ALEX I AM CALLING YOU OUT
  • ok, you must have lied about your 23 hour trip and your 10,000 other hands b/c i played today 6 deck, DAS, S17, $5 table for 1 hour and reached a $96 once and had to bet the $80 bet several times. I played by the book for the table i was at.

    i actually wrote down your progression so you cant say i did it wrong.

    these are the #s i used that i took directly from one of your posts

    5,6,7.5, 9,11,13,15,18,22,27,33,38,46,55,66,80,96

    i did the EXACT bets b/c the dealer even commented several times when i had BJ's on the $33 and $66

    when i lost i went up and when i won i went down. i never reached $5 once i had been up to the $96 bet.

    Please explain why i EASILY reached a very high bet after only an hour yet you can play for 23 hours and only get up to $55
  • KY121 said:
    ok, you must have lied about your 23 hour trip and your 10,000 other hands b/c i played today 6 deck, DAS, S17, $5 table for 1 hour and reached a $96 once and had to bet the $80 bet several times. I played by the book for the table i was at.

    i actually wrote down your progression so you cant say i did it wrong.

    these are the #s i used that i took directly from one of your posts

    5,6,7.5, 9,11,13,15,18,22,27,33,38,46,55,66,80,96

    i did the EXACT bets b/c the dealer even commented several times when i had BJ's on the $33 and $66

    when i lost i went up and when i won i went down. i never reached $5 once i had been up to the $96 bet.

    Please explain why i EASILY reached a very high bet after only an hour yet you can play for 23 hours and only get up to $55


    First, I did not lied anything about playing 23 hours and reaching only 55 max bet and also I didn’t lie about 10,000 hands

    Now, I suspect, you didn’t follow the way the system is. I don’t know the exact sequence that lead you into what you telling me but I can show you where you screwed it up.

    When you bet 33 and got a BJ you have been at –159, after that you take 49.5 that was the payout for BJ and now you are at –109 and the next bet would have been 22 that probably you lost and now you must have been at -131. But, I don’t know how you got into 80 and 96 bets because to bet that number you must have been at –400 or -480.

    Please explain,

    Here is the way I suspect your hands have been leading you into 33 bet when you got the BJ on it

    Start at -25
    l 5 -5 -30
    l 6 -6 -36
    l 7.5 -7.5 -43.5
    l 9 -9 -53
    l 11 -11 -64
    l 13 -13 -77
    l 15 -15 -92
    l 18 -18 -110
    l 22 -22 -132
    l 27 -27 -159
    bj 33 50 -109 ( here you are only 84 in red)
    l 22 -21 -131 ( ONLY 106 in red)


    How come you got yourself into $96 bets?
    =========================

    Here are my stats for this week starting sunday evening and playing every evening since here in CA at a casino close to my house.

    hours 29
    hands 1885
    profit $1455
    $/hour $50.17
    action $37700
    my edge 4.36%
    min unit $5
    avrg bet $20
    max bet $55
    house edge 6% against me (Ws vs. Ls)
  • ok, i only reduced my bet by 1 on a BJ. but that only means that my bets would have been one less than what they were. so say 80 instead of 96
  • KY121 said:
    ok, i only reduced my bet by 1 on a BJ. but that only means that my bets would have been one less than what they were. so say 80 instead of 96


    KY121,
    Here is more help for you to understand what's all about.

    If I don't have in front of me your hands and your action I can’t comment. I can't say what you did was wrong or whatever .., I only know how my game is going and I can say that the most I bet was 55.

    For example, tonight I just come home from casino. I was playing for two hours only in a 6D, H17 full table. After the first half an hour I was just breaking even, So, I figure that I must be playing in a disadvantage of about 10% against me. I am certain of that because I was betting precisely 20% of the hole and that alone breaks a 10% edge. I played a couple more hands at 20% bet increase and nothing was happening. So, I start betting 33% of the hole and in couple hands I was in solid profit and never looked back again.

    You have to understand, that a 33% bet increase related to the hole will break a 16% house edge. Practically, there is no BJ game in the world that can survive against a 33% bet increase related to the up to date hole. Do you know that in a game where casino has 16% edge on W vs. L no card counting system can survive? No matter what rules or penetration the game has if the W/L ratio is around 16% then no system in the world will ever be able to survive unless you bet 33% of the hole. That is mathematically researched and proven many time over and over.


    Here is another example for 33% bet increase related to the hole.
    The house has 15.67% edge, I bet 33% of the hole and I’m making a small profit of 23.
    Please note that if you only insert an extra W anywhere in the sequence then the house edge drops to 13.16% against player but the profit for the player jumps to $61 per 71 hands. Just copy the first set and change a L into a W to create a different setup. Insert it anywhere you want. Makes no difference. Make a house edge 13% instead of 15% but continue betting 33% of the hole and you having money coming your way.

