profitable. But, computers are not allowed. And in the financial markets, computers have to be used to be able to scalp like they do. This is not going to happen when playing Baccarat nor as human beings can we be able to so it in our heads?

Oz likes to relay the story about his betting 7 units and Norm saying he was insane! And for good reason.

Last night I was practicing with my wife. Her "real" bankroll allows her to bet $5 units at the electronic stadium at the Sands Casino in Bethlehem, PA. In practicing, her first bet was $75! Of course we had a few heated words..$75 as an initial bet would have been fine from my perspective if.... IF, she had a large enough bankroll, had a high enough win percentage and psychologically could handle the money being wagered. So her 15 unit initial wager was not reasonable. Using a the 5 step negative progression, she would be wagering 15 - 30 - 60 - 120 - 240 units. At $25 a unit that is a $6000 bet. 98% of us would go into "brain paralysis" making that kind of wager after having just lost $5,625 of our bankroll.

Now...

On the other side.... Rex at Renaissance Technologies and the financial markets.... two different animals. Baccarat is a dog. Financial Markets is a cheetah. Hmmmm....

So, yes, math in the financial markets is valid due to technology. But, before technology, all there was was a tape machine spitting out the current price of the commodity. They had learned how to read the price action looking for biases to speculate on and they learned to flat bet - not doubling up after a loss.

This is similar to baccarat today where we have only the tote board for this particular shoe and we are looking to take advantage of the deviation form the norm or in other words, exploiting the biases.

What is not similar to baccarat today is having high speed computers by or side at the table to take advantage of the "math". 

So, my conclusion is that everyone is right and everyone is wrong to some degree (which by the way, does not make me right or wrong.... Like how I hedged myself there! LOL). Negative progressions do work depending upon the parameters. However, its usage is impractical sitting at the table unless the bettor can take advantage of the biases an extremely high percentage of the time or has been able to "crack" the math. I don't think has truly happened just because some mathematician has looked at it, written a book (for personal gain) and is perceived as the end all be all expert from a mathematical point of view. Hell, the math used for the financial markets did not come about until well after Thorp had become the math expert.

To give one last insight....

Woody says Rex is profitable 70% year after year in the financial markets. Possible, although only an extremely small percentage of money management funds come close to that.

So, in terms of Baccarat, what would it take to be 70% profitable as an expected value? (Again, saving your reading the trial and error) From a flat betting perspective, the win percentage would have to be around 87%:

EV = (87%W x .95) - (13%L x 1)

EV = 0.8265 - 0.13

EV = 0.6965

Doable, yes. Winning 87% of the time on a long term basis....? (I am not that good to be able to speculate/comment on this so I will have to leave it up to your own inclinations.)

Now, using a negative progression with the same 87% win percentage:

EV = (87%W x .95) - (13%L x 32)

EV = 0.8265 - 4.16

EV = -3.3335

Again, a negative number means a losing proposition in the long run. This goes to show that using a negative progression, doubling up 5 losing bets in a row before reverting back to a one unit bet and winning 87% of the time, a negative progression comes no where close to a 70% positive expectation. But, that is in terms of Baccarat and not the financial markets. These are two different animals that do the same thing...run.

My three hour opinion...  

P.S. DISCLAIMER: I could be talking out my .... in all of this and/or completely wrong in some respects, but, I am open to debate and a willingness to learn. As I said in the beginning, all of us have our own mindset. It is our ability to critically think about information and learn from it that makes us better that we were a moment ago - me included.

[ECD]

4 hours ago, JimmyBaccarat said:

 

Last night I was practicing with my wife. Her "real" bankroll allows her to bet $5 units at the electronic stadium at the Sands Casino in Bethlehem, PA. In practicing, her first bet was $75! Of course we had a few heated words.. 

Las Vegas Divorce $159 - Thousands of Happy Clients‎...ONLINE DIVORCE IN NEVADA w.mydivorcepapers.com/‎

 

 

+1 800-604-2860

 

 

 

I'm guessing that your wife is Asian or her nickname is Woody 444

Edited December 15, 2017 by ECD

[JimmyBaccarat]

LOL... 

Yes. My wife is Chinese and believe me, the thought crossed my mind!

Thanks for the contact info. I might end up needing it! LOL

Even though she says she is doesn't like to gamble, I keep telling her that "You can only fight the way you practice." - Miyamota Mushashi

[ECD]

5 hours ago, JimmyBaccarat said:

LOL... 

