As I had briefly relayed in my previous two posts (Shadowing Ellis and Ellis and I Take on Atlantic City), Ellis convincingly demonstrated to me with real money in live play that he can consistently win at baccarat. Thanks to him, I am a little wealthier today in terms of chips, experience, and perspective.
At Saturday’s NOR seminar, Ellis explained the mechanics of his NOR methodology to about a dozen of the BTC attendees, a great bunch of guys (and one gal, Lorie, who was in charge of videoing the seminar) of all levels of playing experience. Some had never played baccarat, while others had been playing for over 20 years. Many had their own strategies and perspectives on the game, and they played accordingly. All were very friendly and happy to compare notes.
NOR stands for Neutral, Opposite, Repeat, which consists of three sub-methods to handle neutral, choppy, and streaky biases respectively. Ellis selected these three methods based on the criteria of overall effectiveness and ease-to-play.
Ellis unquestionably acknowledges that the mechanical rules of the methods in NOR (or any other mechanical system) in and of themselves cannot give a player a consistent edge against the house. Rather, a player can find an edge when he is able to accurately select a favorable table to play, which greatly increases the chances that the appropriate method will be able to successfully exploit the shoe bias at hand. For Ellis, this table selection process is that “something else” (ref: Transcendental Baccaratology) which transcends the mathematical confines dictated by the game. Without this edge, the best one can hope to achieve with a mechanical system in the long run is to lose as much as he wins, and pay the House its take in the process.
For example, consider Mark Maverick, who had been Ellis’ student. While Mark did teach a few aspects of table selection which he had learned from Ellis, Mark focused primarily on the mechanics of his method, and with them, he believed he could win every baccarat session he played. This was the appeal of Maverick / Maverick Ultimate, and Mark marketed it accordingly. Offer any baccarat game to Mark, and he will gladly start playing it. This is why Mark was bold enough to play baccarat online, something Ellis believes is a recipe for disaster. On the other hand, Ellis would only play if he could identify beforehand the most likely shoe bias tendency, thus securing for himself a better chance at choosing the correct method to apply. Without this advantage, Ellis would simply not play the shoe, because otherwise, he would just be gambling and “gambling is sick.”
Throughout the trip, I watched Ellis practice what he preached. For example, after dinner at Carmines in Atlantic City on Sunday night, Ron wanted to play at the Hilton. However, Ellis insisted on going back to play at Trump Plaza, because that is where he knew the tables were currently more consistently biased. Then, at Trump Plaza, we completely avoided the high-stakes pit, because the baccarat tables there had no tote-boards, and Ellis commented it would be suicidal to play blindly.
Always before sitting down to play a game, he would carefully study the tote boards or another player’s scorecard to see if that shoe was producing a consistent bias. If during play, the bias became unclear, he would either stop betting or lower the wager to 1 unit until the picture became clearer, and adjusted accordingly. In other words, half of the work involves identifying the right situation to help him choose the right method. Only then would he start playing.
While I was not there to personally witness it, on one occasion on Friday night before the seminar, Ellis decided to play despite having to play blindly with no clear advantages. Since some of the BTC group had arrived early, they decided to go to Hollywood Casino to play baccarat. It turned out to be a disaster.
Reflecting back on what had happened, Ellis explained that they had played under the worst possible conditions: no table selection, casino management reneging at the last moment its agreement to set up a dedicated MIDI table for the group with new cards every shoe, the casino being freezing cold which forced Ellis to leave the table several times to go outside to warm up, the high excitement and anticipation of folks having just arrived from out of town, and a party atmosphere of beers and fun.
Robert, who had lost money that night, told me discipline and money management were gone. As Ellis lamented the next day in the seminar, sometimes you just need to walk away when things get tough. There will always be the difficult sessions, though if you’re doing things right, they should be infrequent. There will be plenty more easy sessions to make up for the tough ones. And if you can’t identify an advantageous situation in the first place, the best thing to do is simply not play.
In hindsight, Ellis realized that another one of his methods, AD Net, would have been the best system to use on Friday night, because the shoes were quite random without a consistent bias. For the first hour of the seminar on Saturday, Ellis taught us the mechanics of AD Net using a particularly difficult shoe from Friday night as an example. Whereas NOR had scored -4u on Friday night, AD Net scored +15u. At the end of the seminar, Paul demonstrated how he would have played the shoe using SAP, but eventually he was also stopped out at -9u. Of course, this is all easy to see with the clarity of 20/20 hindsight. The challenge is being able to recognize going forward which system best suits the shoe.
Later Saturday night at the casino, after losing a shoe with NOR, Harold used AD Net to win a couple of shoes, scoring one in the teens and another over twenty, more than recouping his initial loss. Apparently, Hollywood Casino at Penn National currently presents random shoes favoring AD Net.
Why does table and casino selection work?
Based on his own observations, as well as directly being told by casino employees and management, Ellis knows casinos deliberately control the shuffle. While playing blackjack, Ellis’ preferred game, he started noticing how the dealer’s procedure of picking up and stacking the played hands were artificially clumping the shoe into distinct bands of low and high cards. The more the shoes were played, the more clumped and thus less random the shoes became.