    Start at -100
    l 33.00 -33.00 -133.00
    l 43.00 -43.00 -176.00
    w 58.00 58.00 -118.00
    l 38.00 -38.00 -156.00
    w 51.00 51.00 -105.00
    l 34.00 -34.00 -139.00
    l 45.00 -45.00 -184.00
    l 60.00 -60.00 -244.00
    w 80.00 80.00 -164.00
    l 54.00 -54.00 -218.00
    l 71.00 -71.00 -289.00
    w 95.00 95.00 -194.00
    l 64.00 -64.00 -258.00
    w 85.00 85.00 -173.00
    l 57.00 -57.00 -230.00
    w 75.00 75.00 -155.00
    w 51.00 51.00 -104.00
    l 34.00 -34.00 -138.00
    w 45.00 45.00 -93.00
    l 30.00 -30.00 -123.00
    w 40.00 40.00 -83.00
    l 27.00 -27.00 -110.00
    l 36.00 -36.00 -146.00
    w 48.00 48.00 -98.00
    l 32.00 -32.00 -130.00
    l 42.00 -42.00 -172.00
    l 56.00 -56.00 -228.00
    w 75.00 75.00 -153.00
    l 50.00 -50.00 -203.00
    l 66.00 -66.00 -269.00
    w 88.00 88.00 -181.00
    w 59.00 59.00 -122.00
    l 40.00 -40.00 -162.00
    w 53.00 53.00 -109.00
    w 35.00 35.00 -74.00
    w 24.00 24.00 -50.00
    l 16.00 -16.00 -66.00
    w 21.00 21.00 -45.00
    l 14.00 -14.00 -59.00
    l 19.00 -19.00 -78.00
    l 25.00 -25.00 -103.00
    l 33.00 -33.00 -136.00
    w 44.00 44.00 -92.00
    l 30.00 -30.00 -122.00
    l 40.00 -40.00 -162.00
    w 53.00 53.00 -109.00
    l 35.00 -35.00 -144.00
    l 47.00 -47.00 -191.00
    l 63.00 -63.00 -254.00
    w 83.00 83.00 -171.00
    w 56.00 56.00 -115.00
    w 37.00 37.00 -78.00
    l 25.00 -25.00 -103.00
    l 33.00 -33.00 -136.00
    w 44.00 44.00 -92.00
    l 30.00 -30.00 -122.00
    w 40.00 40.00 -82.00
    l 27.00 -27.00 -109.00
    l 35.00 -35.00 -144.00
    w 47.00 47.00 -97.00
    l 32.00 -32.00 -129.00
    l 42.00 -42.00 -171.00
    w 56.00 56.00 -115.00
    l 37.00 -37.00 -152.00
    l 50.00 -50.00 -202.00
    l 66.00 -66.00 -268.00
    w 88.00 88.00 -180.00
    l 59.00 -59.00 -239.00
    w 78.00 78.00 -161.00
    w 53.00 53.00 -108.00
    l 35.00 -35.00 -143.00
    l 47.00 -47.00 -190.00
    w 62.00 62.00 -128.00
    w 42.00 42.00 -86.00
    l 28.00 -28.00 -114.00
    w 37.00 37.00 -77.00

    l 44 57.89%
    w 32 42.11%
    total 76 15.79% (house edge or l vs. w)
    action 3583.00
    average 47.14
    profit 23.00
    edge 0.64% (player's edge)

    ============
    I just inserted a W instead of L in line # 8 the rest is identical like first set on top. Or, you can put the W anywhere you want.

    Start -100
    l 33.00 -33.00 -133.00
    l 43.00 -43.00 -176.00
    w 58.00 58.00 -118.00
    l 38.00 -38.00 -156.00
    w 51.00 51.00 -105.00
    l 34.00 -34.00 -139.00
    l 45.00 -45.00 -184.00
    w 60.00 60.00 -124.00 (here I inserted a w)
    w 40.00 40.00 -84.00
    l 27.00 -27.00 -111.00
    l 36.00 -36.00 -147.00
    w 48.00 48.00 -99.00
    l 32.00 -32.00 -131.00
    w 43.00 43.00 -88.00
    l 29.00 -29.00 -117.00
    w 38.00 38.00 -79.00
    w 26.00 26.00 -53.00
    l 17.00 -17.00 -70.00
    w 23.00 23.00 -47.00
    l 15.00 -15.00 -62.00
    w 20.00 20.00 -42.00
    l 13.00 -13.00 -55.00
    l 18.00 -18.00 -73.00
    w 24.00 24.00 -49.00
    l 16.00 -16.00 -65.00
    l 21.00 -21.00 -86.00
    l 28.00 -28.00 -114.00
    w 37.00 37.00 -77.00
    l 25.00 -25.00 -102.00
    l 33.00 -33.00 -135.00
    w 44.00 44.00 -91.00
    w 30.00 30.00 -61.00
    l 20.00 -20.00 -81.00
    w 26.00 26.00 -55.00
    w 18.00 18.00 -37.00
    w 12.00 12.00 -25.00
    l 8.00 -8.00 -33.00
    w 10.00 10.00 -23.00
    l 7.00 -7.00 -30.00
    l 9.00 -9.00 -39.00
    l 12.00 -12.00 -51.00
    l 16.00 -16.00 -67.00
    w 22.00 22.00 -45.00
    l 14.00 -14.00 -59.00
    l 19.00 -19.00 -78.00
    w 25.00 25.00 -53.00
    l 17.00 -17.00 -70.00
    l 23.00 -23.00 -93.00
    l 30.00 -30.00 -123.00
    w 40.00 40.00 -83.00
    w 27.00 27.00 -56.00
    w 18.00 18.00 -38.00
    l 12.00 -12.00 -50.00
    l 16.00 -16.00 -66.00
    w 21.00 21.00 -45.00
    l 14.00 -14.00 -59.00
    w 19.00 19.00 -40.00
    l 13.00 -13.00 -53.00
    l 17.00 -17.00 -70.00
    w 23.00 23.00 -47.00
    l 15.00 -15.00 -62.00
    l 20.00 -20.00 -82.00
    w 27.00 27.00 -55.00
    l 18.00 -18.00 -73.00
    l 24.00 -24.00 -97.00
    l 32.00 -32.00 -129.00
    w 42.00 42.00 -87.00
    l 28.00 -28.00 -115.00
    w 37.00 37.00 -78.00
    w 25.00 25.00 -53.00
    l 17.00 -17.00 -70.00
    l 23.00 -23.00 -93.00
    w 30.00 30.00 -63.00
    w 20.00 20.00 -43.00
    l 14.00 -14.00 -57.00
    w 18.00 18.00 -39.00