Yes. My wife is Chinese and believe me, the thought crossed my mind!

Thanks for the contact info. I might end up needing it! LOL

Even though she says she is doesn't like to gamble, I keep telling her that "You can only fight the way you practice." - Miyamota Mushashi

BTW: My Bankroll effectively doubles every 6 or 7 shoes with a STOP/LOSS risk factor of 2.5% per shoe...How does that work with your fancy computations?...LOL

Norm used a 10% Bankroll risk factor but he had balls of steel...5% is pretty safe but 2.5% has psychological benefits with larger units.(which coincidently isn't that much different to w2f's 1% of Bankroll rule)

[ECD]

19 hours ago, Woody444 said:

FYI- Rex had a degree in mathematics and showed me many books of computer printouts, the big book kind with holes at each end of the paper, the early printing type! I think it was dot matrix printers that he had access to when he worked at these large corporations! When I said I never lost, I never lost a weekend or a weeklong session playing this very aggressive system! I suggest that you realize that first and foremost, you don't know everything! You haven't been where I have been, and if I told you that there was a company that for the last 30 years has averaged 70% returns on their money, you would come out and say that is hokus pokus and sooner or later this firm will lose big time, too! 

Ya see, mate, there are people who know way more about math than you or I and one of them was Rex! 

As for the company, Renaissance Technologies hires Phd.'s in Math and Science, as well as computer experts to run different systems, derivative trading, historical forecasting and other systems to beat the market! Last year, Mr. Simmons made 1.8 billion and he's been retired for 10 years! But his firm still crushes the market year after year, some years better than others! But averaging 70% return over a 30 year period is mind blowing! And no, you can't invest in their firm, it's by invitation only! 

I could shoot you down in flames but to be frank...I can't be arsed...suffice to say that when it comes to Baccarat, you haven't a clue.

Which part of "Mathematics doesn't beat Baccarat" ...don't you understand?

Nothing you have said has anything to do with Baccarat and the Mechanical Negative Progression that you promote whether hand shuffled or shufflemaster is up there with the most braindead stupid most dangerous Progressions that I have ever seen. It simply cannot win long term as it didn't with you. (even though you blame shufflemaster and not natural variance) 

We don't do Negative Progressions on BTC

We don't do mechanical systems on BTC

BTC is about winning with minimal risk...Please don't promote that dumb sh*t...There may be people gullible enough to believe you.

Edited December 16, 2017 by ECD

[JimmyBaccarat]

51 minutes ago, ozscouser1 said:

BTW: My Bankroll effectively doubles every 6 or 7 shoes with a STOP/LOSS risk factor of 2.5% per shoe...How does that work with your fancy computations?...LOL

Norm used a 10% Bankroll risk factor but he had balls of steel...5% is pretty safe but 2.5% has psychological benefits with larger units.(which coincidently isn't that much different to w2f's 1% of Bankroll rule)

Oz....

Are you using math? Risk factor... % per shoe... I knew it. You just don't want anyone to think you are math guy!!! You are just too "shy" to show your fancy computations. LOL... Just messin' with ya!

In studying (not just reading) your past posts, all I can say is "there are wisdom in your words" and most of us should be paying heed to them. I know I do  It helps me separate the truth from the Bull###t!

And no... I don't do Negative Progressions and I am learning to not do mechanical systems even though they were promoted a long time ago here on BTC. Instead, I am trying to learn how to use them as a tool in my personal Baccarat evolution. I just hope I am getting closer to "Learning How to Read the Damn Shoe!"

Edited December 16, 2017 by JimmyBaccarat

[ECD]

20 minutes ago, JimmyBaccarat said:

Oz....

Are you using math? Risk factor... % per shoe... I knew it. You just don't want anyone to think you are math guy!!! You are just too "shy" to show your fancy computations. LOL... Just messin' with ya!

In studying (not just reading) your past posts, all I can say is "there are wisdom in your words" and most of us should be paying heed to them. I know I do  It helps me separate the truth from the Bull###t!

And no... I don't do Negative Progressions and I am learning to not do mechanical systems even though they were promoted a long time ago here on BTC. Instead, I am trying to learn how to use them as a tool in my personal Baccarat evolution. I just hope I am getting closer to "Learning How to Read the Damn Shoe!"