He also knew that casinos were not shuffling the cards sufficiently long enough to randomize them. The more he studied shuffling procedures, the more he realized that each one could consistently produce specific results. Back then, there were eight main types of hand shuffle procedures; today with machines such as ShuffleMaster, there are hundreds. While casinos can easily control a choppy vs. streaky bias, Ellis does not believe they have the ability to control a Player vs. Banker bias.
The same kind of shuffles are used in both blackjack and baccarat, so Ellis realized he could use this knowledge to gain an edge in both games. Thus the process of table selection became the first and foremost step in his approach to playing the games.
Ellis told me how once casino management had ushered him to a back room to interrogate him about how he was winning; they wanted to know how he was cheating. Ellis bluntly told them he was simply using knowledge of their own shuffle control against them. They let him go.
Do the casino regulatory agencies know that casinos manipulate the shuffle? Ellis thinks they do, but because so much tax revenue comes from gaming, Ellis believes they are in cahoots with the casinos or at least turns a blind eye.
I asked Ellis how much of what he was telling me could be shared here. He said I was free to write whatever I wanted to. None of this is secret, and he has been teaching and preaching it for decades in his books, seminars, forum threads, and emails. Most people can’t believe it anyway, he joked, so it doesn’t really matter. And of the others who can believe it, most are too impatient to actually use table selection. They just want to sit down at any table and start playing. It just doesn’t work that way if you want to consistently win, Ellis warns. Patience pays.
Last year, when I first considered Ellis’ ideas regarding casino shuffle manipulation, I was among those who could not believe it. I found it very difficult to accept that casinos would cheat in such a way. I could believe that they may have the ability to control the shuffle on a technical level, but with my naive mindset, I trusted that casinos did not use this ability in practice and were operating fairly. After all, since casino games are designed in their favor, they were sure to win in the long run, so why would they have the need to cheat? In my post, Shuffle Control: Why It’s Bad for the House, I offered several other logical objections to Ellis’ proposal. While I still do not know with certainty due to lack of experience and knowledge whether casinos deliberately manipulate the shuffle, I do agree that if Ellis is right, a player can gain an edge. For now, I am willing to assume that Ellis is right and just see how far that assumption can take me.
In the second shoe of the Saturday night Hollywood Casino session, a mechanical component in the shoe box froze up, requiring the dealer to perform a double shuffle. Ellis capitalized on this opportunity by assuming the bias would be choppy, which usually results from a double shuffle. In that shoe, the entire table of BTC members shadowed Ellis’ bet placement until he was up +10u, which occurred very quickly.
At one point during the game, the dealer expressed his surprise at how quickly our scores had accelerated, which must have appeared especially curious to him since everyone was always betting on the same decision. “Hmm … that’s interesting!” I heard him marvel with a funny expression on his face, perhaps alarmed at how rapidly his chip box was emptying. Indeed, he had run out of $1.25 commission-chips which he was using to keep track of Banker commissions. He was visibly flustered at having to use smaller denomination chips for the accounting, and when the situation overwhelmed him, he begged the pit boss to see if the other table could spare any of its $1.25 commission-chips.
At +10u, Ellis colored up, and I took his lead. Ellis explained that with the conservative progression we were using, +10u is a very reasonable, achievable target, and usually trying for more is not worth the time and effort. The rest of the players at the table continued the shoe, while Ellis and I headed back to the hotel. Before leaving, Ellis noticed that the shoe produced three 3s in a row and thus had started to become much less choppy. He was concerned for how the others were doing. Later that evening, Paul told us that the shoe’s bias ultimately changed to streaky, and there was even a Player streak of 9.
Sunday morning, Ellis, Keith, Lorie, and I drove to Atlantic City, where we met up with Ron and Donna, as I relayed in my earlier update Ellis and I Take on Atlantic City. Over a decade ago, Ellis had played blackjack and baccarat there professionally, and eventually he got barred from every casino, his picture plastered on the first page of the blue book of barred players. Ever since, he had not been back. Ellis was doubtful anyone would recognize him today. I hoped not.
As we began playing the first shoe at Trump Plaza, the pit boss asked us for our player’s cards. We didn’t have any, so we gave him our driver’s licenses to register us. After entering Ellis’ name into the computer, he came back to the table and asked if he still lived in New York. For a moment, I was afraid the pit boss was going to ask him to leave the premises due to the fact that he had been barred more than a decade ago!
As it turned out, he merely wanted to verify Ellis’ mailing address. Whew! Apparently, Ellis’ status had been cleared after all these years. The pit boss told us he had been working there back then, too, and Ellis tried to remember him. Fortunately, the pit boss did not remember Ellis, since by the end of the night, we had each taken them for +35u.
A summary of the results of shoes which I had witnessed Ellis play in PA and AC:
Shoes Played: 6
Shoes Won: 6 (100%)
Shoes Lost: 0 (0%)
Bankroll: 20u
Total Winnings: +55u
Worst Drawdown: -4u
Average Number of Hands Played Per Shoe: 25
Average Player’s Advantage: +26%
For individual shoe histories and scores, see:
1. Shadowing Ellis at Hollywood Casino at Penn National Race Course
2. Ellis and I Take on Atlantic City
YouTube Videos:
1. Ellis Plays NOR Baccarat
2. Ellis NOR Baccarat Q&A
ImSpirit 
101 replies on “Ellis’ NOR Seminar in PA and Field Trip to AC”
Your trip sounded like a blast.