    l 43 56.58%
    w 33 43.42%
    total 76 13.16% (house edge or l vs. w)
    action 1943.00
    average 25.57
    profit 61.00
    edge 3.14% (player's edge)
    ==================================

    You can see for yourself that is no winning streak for the player. This is a very bad game setup. Any card counter or any system will lose money. Play Walter's or Dahl's system over and see for yourself how you will lose big.



    Best Regards,
    Alex

    PS: Please note that my biggest bet goes up to 90 but I start at -100 and bet 33%. Why you reached $96 bet starting from $5 :?: ........, I have no idea :!:
  • You guys are scaring me :?: :shock: :?:
    No wonder the dealers get cranky :D
  • Alex,

    I just find it strange that i only played for an hour and i reached a bet size that you have never reached before. also, the problem i have with the system or any progression is that you have a chance of losing a LOT more $$ than the chance of winning $$.

    also, if you win the 1st 5 hands in the progression i showed above do you still move up to $6 after 1 loss or do u move up after 5 loses??
  • KY121 said:
    Alex,

    I just find it strange that i only played for an hour and i reached a bet size that you have never reached before. also, the problem i have with the system or any progression is that you have a chance of losing a LOT more $$ than the chance of winning $$.

    also, if you win the 1st 5 hands in the progression i showed above do you still move up to $6 after 1 loss or do u move up after 5 loses??


    Losing a LOT than winning :?: - I don't think so :!:
    You win more $$ in less number of hands than lose in more number of hands if you play the way I told you.

    I don't understand your second question. Your NEXT bet has got to be related to how deep are you in the hole. You bet a percentage of the hole you are in. If you are not in red/hole then you "create an artificial hole" and try to come out from it. During this process you making money.
  • Mike said:
    You guys are scaring me :?: :shock: :?:
    No wonder the dealers get cranky :D



    Well, in real live game I may hedge a little to make dealer’s life a little easy. I usually round up, like if 33% of the hole comes to be 37.5 then I bet 38. That is not at all complicated, The hole/3 rounded UP is the next bet if 33% is applied over the game.
  • i say that you can lose a lot more because when you win a $96 bet you are only digging yourself out of the hole that your losses have put you in. but when you lose a $96 bet that actually puts you $96 farther in the red.
  • AlexD30 said:
    Well, in real live game I may hedge a little to make dealer’s life a little easy. I usually round up, like if 33% of the hole comes to be 37.5 then I bet 38. That is not at all complicated, The hole/3 rounded UP is the next bet if 33% is applied over the game.

    Sittin' here LMAO - Alex, I realize you are inexperienced so here is a tip for you......Betting one green, two red, and three singles is not cutting a dealer any slack :wink:.......Grifter
  • Grifter said:
    [quote=AlexD30]Well, in real live game I may hedge a little to make dealer’s life a little easy. I usually round up, like if 33% of the hole comes to be 37.5 then I bet 38. That is not at all complicated, The hole/3 rounded UP is the next bet if 33% is applied over the game.

    Sittin' here LMAO - Alex, I realize you are inexperienced so here is a tip for you......Betting one green, two red, and three singles is not cutting a dealer any slack :wink:.......Grifter[/quote]

    Well, who wants to cut any slack to anybody?
    Instead of betting 37.5 I make that bet 38. Isn't that a small slack for the dealer? :wink:
  • Alex- I think rounding to the neasest $5 is a must. I'm trying to see
    if we can do that by making sure we give equal treatment on both sides,
    up or down. Some hole and percentages are closer to this objective than
    others, but I don't have a solid position on that so far. It would seem that
    a degee of commonality and proportionality would make this possible. A
    set sequence is understandable, but when you toss in the dynamics....
    not so simple or understandable.

