Categories
Life

Maverick and Maverick Ultimate Simulations Summary

I have thoroughly examined Mark’s Maverick and Maverick Ultimate using baccarat simulations:

1.  Disparity Version (ref. Series 10)
2.  Lazy Man’s Version (ref. Series 11)
3.  Modes Version (ref. Series 12)
4.  Triggers Version (ref. Series 13)

There are interesting rationales and histories behind each of these versions.  Briefly, the Disparity Version focuses on global and local disparity counts, the Lazy Man’s Version is the approach simplified to its bare essence, the Modes Version considers the frequency of events counts to find the best mode of play, and the legacy Triggers Version is the original, most comprehensive, most complex version based on specific triggers of action.  All use Maverick’s trademark evaluation process, and all attempt to exploit the present shoe bias and trends.

However, in terms of results, all yield Player’s Advantages comparable to any of the other baccarat methods tested to date.  None perform better than simply single-side betting (ref. Series 1).

As is true for all methods tested to date, money management and a negative progression U1D2M2 did not significantly improve performance (ref. Money Matters).

To those presently enjoying success with Maverick, Maverick Ultimate, or any other baccarat approach tested to date, I hope I have provided some objective evidence why you would be wise to avoid overconfidence in your betting based on these methods.

To those presently struggling with Maverick, Maverick Ultimate, or any other baccarat approach tested to date, I hope I have provided you with some concrete cause for comfort, which should assure you that your difficulties are not due to any ineptitude on your part, being cursed, or possessing negative attitudes.

Rather, Maverick, Maverick Ultimate, and any other baccarat approach tested to date simply offer no objectively demonstrable positive edge, so you will win some, and you will lose some, and over time, you should expect to lose a little more than you win.  This is just the simple truth of the game, the way the game works.

To those presently contemplating learning and playing baccarat using Maverick, Maverick Ultimate, or any other approach tested to date, I hope I have provided you with plenty of information to help you make informed decisions regarding whether the risks justify the rewards, and so that you can allocate your resources most efficiently and effectively.

Only you can make the best choices for yourself, and hopefully by standing on the shoulders of some who have gone before you, you’ll be able to see a little farther, sooner.  Hold fast to the truth, and you will find your way.

The record here of my journey with Maverick and Maverick Ultimate:

At Best A Flip of the Coin
Maverick Ultimate Mentorship
Introducing Maverick Ultimate
Maverick’s Black Swan

Disclaimer: The betting strategies and results presented are for educational and entertainment purposes only. Gambling involves substantial risks, and the odds are not in the player’s favor by design. The author does not state nor imply any system, method, or approach offers users any advantage, and he shall not be held liable under any circumstances for any losses whatsoever.

17 replies on “Maverick and Maverick Ultimate Simulations Summary”

You have done an excellent examination of the most current systems being marketed as a way to “take the gamble out of gambling”. As the wizard of odds says: “all systems are worthless”.

Proof of this is the fact that there are still dealers working in casinos. If there was a way to beat any of these games, dealers would be first to know about it and would quit to play and make easy money.

Thank you for your efforts to reveal the truth.

Thanks, baccinator.

Echoes what Lyle Stuart said, “There are no systems, there are no systems, there are no systems.”

To Mark’s credit, though, he never claimed Maverick was a holy grail. In fact, he has always agreed that there is no such thing as a holy grail in baccarat. Maverick is simply what he found helps him consistently win.

Of course, a method which consistently wins is for all intents and purposes a holy grail. If Mark is consistently winning with Maverick, I’m unable to objectively demonstrate how he does it with his set of mechanical rules. My simulations clearly show Maverick offers no true mathematical advantage, so it is not a holy grail. But Mark knew that already. And yet, he is able to consistently win, and he is completely confident he can teach others to consistently win. Which suggests he has a holy grail. But his edge doesn’t come from Maverick itself, since it has none. And around and around we go … 😉

The flaw in Imspirit approach to testing is that he uses Computer Generated shoes to simulate live shoes…. this assumes statistical test will pick up on any differences.