Thanks, Benn – Yup, it was the highlight of my baccarat journey so far! I’m hoping it is just the beginning.
Ellis here:
Wow, virtuoid really captured every nuance of the way I play plus the comradery at BTC. He’s our kind of guy and the BTC guys saw that right away. He’s a “just the facts Mam” kind of guy. He was paying attention to far more than I realized. I’m incredulous!
Just one thing: Yes we bought in at 20 units but our very rigid stop loss is -8 units. So really, 12 of those units are just for show to get comps. While we weren’t after comps in those 6 games, it has become a habit of mine. Hey, as long as you have the discipline to keep your hands OFF those 12 chips, it’s a good idea. If you ever decide to go pro, keeping expense down becomes even more important.
A great report virtuoid – better than mine. I hope you don’t mind if I use it at my site: beatthecasino.com
Thanks, Ellis, for the clarification regarding the stop loss and comps tip, and everything else.
Yes, absolutely feel free to use anything here over at BTC.
“Professional baccarat player” – LOL – last week I would’ve thought that’s an oxymoron.
Well, if in the next 30 days, I can demonstrate the kind of consistency you were able to demonstrate during the trip, I’ll know I have a shot. I will definitely keep you posted as my journey continues.
Hey virtuoid, given your incredible powers of observation do I think you could master it? Let me give you the longest possible discourse on that:
“Yep”
HI Imspirit,
Gambler’s Fallacy and Inverse Gamblers Fallacy are the universal terms when you get down to plain basics of any subjective play a la Mark, Ellis. You even took Mark for just being plain “bold” for playing that way.
You have clearly and politely shot down anyone that put belief in subjective play as well. If you have a change of heart you will have done a lot of your past readers a disservice by your previous stance – my personal views notwithstanding. Besides that you have been very helpful to your readers on the logical end.
S
S, Thanks for your comments. I wish you the best.
Right S,
I’ve just been lucky for 30 years and in 300 such public exhibitions in front of thousands of attendees.
But if that’s the way you feel, you should not play. You can’t win if you think it’s impossible. You’ll only end up proving yourself right.
Ellis,
Actually, I do play subjectively and I am a proponent of it. I flat bet as well. I was once your student and I have actually taken it a few steps further. I never thought Imspirit would come around to it based on his blogs so I never said anything until now.
Gambler’s Fallacy and Inverse… are the terms he used himself to describe subjective play at it’s core which is what you and I do. I just wanted him to fine with conceding to it and maybe share it his readers someday – or not.
I always that you’d be shorter and had more hair for no particular reason.
S
@S –
Thanks for your clarifications. I guess something got lost in the translation.
Great to hear you’re doing well and that you had learned from Ellis yourself. Fortunately, I’m catching up.
Gambler’s Fallacy and its Inverse are true for random sets. Ellis’ point is that baccarat is not random, but artificially biased, and so he is not committing a “fallacy” by basing betting decisions upon what the shoe is presenting.
Indeed, he is the first to say that if baccarat is truly random, we shouldn’t play it at all, because then we’d just be gambling, fully guilty of committing the Gambler’s Fallacy/Inverse.
So, the real question is not whether Gamber’s Fallacy/Inverse is true or not (it absolutely is true), but whether baccarat is random or not.
Hope that helps.
Oh, sorry S. I DID read you wrong. I guess I’m over sensitive after BF where there are many “experts” on me who have never met me or watched me play and know nothing of how I play. I never go there anymore. They play Baccarat with a similar disregard of fact and then declare the game unbeatable. Well for them, it is!
BTW, I did have hair at some point and I was a lot shorter at one point. In that one picture with the two guys and girls, both those guys are 6’5 which tends to make me shrink.
Ellis,
You shouldn’t waste your time at BF; it puts quite a strain on you reading all the nonsense over there.
S
I second the emotion ! That place is nothing more then a pit of negativity & poison. Some serious Admin. is needed over there.
AD tries to help with his insights and wisdom and receives nothing but vile comments in return.
Yeah, I get the impression BF’s admin Mike is more interested in growing his hit status for his site, rather than providing a healthy, functional community for baccarat discussion. Every thread there eventually devolves into meaningless bickering and ego contests. That’s actually one of the reasons why I decided to independently start ImSpirit, because I knew if I posted my results and experiences at BF, they would just get lost in a vast cesspool of toxic junk.
G F and Inverse G F are basically just words for the skeptics that don’t believe in subjective play. There is no shame in coming around to the end of the spectrum. In fact artificial bias is not necessary to win; natural variances create enough amount of bias already like you said yourself. You can beat natural variance and debunk the Fallacies.
Besides, I still believe it’s (artificial bias) bad for the house and exists in nature anyways. Every shoe, I believe, is encapsulated in itself with it’s own variance and I treat as that.
@S –
I appreciate your perspective, but if it’s all just a matter of semantics, why become so attached to who is right or wrong? You can list a dozen reasons why you believe it’s natural, while Ellis can list a dozen more why he believes it’s artificial. If we’re all able to consistently exploit it, regardless how it arises, what does it really matter in the end?
At least Ellis is willing to transparently and objectively demonstrate he can consistently win, and he openly shares exactly how he does it, so that others can also come to master the game. I know no one else who offers the same.