    Ray
  • Alex, why have you never responded to grifters post about his sim of your system??
  • Example of rounding to the nearest $5:

    Hole is $80 @30%

    L 24-104.....L 25-105
    W31-73......W30-75
    L 22-95.......L 25-100
    L 29-124.....L 30-130
    W37-87......W40-90
    L 26-113.....L 25-113
    W34-79......W35-80
    L 24-103.....L 25-105
    W31-72......W30-75
    L 22-94.......L 20-95
    W28-66......W30-65

    Win 34.........Win 35

    Non rounded.....Rounded to the nearest $5

    This method may be effective as a move toward simplification...........

    Notice that in most cases the numbers are close and amount to a good
    average bet.


    Ray
  • KY121 said:
    Alex, why have you never responded to grifters post about his sim of your system??


    What sims Grifter have done on my system? - NONE!

    Look, KY121, I'm doing you a favor by showing you how to win but if you are looking to argue and be negative about then please do not reply to my posts anymore.
  • Alex,

    Remember i am the only person so far that has had the faith in your system to try it in real play. i just feel that you have misled us when you say that you dont reach high $ bets very often.

    Unlike most of the people here i have the time and money to play with different systems and strategies so i will try your system again tomorrow if you will outline exactly what i should do i will do it. i will play the 6 deck, s17, das, $5 table. and i will have a bankroll of $4000 for the session.
  • Ray said:
    Example of rounding to the nearest $5:

    Hole is $80 @30%

    L 24-104.....L 25-105
    W31-73......W30-75
    L 22-95.......L 25-100
    L 29-124.....L 30-130
    W37-87......W40-90
    L 26-113.....L 25-113
    W34-79......W35-80
    L 24-103.....L 25-105
    W31-72......W30-75
    L 22-94.......L 20-95
    W28-66......W30-65

    Win 34.........Win 35

    Non rounded.....Rounded to the nearest $5

    This method may be effective as a move toward simplification...........

    Notice that in most cases the numbers are close and amount to a good
    average bet.


    Ray


    Ray,
    Yes I agree with you 100%. In real games I do roundup to the nearest 5. But here on this board I want be as close as possible to 33% or whatever percentage I'm talking about to make sure people do not accuse me of manipulating $ in order to find ways to help my system. In my research I simulated to the 6th decimal point to make sure I've got the correct data from which to create the rational.

    :wink: Well, sometime when a dealer piss me off I may bet like 39.50 and hope to get a BJ or do a split and then a double after split on a bet like that.., :wink:

    PS: Hey, Ray,
    How come you won money on that sequence from your post above when you played in a 9% house edge against you :?: (L = 54.5% and W = 45.5%) .., You won at a rate of 4.76% :!:

    How did you, magically, turn a house edge of 9% into a 4.7% edge for you? :wink:

    Good job!
  • KY121 said:
    Alex,

    Remember i am the only person so far that has had the faith in your system to try it in real play. i just feel that you have misled us when you say that you dont reach high $ bets very often.

    Unlike most of the people here i have the time and money to play with different systems and strategies so i will try your system again tomorrow if you will outline exactly what i should do i will do it. i will play the 6 deck, s17, das, $5 table. and i will have a bankroll of $4000 for the session.


    Well, You will assume from the very beginning that the house will have a 16% edge against you.. You also assume an artificial hole right from the start to be -$100.

    Your first bet is $33 ($100/3 = $33 or $100* 33% = $33)
    If you win that bet you are at –$67 and your next bet will be $22. If you lose your $33 bet you will be at –$133 and your next bet will be $133*33% = $44. If you win the $44 bet you will be at -$89 (you already made $11 profit by just wining once and losing once.
    Keep going that way for as long as you like it. Or, reset the hole to -100 when you made $50 profit and start over again doing the same thing. Keep score of how much is your hole at all times and divide that hole by 3 to come to the next bet amount.

    If after say 50 or 100 hands the total outcomes (L vs. W) are less then 16% against you than you will be making money. If the outcomes are at 16% against you then you will break even. If the outcomes are say 18% against you than you will be losing at a rate much less than the house edge for that particular sequence. I would say that a house edge of 18% while you bet 33% of the hole will make you lose the most at 3% or less but not 18% for SURE. If you play even outcomes game then you will be making a big KILL. :twisted:

    Of course, here you can be more sofisticated by playing a self adjusted betting method but I don't want you to get confused.

    However, Anything less than 16% house edge is money in your pocket. Always :!:
  • At 8:30 this morning you said this: Well, in real live game I may hedge a little to make dealer’s life a little easy. I usually round up, like if 33% of the hole comes to be 37.5 then I bet 38.

    Then at 12:30 you said this: Yes I agree with you 100%. In real games I do roundup to the nearest 5.