Statistical tests to confirm data such as Chi-Squares can be erroneous/supotimal and may miss factors unknown that exist in real live data but not simulated live data (e.g.Virtual shoes).

Also, from Imspirit test results, it is not clear how he applies subjective aspects of bet selection to exploit any bias from evaluation of last 7 hands… other players may well get very different results.

Does he, for example, permit inter-shoe evaluation where the last few hands of a shoe are added to first few hands of next shoe to evaluate bias? If so, result would be questionable, since any shoe bias only exists intra-shoe, by definition.

@amigo –

Thanks for your questions.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, but do you have evidence to support your claims? I used to want to believe what you claim that live shoes are different from simulated shoes. This is Ellis’ whole mantra, his convenient excuse why no one is able to demonstrate via simulations that his methods have a true edge. However, I carefully compared the two kinds of data, and I can find no objective evidence that any such differences exist. (ref. Sim Smart and My Baccarat Shoe Factory.)

If you have an objective test to uncover the supposed signature of live shoes, please let me know. I would love to demonstrate that a genuine difference exists, because that would give me hope that playing baccarat is worth the risk. However, if you have no objective way of distinguishing the two, then what is the rational basis of your belief? Given that the only evidence suggests no difference exists, insisting that live shoes are different from simulated shoes is irrational, not helpful in the search for what is true, and only serves the selfish interests of those who lie and scam.

Regarding your point about “subjective aspects of bet selection,” by that phrase I assume you mean “guessing.” The best I could do to simulate guessing is to use randomly generated decisions to make bet selections. The results are here (Series 5 results), no better than single side betting. Unless you are proposing that a physical basis for psychic ability exists, I don’t see how guessing can help a player consistently win. Mark’s favorite excuse is, “I can’t teach intuition.” That’s certainly true, but also very convenient for him.

Regarding your question about how I treated the shoes in my simulation: all shoes were treated entirely independently like a closed system. No tracking information was carried over into the next shoe. I tried to simulate live playing conditions as best as possible. Apparent biases do exist in each shoe, but there are no reliable indicators of such biases. For every time bias indicators win, they also lose, leaving the player paying the expected house vig. The game is remarkably robust from this standpoint.

My primary purpose in performing the simulations is for my own benefit, to help me determine whether the risks justify the rewards. I paid my hefty dues in tuition and losses, so I am not someone who performed these simulations as just an intellectual exercise to debunk scammers. I’ve paid a high price for wanting to believe. If anything, I had a vested interest in the results being positive, because negative results only proved that I had wasted my money, time, hopes, and expectations on falsehoods. In short, negative results proved I was an idiot for ever believing in the likes of Ellis and Mark. I checked and re-checked my coding and results countless times to make sure I did not make any errors. To the best of my ability, I have verified my results are accurate, relevant, and conclusive.

Feel free to perform your own simulations, if you do not accept my results and conclusions. If you are as careful and honest as I have been, you will reproduce what I have found and reported here.

Also, please note that Zumma 600 and Zumma 1000, which are live shoes, are in my data set for testing.

No version of Maverick or Maverick Ultimate showed positive results when tested on these live shoes.

The results are consistently negative when testing Maverick or Maverick Ultimate on simulated shoes.

I would like to talk to you about the recent events concerning Maverick. It is very important. Please email me. thanks.

Hello, This is a very refreshing analysis of the Maverick system. I, too, would love to see positive, repeating results from ANY system. However, like you, I have found Baccarat little more than guessing with a betting progression.

[…] This morning, I found in my email box messages between Mark and a couple of his present students. (Because the emails were sent to everyone, the messages are now in the public domain, and they are re-printed in their entirety below for objective evaluation.) Apparently, one of Mark’s students had lost a lot using Maverick, and when he gave Mark access to his online account with the hopes that Mark could win build back his bankroll, Mark took some risky, large, bad bets, and consequently wiped out the account. After apologizing to him, Mark disappeared, leaving the student hanging. Now, Mark has completely closed down his Maverick Ultimate forum due to the many personal and financial problems he is presently dealing with. […]

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.