Personally, given the choice between being right or being able to win, I would certainly chose the latter. 😉
Imspirit,
Well, we can have our cake and eat it too in this case.
In the case of Mark, I honestly don’t know if his legal issues are just clouding his mental play but I don’t understand why he would admit it was all just a long fortunate run in his past year or so. I still believe he can play but he should have never played with other people’s money or present any form of mechanical play into the foray. Like Ellis, he really did not need their money. It’s worth more than all the hassles and complaints and skepticism of trying to convince others. And that’s the reason most individuals keep to themselves.
S
@S – You’re right – Mark is hopefully at the tables playing for himself and winning.
No question that semantics is problematical in Baccarat. You often see two guys vehemently arguing the same side of an argument with each other.
“Random” means different things to different people. Yes, you can see 10 tens come out in a row in a BJ game and call that random when you measure the odds against infinity. But what if you see it 6 times at the same table, which is common in 8 deck BJ. Wouldn’t you be thinking “what’s up with that?”
What if you saw 6 10 in a rows at a Bac table? Wouldn’t you be a little suspicious? Yet that is FAR more likely to occur than 10 tens.
“Artificially biased” depends largely on which side of the table you are on. The casino side of the table is going to say: “what are you talking about – you just watched us shuffle? What we call cheating they call normal procedure.
“Subjective” is, in itself, subjective. I’m always playing a “hard” system. Which system I play is based on the events thus far. I’m letting the shoe tell me which system to play and which mode to play it in. Is that subjective? Or am I playing a specific procedure? If so, how can that be subjective? Yet we tend to call it that.
Sometimes I feel we fall victim to our own semantics.
Ellis, you are DECIDING on a hard system. Therefore, it inherently is subjective play if for only to decide which system to play.
I play pretty dynamically and probably the most comprehensively of anyone I know of.
Hi Ellis,
These are very interesting comments. The most important things I picked up from all the comments are:
1. You need discipline.
2. Rigidly stick to your money management strategy.
3. Be patient and dont play until you have an advantage.
4. Make sure you play the right system.
As you know I am very new to baccarat. I just joined as a lifetime member, and have spent many hours going over the blogs and forums that you posted. I thought the whole Bacc system consisted of the three methods.
I have been going to the casino on a few occasions and have come out in front on each noccasion. On my last visit I found a table which was running at count -5 after 15 hands. I played for just over half the shoe and was struggling to win. By the time I stopped playing I was 13 units down. I was using the streaky system. About half way through my play the count briefly became +ve before slightly becoming -ve. When I came home I wondered why I lost on the shoe. There were 12 2’s which really killed me. After you explained that there was the streaky system in a different mode I should have played, I then replayed the shoe and ended up winning 8 units.
Just for interest sake I replayed the shoe using the neutral system. I ended up winning +19 units.
This proved to me the importance of proper system selection.
Thank you for pionting out the other streaky system and I look forward to reading the NOR system and further honing my Bacc skills.Regards
Frank77
Hi Frank! What’s the weather down under these days?
Ha, that was an easy to make beginner mistake. When you get your NOR manual squared away you’ll see that the OR count is just an indicator. The real overriding tip off is event frequency. In your case, high twos points directly at your neutral system. You win every bet in the twos but you also handle the runs as I’m sure you saw right away.
You can expect to see more and more of these neutral shoes. Over the last 5 years they have gone from non existent to the most frequent shoe type. This because the chop players lose and the streak players lose. That is everybody except us. You will find that in neutral shoes we are ALWAYS the only winners and usually BIG winners. Everyone else is looking at our chip piles and scratching their head – including the pit boss. That ain’t supposed to happen!
BTW Virtuoid, I tried to explain that to Mark because Maverick has no chance against the ever increasing Neutral shoes. Unfortunately guys with $ signs in their eye balls don’t hear well.
And BTW #2, neutral shoes is where Adulay deviated from Mark’s rules and inserted mine. That was how he could win with Maverick when nobody else could.
I’m hoping Mark sees this post because he is very good at figuring out solutions. I suspect that now, he’ll listen.
This should give everyone an idea of just what they are up against. Let me say it for the millionth time: Casinos aren’t stupid!
Since the ’80s I’ve watched the Casinos go from total Streak to total Chop and today they seem to be striving for total Neutral.
BTW the Zumma testers were recorded mostly durring the total streak years. So if your system beats the Zumma testers it merely means you have a good streak system – which is mostly useless in today’s game. But, of course, all cards are perfectly random – yeah right. Hey, I’ve got this bridge in Brooklyn that…..
Thanks, Ellis –
Yeah, Mark can be a sharp player, although he tends to take too much unjustified risk sometimes. When we had talked about neutral conditions, the general solution was to net bet, either Mav vs. Anti-Mav or RD1 vs. anti-RD1, etc. But he found it difficult to teach net betting, and he shunned complexity, as he was always trying to simplify everything down to the bare minimum, whether that was right or not.
Dave,
I am a little confused here. You say that the game of baccarat simply cannot be beaten from all of your testing. PERIOD.
Now you go a seminar and learn about Ellis’ table selection method and all of the clouds suddenly clear ? I was all set to move into an Amish commune and give up on baccarat.
Hi Bruce,
LOL – The reader “S” had similar comments as yours. Please read my response to him here.