    Alex - And you wonder why the many of us think you are lying about your real play???.....In four hours time you can't even remember how you supposedly play for real??......Come on, level with us. Have you played any hands in real play.

    Grifter

    p.s.....Why do keep insisting I run a sim of this debacle?? Repeating myself, I am not questioning your sims. I am questioning whether you are telling the truth about your supposed real play!
  • Now,now folks lets change directions here toward a more objective way
    of looking at things. From a more professional point of view, I would say
    that we are putting Alexs system thru a scientific method called Discovery.
    It's important to keep and open mind and contribute in a respectful way,
    for or against.

    Ray
  • 1. This system is an D'Alembert derivitive.....It has been through "discovery" for about two hundred years now.

    2. "More Objective" and "Professional"? - Excuse me, but that rather difficult to achieve when you can't believe what you are being told and read.
  • Grifter said:
    At 8:30 this morning you said this: Well, in real live game I may hedge a little to make dealer’s life a little easy. I usually round up, like if 33% of the hole comes to be 37.5 then I bet 38.

    Then at 12:30 you said this: Yes I agree with you 100%. In real games I do roundup to the nearest 5.

    Alex - And you wonder why the many of us think you are lying about your real play???.....In four hours time you can't even remember how you supposedly play for real??......Come on, level with us. Have you played any hands in real play.

    Grifter

    p.s.....Why do keep insisting I run a sim of this debacle?? Repeating myself, I am not questioning your sims. I am questioning whether you are telling the truth about your supposed real play!


    Yes, I wrote that:
    Well, in real live game I may hedge a little to make dealer’s life a little easy. I usually round up, like if 33% of the hole comes to be 37.5 then I bet 38.
    But after that I inserted a wink :wink: to joke about giving the dealer a break. Go back and check that post. Please do that, Grifter.

    Grifter, you cannot find anything faulty with my system but you trying to tear it in pieces just for nothing. You know that a 33% betting index of the hole will beat any BJ game out there. Show us here on this board that I'm wrong! Please post the proof!

    Probably you don’t want me to post this that gives people POWER because casino may read all those things. But I don't give a f***k about casinos. They cannot possibly do anything about BJ, Baccarat or Craps ( pass or don't). They cannot possibly take all those games out because my method beat any one of them. Always :!:

    Don't you worry Grifter, Is plenty action out there to make big money from!
  • THIS WHOLE LINE IS GETTING CRAZY!
    PROG
  • Grifter said:
    1. This system is an D'Alembert derivitive.....It has been through "discovery" for about two hundred years now.

    2. "More Objective" and "Professional"? - Excuse me, but that rather difficult to achieve when you can't believe what you are being told and read.


    Excuse me!
    D’Alembert has been studied all the way in a out and I can tell you that D’Alembert doesn’t increases enough and doesn’t drop the bet enough to offset the big house edges.
    At some point while using D’Alembert you get like in a quicksand and not able to come to even or in profit no matter what you do. That system probably is able to break a 0.5% or less casino edge, at the most. Anything more than that against the player it loses money.
  • Prog - Yep, getting kind of "wild and wooly". I'm just trying to get this guy to give us the straight skinny about his real play; but he keeps avoiding that like the plague......Grif'
  • Grifter said:
    Prog - Yep, getting kind of "wild and wooly". I'm just trying to get this guy to give us the straight skinny about his real play; but he keeps avoiding that like the plague......Grif'


    Grifter,
    That was cheap HOGWASH. You know it!
  • HOGWASH?.......Not hardly, Alex.....I, and another poster, have asked you to respond about your real play......Here it is for you again, and this is the third time!......Stop the "flim-flam" and "shuckin' and jivin' and just answer US.

    I posted an open challange to you last week which you totally sidestepped, so here it is again:

    No one said all of your data was bogus (a.k.a.-fraudulent). What I took exception to (and still do) and inferred might be bogus is your post in which you stated you had played 10,000 hands of your method in real play and your maximum bet was $100, and that had only happened once.”

    Without even testing any hands, common sense and experience will tell you this is almost impossible with your D’Alembert derivative, but I tested 80+ shoes for you anyway (and that is hardly “taking the easy way out”).

    In just those 1,300+ hands, I exceeded a $100 bet ten times!!!.......and reached a maximum bet of $630 (and down $3,150) in one session; AND reached a maximum bet of $1,600 (and down $8,100) in the worst session.

    Based on those test hands (using one of your own resources) one can only come to the following conclusions about your post.
    1. The results you posted are bogus (a.k.a. – fraudulent)…..or,
    2. You haven’t actually played 10,000 hands in real play,….or,
    3. I am full of …..”beans”. And if that is the case, you show me 10,000 consecutive hands of real play or hand dealt testing where you only reach a maximum bet of $100 one time; and I will immediately post an apology to you on this board!