If you look at my past posts you will also see my evolution as I learned more and more about this game. I am sorely tempted to post the semi mechanical system from my early days that was a NP but with a maximum bet of 2 units which Ellis took and f***d right up...which I think became the precursor to his 2Hi system, but as successful as it was...It would still have it's bad days and I hate the thought that people may lose money because of me. w2f is a maths guy and I figure that if anyone could refine it...he could but for me...my average Player Advantage is currently in the high 30's to 40+% and I can't go back to semi-mechanical. You can't go past learning to read the DAMN shoe...which takes time to learn but the rewards are there.

[JimmyBaccarat]

42 minutes ago, ozscouser1 said:

I could shoot you down in flames but to be frank...I can't be arsed...suffice to say that when it comes to Baccarat, you haven't a clue.

Which part of "Mathematics doesn't beat Baccarat" ...don't you understand?

Nothing you have said has anything to do with Baccarat and the Mechanical Negative Progression that you promote whether hand shuffled or shufflemaster is up there with the most braindead stupid most dangerous Progressions that I have ever seen. It simply cannot win long term as it didn't with you. (even though you blame shufflemaster and not natural variance) 

We don't do Negative Progressions on BTC

We don't do mechanical systems on BTC

BTC is about winning with minimal risk...Please don't promote that dumb sh*t...There may be people gullible enough to believe you.

Oh, and just one more last thing...

Tony Robbins and other self help gurus have said it. To be a winner, model excellence.

Find someone who is doing what you want to do, find out what they are doing to get those results, and then just do what they are doing. It sounds simple enough, but, it is not so easy because you have not developed the "skills" that they have developed. Once you do, then, you will begin to achieve the results that they are getting.

Dear Woody...

Does Rex play Baccarat? Is he a winner at it? He plays the financial markets. If you want to be like Rex, why bother with Baccarat? Instead, focus on beatnigthe financial markets and emulating Rex. Just because Rex can beat the financial markets does not mean he can win at Baccarat. Until Rex can show you he is a proven winner at Baccarat, then he is not a good model of excellence.  

I don't know anything about the winning player's investing habits here at BTC. However, I would be leery of what they say until they can show me they are consistent winners in financial arena.

Conversely, Oz, Way2Fast, CT70, McVince, Pando, Wolfat, Avion, (as the more active members on the forum) and the list goes on with other winning members (who are not as active). These are the guys you should be "modelling" and paying attention to as they are where most of us want to be. That is why we are here on BTC. Comparing Rex and toting his math prowess is a bit out of place here if you ask me. Sure, he may be a "math wizard, genius, guru, etc..." but that does not mean he can win at Baccarat because of it. This is something you don't know for now and can't be sure of unless you absolutely know he is profitable at Baccarat. 

Baccarat is not the financial markets. Yes, math is math, but, that does not mean just because someone uses math in the financial markets it translates over into Baccarat.That is like saying that a winning Nascar driver can win at Formula One racing just because the Nascar driver uses math to help him win.

So, in closing Woody... model the best. If you want to win at Baccarat, I would think twice about wasting any time and energy thinking about Rex. Instead, spend that time and energy focusing on the excellence here at BTC.

[kino]

This was made with not a single negative progression but with a positive progression.# Drops Microphone 

 

[Hellboy]

On 15/12/2017 at 10:31 PM, CT70 said:

The automatic shuffler (Shufflemaster) DOES NOT SHUFFLE. Instead It PREARRANGES the cards in an anti trending order designed to make you lose by a much higher margin than the natural statistical outcome of the cards. This by the way, is a secret that even the dealers dealing don't know.

Thanks for this CT70, I have been trying to convince the people I play with that this is the case, ‘the cards are fixed’, only to be seen as superstitious or paranoid.  The cards have codes embroidered on them, the shoe reads the cards and displays the result on a tote board. The 2 points above enable any computer to arrange those cards in any order; an example may be preshuffled cards from ‘Angel’ or any other card prep organisation.  Special packs for special situations/occasions/players, the casino opportunities are endless. With Stadium Baccarat the shuffle machines will have pre designed ‘algorithms’ to keep the excitement going.  However there are only (one would hope) 416 cards in a fixed shoe for an hour or so, until the next shoe, and all this preshuffling can also work in our favour, as stated by CT70 above; as once a ‘bias’ is noted, a BTC professional can jump into ‘party mode’. 

All sounds a bit paranoid, but IMO the game has changed as is continually changing (being manipulated) structurally. The way to stay on top is with BTC and in particular, this forum.