Yes, the game of baccarat cannot be beaten if it is played as a truly random game. My point is that all of the computer simulations I’ve done were based on this assumption. That is, if a player expects to walk into any casino, sit down at any table, and start playing his favorite mechanical system (any of Mark’s MU, Ellis’ NOR, or anything else), then, yes, according to my simulations, he can expect to do no better than simply always betting Banker in the long run, and lose about $1 for every $100 he bets. It’s pointless to run more simulations, because all they will show is 1+1=2 over and over again. (Please read Transcendental Baccaratology.)
Ellis is the first to agree 100% with the above.
So, it is clear from the above conclusion that if someone like Ellis can consistently win at baccarat, he is using “something else” that transcends the mathematical confines of the game. Whether Ellis is right or wrong about casino shuffle control, by acting upon that assumption, he is utilizing “something else” beyond the mechanics of his systems to help him gain an edge. Without this edge, Ellis would be the first to say that we should not play baccarat, because then we’d be gambling, and gambling is sick.
So far, all I can do is honestly report the results from his play as well as my own based on this paradigm. And so far, it is definitely working.
I’ve also been hearing many stories of past BTC students who can’t seem to succeed with Ellis’ approach, just like some found it difficult to reproduce Mark’s successes with MU. Some have reported trying to use Ellis’ casino & table selection procedures consistently to their advantage but ultimately failing. On the other hand, Ellis has superstar students enjoying tremendous success with his approach. For awhile, Mark was one of them. So, I’m in the process of discovering why a difference exists.
Also, Ellis and his student John claim to have computationally tested one of his earlier approaches and demonstrated a positive expectancy over many thousands of live shoes. They are confident the code was accurate, but since it was run on live shoes collected by BTC members who are taught only to play biased shoes, the data set may be biased. I proposed to independently verify their results and statistically analyze their shoe sample for signatures of persistent bias. So far, though, I have not received any data or procedures from them for such a study. If and when they do, of course, I will post the results of my analysis here.
Also, I’m sure Ellis’ approach is not the only consistently profitable one. I’ve heard of many other players who claim to have found their own ways to consistently win. So far, the only one I’ve been able to personally witness in live play with real money is Ellis, because he kindly reached out to me. He openly demonstrates and teaches his students exactly how he does it. I’m just in the process of discovering whether I can do it, too, and I’m dedicated to sharing my journey with others here at ImSpirit. It’s just another interesting journey in life to me.
Anyway, I honestly have no agenda here, I offer freely and openly what I discover and experience, and I’m unattached to any convictions or beliefs about the game one way or the other. Neither should anyone else who is interested in discovering what’s true about baccarat (and more generally, anything else in life). Indeed, I’m more than happy to be proven wrong in my conceptions, because it only serves to benefit me. Given the choice of being “right” or rich, I’d gladly chose the latter.
It’s all good. I am not trying to create a rift or anything. I did read S comments and your reply. I’m just glad you may be a little more flexible on other concepts.
Maybe when I won using M/U (playing alone) I was unconsciously using “something else” that transcends the mathematical confines of the game ?
Could be that some students grasp teachings differently, whether they are students of Mark or Ellis. Maybe a left brain, right brain type of thing. I don’t know.
Could be! I wish I could quantify it more precisely, because that would be the first step toward helping those who are currently struggling to likewise succeed.
Hi Bruce, I think the difference is in the quality of table selection. Some of my players follow my table selection advice to the letter, some give it a cursory glance and some simply don’t believe in at at all. I can only tell them and show them how to play. I can’t make them play my way.
There will never be a single Baccarat system, including mine, that has a better than 50% win rate long term. Winning Baccarat is twofold. It is about matching the right system to the right shoe. One is useless W/O the other.
I just got a call from Paul Starr who has been playing my way for years W/O a single losing trip. He is fully pro with no other source of income. Paul flat bets at $400 units. He flies into Vegas only once or twice a month, hits his goal, then plays golf until his return flight.
He called to tell me that I was right about Gold Coast. With our way he found it “ridiculously easy” to hit his goal regardless whether he was playing the factory preshuffled isle or the regular cards isle.
He commented that he was getting way more than normal long runs with the factory cards – another nail in the coffin of the random theorists.
He wanted to know if he should raise his bet while on these long runs. I basically told him no, except in super streaky shoes and even then only 1 chip at a time: $400, 500, 600 and so forth and to get out if he won at 700.
I argued that you are already making the living you wanted so why take unnecessary risks?
At this stage Paul has been doing this for too many years for luck to be a factor.
I figure only 1 in a thousand beats this game. But why not be that guy?
It’s great to know Paul can be making a living playing baccarat and only “working” once or twice a month.
Imagine what he’d be making if he played daily – wow!
Ellis,
Thank for the comments, your methods seem interesting to say the least. Being pretty new to the game of baccarat (less than a year) I am still learning everyday.
Using Maverick Ultimate I can really feel the “pulse” of the shoe most of the time and sometimes everything just seems to go with the flow. As a shoe can change at the drop of a hat as we all know.
Just kind of curious of how long this table selection takes ?
True Virtuoid but there is some method to his madness. He knows that at that play frequency together with flat betting, he’ll never get barred. Not even close.
I would love to compare notes with Paul since I flat bet as well.