    Show me those 10,000 consecutive hands of real play (using the starting bet of $20 that you were promoting last week...that too has apparently changed), and you will get your apology if I am wrong.
  • Alex,

    so i can not just go up and down a scale like u had posted in the past??
    i need to recalculate after each loss and win??
  • It seems to me that we should let another board member who believes that this system works, put it to a test, real play at the casino and report back with the results. Maybe, just maybe he may have a winning system.
    After all thats why we are all here , maybe to learn somthing new. Any takers?
  • i already have done it once. but i am willing to try it again tomorrow and report back tomorrow night.
  • Grifter said:
    HOGWASH?.......Not hardly, Alex.....I, and another poster, have asked you to respond about your real play......Here it is for you again, and this is the third time!......Stop the "flim-flam" and "shuckin' and jivin' and just answer US.

    I posted an open challange to you last week which you totally sidestepped, so here it is again:

    No one said all of your data was bogus (a.k.a.-fraudulent). What I took exception to (and still do) and inferred might be bogus is your post in which you stated you had played 10,000 hands of your method in real play and your maximum bet was $100, and that had only happened once.”

    Without even testing any hands, common sense and experience will tell you this is almost impossible with your D’Alembert derivative, but I tested 80+ shoes for you anyway (and that is hardly “taking the easy way out”).

    In just those 1,300+ hands, I exceeded a $100 bet ten times!!!.......and reached a maximum bet of $630 (and down $3,150) in one session; AND reached a maximum bet of $1,600 (and down $8,100) in the worst session.

    Based on those test hands (using one of your own resources) one can only come to the following conclusions about your post.
    1. The results you posted are bogus (a.k.a. – fraudulent)…..or,
    2. You haven’t actually played 10,000 hands in real play,….or,
    3. I am full of …..”beans”. And if that is the case, you show me 10,000 consecutive hands of real play or hand dealt testing where you only reach a maximum bet of $100 one time; and I will immediately post an apology to you on this board!

    Show me those 10,000 consecutive hands of real play (using the starting bet of $20 that you were promoting last week...that too has apparently changed), and you will get your apology if I am wrong.


    You obviously don't know how to play my system!

    You want the truth? Can you handle the truth?

    Here you have it,
    Take two decks of cards. Remove 8 red cards. And shuffle the two decks together. Now you have 52 blacks and 44 reds. The blacks has an edge of 8% against reds. You bet my method that the next card will be a red. Start with a -$100 hole and bet between 20% and 33% of the hole at all times. Bet any percentage from 20 to 33 all the way down to the last card. Add $100 to the final result to offset the -$100 starting point from the beginning. Please post the results for us to see.

    Would you do that? Can you handle the TRUTH?

    Do you really believe that after I discovered how to apply percentage index betting related to the depth of the hole I could resist not playing and making real money using this :?:
  • Alex,

    2 questions

    1. how do you use this system in craps??

    2. i thought you originally said that 20% is the magic # for betting the house. but now you are saying it can be 33% as well. why is this???

    please answer both questions because i love to play craps and i would defin have a much better time doing that if it is possible
  • Sorry folks - I give up - Alex just "sidestepped' me again, so obviously he is not, or can not, back up his claims about his real play, especially the amount we are going to go in the hole with his method......Someone else can try if they want.

    I'll run some sims with real hands dealt by a professional dealer to see what kind of risk we are really looking at.....Can probably have them by Sunday.

    ...Grifter

    p.s.....Ironic isn't it? I'm backed into doing some sims like Alex wanted, but it's only because I want the true answers for myself and you.
  • HEY FOLKS-
    LET'S LET IT GO!
    PROG
  • I just did.......see above.
  • KY121 said:
    Alex,

    2 questions

    1. how do you use this system in craps??

    2. i thought you originally said that 20% is the magic # for betting the house. but now you are saying it can be 33% as well. why is this???

    please answer both questions because i love to play craps and i would defin have a much better time doing that if it is possible


    In craps you play pass or don't. Either one is OK. Makes no difference. Play the way I explained in my posts before. Set a hole to be say -$100 and bet a percentage of that hole. The percentage index can be from 20 to 33%. I just mention 33% to make sure you win even if the house edge get to be 15% against you for any session. That is very hard for casino to accomplish. The 20% index is "magic" only if the house edge doesn't climbs over 10% against the player else as long as the house edge is under 10% you make money using 20% index. Now in craps you have to hedge a little because you could lose if a 7 comes out on the come_out_roll but also you win if a crap comes out too.

    Or play the system on the odds bets only where the house has 0% edge. Bet pass and take the odds. If you lose then bet pass again but use my system on the odds side. Make sure you play in a club that has 100x odds. Bet, minimum on pass and go full speed with my betting method on the odds. While playing the pass you will lose 1.4% over the long run but you will make much more using my system on the odds side where is no edge against you at all.

    DO you understand?
  • Alex

    Comment about your test about taking out 8 reds out of 2 decks and testing your system, that test is severely flawed in the fact that if betting on red you are guaranteed to win at least 44 of the 96 hands. In any casino game (blackjack, craps, roulette) there is no guarantee that you will win anytime, it is possible that you could lose 96 straight times, but with your 2 deck removal of 8 reds test you are guaranteed to win 44 times.

