Statistical Methods
Was a simple statistical method for determining how many cards were in the machine. Despite the impressive academic credentials of K, Jalib et al, the idea of using statistics to determine csm card latency seemed to be new to them.
You have proven time and again that you have no statistical ability. Not to mention, the first thing you do when you inevitably lose an argument which involves the mathematical side of gambling is to start calling your opponent a nerd and then run to South America to rescue some member of your non-existent team. How many lines of code did you write to uncover the formula to determine the probability of not hitting a number on a roulette wheel after a given number of spins? Who, again, is Gauss?
By the way, I can only laugh at the above passage. You came up with a way to determine how many cards are in a CSM? That's a real stroke of genius. I mean, you couldn't just subtract the number of cards in the discard tray and on the table from the total number of cards in the four decks (or however many are being used for a given machine)? Let's try an excercise for fun and so that you can showcase your tremendous statistical talents. You are playing against a 4 deck CSM and, on the first hand, you and the dealer both push with 20. No cards were burned. How many cards are left in the machine?
In short, you developed nothing. As always.
Now I know you are trolling, but with regard to baccarat you will not find any account of any baccarat advantage play method I wrote about in any previous work. You know this is true, so why not come up with a more original troll which could result in a productive thread? Perhaps you would questions my % advantage figures on the tie wager for an even-card subset, or my lack of mathematical analysis of the effects of bankroll attrition of many small waiting bank/player wagers? More intelligent troll please.
I actually had the displeasure of glancing through a copy of your baccarat book just the other day. Guess what? I found a wealth of complete rubbish and at least one mistake on every page I glanced over, which was probably about 20 pages. That's not hyperbole, that's the truth. Furthermore, just because you were the first to put something into print doesn't make it your idea. It is a well-known FACT in the gambling community that you stole the bulk of the legitimate ideas presented in your book (who knows where the 99% of the material that is utter garbage originated). Furthermore, it is well-known that you never had any success at the tables yourself and that your understanding of the ideas you attempt to share is poor, at best, and it shows in your writing.
By the way, how hard is it to calculate bankroll attrition from waiting bets? Let's see, you multiply the house edge by the bet size and subtract that from your bankroll. Wow, you must be proud of yourself for thinking of such a deep concept. As for the tie wager information, I'll let you know what's wrong with it on the off chance that I ever pick up that horrible book again and read that section. For your information, you nor anyone else has written about the best methods of exploiting the tie bet in baccarat. I'm guessing the people who told you everything you think you know about baccarat were wise enough to keep you in the dark on that information, or you'd have failed to use it too and, instead, attempted to write about it.
Why don't you tell us again about how you didn't rip Marvin Karlins' numbers off and how it was just a coincidence that you both had the same error in your data.
The gambling community is not very large. The English gambling community is even smaller. How is it, then, that all of them I have met have either never heard of you or think you're a total fraud?
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go yin yang yo mama. Later.
PS - GTEABJ is useless too.