S, unfortunately Paul is not a computer person and somewhat of a loner. He’s been a student of mine for about 25 years and claims I taught him everything he knows.
Bruce, it used to take a while before the advent of tote boards. But back then Players would automatically show you their cards. Bac has always been a far more friendly game than BJ because nothing you do effects the game. A certain comradery of players develops.
These days I avoid casinos W/O tote boards. A 16 table casino like Gold Coast, Vegas only takes me about 5 minutes. The idea is to first find the most biased table in the casino. But you also note runner ups as you may be back to them and if you know what they were doing an hour or two ago you develop an idea of their consistency. You don’t really care what the bias is: Chop, Streak, Neutral or Strong Side and it is important to note both shoe colors.
When I find the most biased table I get in the game and then check the other shoe color from player cards at my leisure.
While there is a learning curve, you get so that you can check a tote board W/O breaking stride down the isle. What you want to know from the tote board is what system to play and what mode to play it in. So the first table we play is nearly always mid shoe entry.
We also note what type of shoe the morning card prep presents and the consistency of those first shoes. For instance the Gold Strike in Tunica MS reliably presented OTB4L shoes with new cards. I won nearly every shoe there for 3 years by only playing new cards – a minor inconvenience considering the rewards.
For most players entering a casino it’s a race to find the first empty seat. These idiots will duck under your elbow to grab the seat you were considering. I just smile. They are responsible for the casino’s huge Bac profit rate of 26%. I prefer to be in that small 1% winner’s group.
[…] has now been broken with a Repeat of Horseshoe. In my fifth session since returning from Ellis’ NOR seminar, I returned to Horseshoe and played two […]
[…] my sixth session after returning from Ellis’ NOR seminar, was unceremoniously lost in grand fashion. Ironically, before leaving for Horseshoe this […]
Could you explain a little more detail about your loss ? Are you still ahead unit wise from this loss?
Hi Bruce, I’m assuming you’re referring to my last post Black Tuesday?
Yeah, I’m in the process of writing more about what happened in my next post, but read Black Tuesday first for the summary.
Re black Tuesday,
I got my partner to read out the second shoe you played at Horseshoe casino as though I was playing at the casino.I started at hand15 flat betting 1 unit, using OTB4L There were 4 sets of 2’s and the count was +3. There were no 4’s and the mathematical count was 5 which indicated using OTB4L. The shoe ended up with a +8 unit win, compared to your -14 unit loss. I am also relatively new at Bacc, maybe you should practice to be more proficient at finding out what each ot the 3 systems like and dislike. This is just a suggestion, not a criticism.
Thanks, Frank – and great job winning the shoe. You’re a pro! 😉
Well, in fact Frank IS a pro but he’s a pro BJ player. While just beginning to learn Bac, his judgement and play of the infamous shoe 2 were quite sound.
I recommend all pro BJ players also learn Bac. BJ has its windows of opportunity but they are only open at certain times of the day. When these windows are closed, the pro BJ player is better off playing Bac IF he’s also a good Bac player. The full time BJ pro needs to know both games. Otherwise he’s tempted to play BJ against closed windows. Not a good idea.
As a Surveillance Agent for a major Casino I can advised that they can not manipulate the choppy or streky of the shoe in Bacc. If the shuffles looks weird or out of place, it could be a new Dealer or one that just doesnt know the shuffles. Most of these Dealers learn on the job. You would be surprised on what goes on behind the scenes. And ill tell you its not what you think. Remember, these are just employees doing a job, and most are just there to collect a pay check. In blackjack they can have the Dealer shuffle anythime on a hand held game. On a auto shuffler, the house can care less what happens due to the fact you can not run down the game.
@Dee Thank you for the information. I gathered as much.
I agree Dee that a dealer cannot MANIPULATE a Baccarat shuffle. The idea is absurd. Even if he could, what would he/she manipulate it to???
Dealers follow standard shuffle procedures designed by the casino and are told which standard shuffle to use.
You might ask yourself this question: Why do all casinos have more than one standard shuffle? Wouldn’t life be a whole lot easier for dealers and dealer schools if all casinos used the same standard shuffle. But they don’t, do they. Why not?
In an 8 deck BJ game, why are new dealers sent in with a new shuffle? Or why does a Pit Boss tell a dealer to change to a new shuffle. Ever think about that?
Or use your example: Why would a Pit Boss tell a dealer to start shuffling every hand in a single deck BJ game?
If all casino shuffles produce random cards, what difference does a different shuffle make??? Random is random, is it not? There is not more than one kind of random.
And what about the morning card prep? Most major casinos have someone in charge of the morning card prep. Why? And why are there different morning card preps??? Do you really believe that all standard morning card preps produce the same random result??? Then why is there more than one. And why must it be monitored???
As a casino professional you must know that Basic Strategy alone beats random cards. That is not opinion. That is proven mathematical fact. Still think the cards are random? Whether shuffled by hand or machine? I’m sure your casino has a party line to explain all this to their employees, don’t they. But just how gullible are you?
Your casino’s standard hand shuffles include what, two riffles? Three? One, like the Taj? Do you have any idea of how many riffles it takes to randomize 8 decks of cards? I’ll tell you. It takes 7 to the 8th power. And how long would that take? Four hours?