    Why don’t you play the same game but after 20 hands, shuffle the deck and play 20 more, repeating the process over and over. I bet your results are not as good!

    Don’t take the comments to personally. If you can PROVE your system works, I am sure all of us will be running out to the casinos to make the big bucks, until you PROVE your system is bulletproof though, expect an extensive line of questioning!
  • Grifter said:
    Sorry folks - I give up - Alex just "sidestepped' me again, so obviously he is not, or can not, back up his claims about his real play, especially the amount we are going to go in the hole with his method......Someone else can try if they want.

    I'll run some sims with real hands dealt by a professional dealer to see what kind of risk we are really looking at.....Can probably have them by Sunday.

    ...Grifter

    p.s.....Ironic isn't it? I'm backed into doing some sims like Alex wanted, but it's only because I want the true answers for myself and you.


    Don't tell me that you will use BJT book for this. I did it already and I can tell you that player # 3 or #4, I don't remember now, gets into some very bad runs of cards where the bets can go really big and I didn't play it with 33% index. But is an answer for that too. Once the bank gets too deep into the red I would split the bank and work on the first half of the hole and then work on the second half. You figure it out how is best to handle that. No matter what, you will make money of the entire BJT book if you decide to use it as a model.

    Use SAGE software and play some BJ there. Get the stats from there.
    See if you make money or not. And if you make it, go out to the casino and do it for real. Win some real $$

    And then say THANK YOU :!: to Alex ..., :wink:

    Very simple!
  • I understand but i dont understand why it would be beneficial to use your system on craps but not on red/black in roulette with a single 0. both should give the same results shouldnt they????

    btw, i cant use the system here b/c our craps go up to 10x MAX most of the time it is 5x
  • KY121- In support of your claim take a look at this simple sequence.

    How many times, on a new shoe, have I seen this type of sequence.
    The answer is plenty.

    Hole is 100 @ 30 %

    L 30 130
    L 39 169
    L 51 220
    L 66 286
    W86 200
    L 60 260
    W78 182
    L 55 237
    L 71 308
    L 92 400

    Next bet = 120

    As the bumper sticker says......SH*T HAPPENS and it can occur in minutes,
    not hours. I suspect that what happened in your case was more like: win one lose three,win one lose three, win one lose two, etc. A slow but
    constant build toward 96........Not uncommon at all.

    Alexs sys can't stop this kind of occurance...it just happens. Does his system work? I don't know...at least not yet,but I will know at some point.

    Ray
  • Ray said:
    KY121- In support of your claim take a look at this simple sequence.

    How many times, on a new shoe, have I seen this type of sequence.
    The answer is plenty.

    Hole is 100 @ 30 %

    L 30 130
    L 39 169
    L 51 220
    L 66 286
    W86 200
    L 60 260
    W78 182
    L 55 237
    L 71 308
    L 92 400

    Next bet = 120

    As the bumper sticker says......SH*T HAPPENS and it can occur in minutes,
    not hours. I suspect that what happened in your case was more like: win one lose three,win one lose three, win one lose two, etc. A slow but
    constant build toward 96........Not uncommon at all.

    Ray


    Yes, but now reverse the sequence and put it under and see how the system performs like a perfect clock. Even if you take out the last two Ws you still make $30. How about that?

    -100
    l 33 -33 -133
    l 44 -44 -177
    l 58 -58 -235
    l 78 -78 -313
    w 103 103 -210
    l 69 -69 -279
    w 92 92 -187
    l 62 -62 -248
    l 82 -82 -330
    l 109 -109 -440
    w 145 145 -294
    w 97 97 -197
    w 65 65 -132
    w 44 44 -89
    l 29 -29 -118
    w 39 39 -79
    l 26 -26 -105
    w 35 35 -70
    w 23 23 -47
    w 16 16 -32


    Profit = 68
  • Alex. the problem i have with this system is in essence it is just like betting on red/black in roulette and expecting that there should be an even amount of red to black. over 1 million spins there will be BUT there is no guarantee in the short run. i say this because you are bettin on the casino not having better than 16% edge. well, i can assure you they can and sometimes will and when they do you will get into some HUGE bets
  • Im going to take a stab at this b/c I am interested in what Alex is posting. I hate to see him burned at the stake here because frankly, I dont believe he is out to gain anything...There wont be a Nobel Prize awarded for this thing.

    KY121: If I understand Alex correctly, I believe the answers to your questions are:

    1. You do not treat it like a scale traveling up and down dependent of wins and losses. In BJ, you have to calculate your hole before each bet to determain the %20 to be bet as BJ's and DD's have an effect.

    2. He uses 20 and %33 to evolve with what the short term house edge happens to be. Although we all know what long term house advantage will be while playing BS, its never the case for our usefulness during a few hours of play. According to Alex, if you are playing 20% of your hole and not making money or losing money than that indicates a house edge of greater than or equal to 10%. By increasing your percentage of hole bet to 33%, you are trying to overcome the current house advantage.