OK fine, I’ll concede to you that no one is cheating – at least not when you go by the casino’s definition of cheating. But no shuffle or shuffle machine produces random cards. If they did, common Basic Strategy BJ players would have broke every casino by now. Yet casinos thrive more than ever and table take rates continue to rise.
There is no mathematical way to beat Baccarat period. But the game CAN, nevertheless, be beat. How?
Clue: Because there is no such thing as a perfect shuffle, nearly all Baccarat shoes have some degree of bias. It is inescapable. And that bias usually holds up more or less for the entire shoe or at least long enough for a player to win manipulating that inescapable bias.
NOR is not only just the best way, it is the ONLY way taught by anyone to manipulate the various biases.
Yes, Dave did an outstanding and unbiased job of recording my 26% P.A. Atlantic City trip. after seeing a few shoes and talking to a few members, he had the confidence to play alongside and copy me for 6 shoes at 4 different tables. That paid off for him more than his wildest expectations. But there were many double digit P.A. trips before that by many students and there have been many trips after that – some reported on my free public forum. beatthecasino.com
One student, Witchygal, her full report is on my public forum, produced a 21% P.A. her first day out after being a member for only a week.
Dee, one thing is for certain: If the cards were truly random, double digit P.A. trips would be totally impossible. Luck has its limitations.
What is P.A.? Player Advantage, R.O.I., Return On Investment. Money won divided by money bet. It is the best measurement of performance there is. Is your’s double digit? Why not?
For instance: Card Counters go through all that training and all that work in an attempt to achieve a 1/2% P.A. To me, that is waitress change.
I’m sure Dave can verify this: If a perfect card counter, playing to his perfect 1/2 % P.A. bet the same number of units we did, 211, he would have ended up with a profit of 1 unit with perfect play. We won 55 units.
Or to put it another way, a 26% P.A. is 5200% better than perfect card counting. Do the math.
Ellis love you like a big brother-but I’ll tell you exatly how they changed streaky shoes to choppy. Old school streaky shoes-all 8 decks washed in ONE pile.Now in vegas I’ve seen ZERO washed ONE deck at a time put in black box.TWO decks washed at once stuck in black box and for your netrual pleasure-FOUR decks washed togather and stuck in that little black box.So now they bring a box of preshuffled cards?Hellow from Jerry the homeless gambler.
And hello to you too Jerry. You are preaching to the choir when it comes to washes. I was being a little respectful of Dee’s newness to her position. I don’t think any player has put the effort in studying washes more than I have either in BJ or in Bac.
When I played BJ full time in AC my early morning ritual was to study the morning card prep at several target casinos. Most A.C. casinos have a manager in charge of the morning card prep. They consider it that important! With practice, I could tell whether they were going for random cards or what we used to call boxed card order clumping. If it was the latter, I avoided those casinos.
I played the random cards casinos because the morning cards were so perfectly random that you simply couldn’t lose if you played Basic Strategy head to head from first base with a 146 up as you lose progression. If another player sat in I simply went to the next table and started another head to head game. This is easy to do at 8 AM.
I always won my early morning sessions that way and those winnings became my bankroll for the day. Now you know the secret of how I beat A.C every day for 3 years. It wasn’t hard at all. You just had to know what you were doing. This BTW, in spite of the fact that every BJ book in the world tells you not to play new cards for the first two hours. B.S.! Those guys are writers, not players.
The same was true of Bac games where they used new cards out of 8 boxes every shoe. I was always the only player still at the table for the card prep.
A finger tips wash where you can see green felt down through the cards meant they were going for chop. A palms mesmerizing wash meant they were going for streak. They ALWAYS got what they were going for and I was always ready for them.
A casino can’t give an observant player like me that big an edge. We will take their money every time, as I’m sure Dee will eventually learn.
There is a whole lot more to being a pro than most players will ever realize. Always remember, there is no such thing as luck! – not in the long run – no pun intended.
Oh, and BTW: Witchygal just posted her trip report 2 days ago. Guess what? Her record held up for ONE day. Another brand new member already beat her record just yesterday and also posted his trip report. This sort of thing happens at BTC all the time.
We are getting winning NOR trip reports on a daily basis now. The guys love the new NOR manual with its sample games! I’m getting pages and pages of testimonials from long term players who say the new NOR manual is the best gaming manual ever written by anybody – including me.
I would like the mailing address and telephone number of the people offering The Nor system for sale
@Bob R – Go to BTC to contact Ellis.
beatthecasino.com
ellis_858@hotmail.com
901 405 1723
The Confidence Factor by Ellis
Back in the 80’s to get to Atlantic City from my house in Saratoga Springs, N.Y I took the New York Thruway to the Garden State Parkway to the Atlantic City Parkway. I was nearly always alone for this 4 hour drive through snow country. I remember one night the blizzard was so bad I couldn’t see the road signs let alone read them. No other cars on the road. Ha, I ended up in Philadelphia. Should have stayed there the night, but I didn’t.
The ’86 Buick: Fortunately it was a good snow car and got me there back in the late 80’s.
There was this spot on the Garden State where at night I could see the lighted casinos even though I was still 20 miles away. My heart always did a flutter at that first glimpse! And I wondered if that flutter would ever go away. I did not yet own the casinos but the war was in full fury.