    In other words, I dont think he is flipflopping on that. Both are correct and dependent on current house conditions.

    Hope that doesnt do more harm than good
  • Alex- You can't factor out "bad luck". It's here to stay. You could have a
    30 percent advantage and still lose. Or a +4 with four hands remaining
    and lose all four. That's why no system ever invented will win everytime.

    That is not saying your system works or don't....it's just facts.

    Ray
  • Ray said:
    Alex- You can't factor out "bad luck". It's here to stay. You could have a
    30 percent advantage and still lose. Or a +4 with four hands remaining
    and lose all four. That's why no system ever invented will win everytime.

    That is not saying your system works or don't....it's just facts.

    Ray


    Well, I would suggest to you guys, play the system on paper and do some research first. See for yourself if my system is or not winning.

    What I can tell you all is this: If a system can play both ways in a game and win that alone tells me that I’m dealing with some power setup here. Get real outcome hands from baccarat and play them both ways. You will see how you make money on player and banker at the same time. Mix the hands the way you want but make sure to maintain the same ration like they come out from the shoe. Create streaks the way you want, makes no difference at all. Play them again and again and see that you always will make money.

    You can't factor out "bad luck” – That is true. But you can hedge and split the red hole and work out each half separately.

    But on the other hand, I will say this: If a system is capable to beat a game playing both ways and if can overcome a house edge of 16% than the notion of bankroll or bets become a non issue at all. There is no reason to worry about. Take the “hole” and play it anywhere until you are out from it. Split resplit and slice it into small amounts that you will practically need a small percentage index to bet with and still come out from all of them.

    That’s why I’m playing at $5 minimum table and have my starting hole set at –$25. What I find out is that the average bet could climb up to 5 times the first bet over the long run. So, playing with a –$25 hole as starting point and having the first bet at 33% of that or $8 my average bet could become $40 over the long run in very bad situations. But, still I will come ahead and make money. Now, having a starting hole of –$100 and first bet at 33% of that or $33 my average bet could become over the long run at some point $165. But, on the other hand the income per hour is about 1.5 average bets. So, here you have it :!: You only get what you going after.

    Wow, an average bet of $165 stands for an extremely bad game with some wild action. Still making money, but if you cannot handle action, I suggest to start at low starting holes.




    :twisted: I call this POWER to the people :!: :twisted:
  • I already posted this in one of the many other threads about it. I took 8 decks and removed 2 reds from each one, then bet on red. I started with a $100 hole and bet 20% of the hole at all times rounded to the nearest 5. After about 200 cards, I was so far in debt and betting so much that it wasn't worth it anymore.
  • LeonShuffle said:
    I already posted this in one of the many other threads about it. I took 8 decks and removed 2 reds from each one, then bet on red. I started with a $100 hole and bet 20% of the hole at all times rounded to the nearest 5. After about 200 cards, I was so far in debt and betting so much that it wasn't worth it anymore.


    That is not true!
    If after 200 cards you are still in the hole that means the remaining cards are rich in red. Betting 20% of the hole and being still down after 200 cards, when you KNOW in advance that the shoe has 4% edge only and you have been losing in the first 200 cards, that alone tells you that the rest of the cards MUST be rich in red.

    You have to understand that there are no possible mathematical combinations in a 4% house edge sequence of 208 black and 192 reds to survive a 20% betting index of the hole. If you lose at some point that alone tells you that more reds are about to come by the end of the shoe. The more you lose in the beginning of the shoe the more profit you will have by the end. But of course you didn’t know that! .., There is no other way possible in the red-black test. That is a setup of finite outcomes. In real world we assume that the house edge will not go over 16% when we use 33% our betting index.

    You would have come out from the hole with PROFIT.

    I know this because I did the test many times over.
  • Well of course I would have come out of it by the end of the 8 decks because it has to reach it's conclusion. There is no conclusion in blackjack and if I had the same win/loss percentage in blackjack after 200 hands, I would have been DEEP in a hole and betting A LOT to try to get out of it.
  • LeonShuffle said:
    Well of course I would have come out of it by the end of the 8 decks because it has to reach it's conclusion. There is no conclusion in blackjack and if I had the same win/loss percentage in blackjack after 200 hands, I would have been DEEP in a hole and betting A LOT to try to get out of it.


    No,
    It is conclusion in BJ. The conclusion is that a 16% is extremely and very unlikely to happen. And even if it happens you will not lose at that rate. The losing rate in 16% against me while I bet 30% of the hole is much less than the house edge for that sequence. Is about 1.5% at the most but is not 16%. The house edge only applys to flat betting.

    How about when you play at even with the house like W = L but you assumed 10% edge against you and bet 20% from the hole?
    You would have made a fortune. The worse you assume and bet accordingly, the more you make!

    But if you or anybody is afraid that the house edge could be at some point over 16% and you could losse a little then I suggest you to flat bet only or not bet at all.
  • your above argument would also mean that the D'Alembert would work because that would be 100% of hole

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!