The 88 Fiero: A one seater sports car. It got me there faster. The flutter started to go away.
The ’92 Lexus SC 400: Now I could roar down the highway in one of the fastest and most luxurious cars ever produced. My flutter was completely gone. It seemed to have transferred to the casino managers. They were starting to bar me here and there.
The ’94 Lexus SC 400: My doubts were completely gone. I already knew I was going to beat them before I walked in the casino. Any casino. So did they! And there wasn’t a damn thing they could do about it, ha, except bar me.
Today I drive a BMW Z3 coup in the Summer and a 4WD Nisson Murano in the Winter. Sort of a luxury SUV. All fear of casinos is completely gone. I welcome the challenge. Also, there are no blizzards in Arkansas. Ha, just Tornadoes.
My point?
Initial fear of casinos is both normal and good. They are invincible to the normal challenge players present. So we simply don’t challenge THEM. We would lose. We challenge OURSELVES. We challenge ourselves to ALWAYS find the easiest table in the casino to beat. We challenge ourselves to always maintain a -8 stop loss. We challenge ourselves to quit at our goals. We challenge ourselves to play OUR way and not follow the hoard – they lose!
Once you learn to always do those things that make you win, your flutters will go away. They will be replaced by confidence.
Pa 26%
I have just finished another session online with NOR, another good winning $7,000 with starting BR of $1,000. Unit size varies: $25, $50, $75. So no doubt on NOR and it is a truly winning Bac system. Anyway, this is not what am going to share in this thread. You can read my experience in thread “NOR Strike Online” in the NOR forum.
This session, I did something different, after watching the Vegas video on youtube when Ellis talked about Player Advantage in the 6 shoes in the previous workshop. I should SALUTE Master Ellis in getting the 26% PA. Why ? Coz when I tried to achieve that, it is not easy, and only average half on that between 10-12%. That’s the difference with 30 years experiences and 3 years experience (me) :reface:
When am striving for 26% PA instead of focusing on +10, +20 Goal, this is some of the finding I think will be beneficial for all :
1. Always keep you in lower bet and rarely go out of the -8u range.
2. Bet less and get more, in other word, the return is better with lower risk.
3. You know how well you really stick with NOR and improve your skill by looking at the 26% Goal.
I am not sure if you can monitor this easily through a score card, as I am using an excel sheet since I am playing online, and it is pretty easy for me to key in the unit bet, winning bet, and the PA% is automatic calculated. This is another way to improve my game with less risk, as you can monitor your risk every hand.
I have two goals for each shoe now, +10u and PA26%, whichever come first depend on the shoe quality. Roughly I know in order to get there here is the simple formula in mind:
Winning Unit / Total Unit Bet = % PA
5 / 19 = 26%
8 / 30 = 26%
10 / 38 = 26%
15 / 57 = 26%
20 / 76 = 26%
As you can see here, if you can reach your winning unit goal with less bet, that means your can master NOR inside out, you match the correct system and use the right progression.
Maybe Ellis should share his experience more on this.
Cheers !
d0ma1n
NOR & SAP student
Thanks for sharing, Ellis …
Few players in the world have the happy combination of resources, discipline, persistence, and, yes, good fortune, to attain the level of confidence you have in playing.
The Master’s Circle is a very small one, and I am privileged to have played alongside you.
Wishing you a very happy and prosperous New Year 2012.
Dave
Thanks Dave, and the same to you and yours!
Hi d0main! 26% PA is a tough goal! In all liklihood it was a world Baccarat record for 6 consecutive shoes at 4 tables.
Hey Dave, who cares? It was a good time with good people, good play and good food! That’s the important thing!
It was kinda fun, wasn’t it!
Yes, it sure was fun!
ellis,just purchased your nor system. tried to log 0n to forum
but apparently had wrong log in and pass word. please advise me how to retrieve or enter user name and password. thanks
@Bob R – You can contact Ellis at the following:
beatthecasino.com
ellis_858@hotmail.com
901 405 1723
Hi Bob,
You would think I would know this stuff but I really don’t. Sometimes it takes a while before your log in is activated. But, if you are still having a problem go directly to the people who can fix it. Email Keith@beatthecasino.com Meanwhile, welcome to the group.
Hi Dave.. Great posts.. I recently began playing bac at rivers and was wondering if I could ever watch you play at Rivers sometime.. Just want to see the NOR method live in person. Thanks.
Hi john, I appreciate your request. Actually, I don’t play anymore. But I can put you in touch with another BTC member who plays at Rivers.
OK. That would be great if you could. Thanks.
Sure thing – I’ll email him with your contact info.
Thanks Dave, and the same to you and yours!
Sometimes I think it’s OK to have a little fun on there forums:
Originally Posted by tjfiles
C’mon Ellis,
You have us all chopping at the bit to learn more about your ideas on OvR Net Betting for Random Cards. And maybe some more tidbits about PvB as well, lol.
Right, I think it’s time to start a new thread on PvB NB so everyone thoroughly understands the difference but then I’m thinking the two can be merged and played together in the same shoe triggering off of the event you are betting under. I think Low Side Net Betting can play a role too because it it the best option for Strong Side situations. Possibly ADN as well.
Like NOR we would be employing multiple systems but with more similarity than the NOR systems. But switching would be mechanized so that we aren’t guessing. I think even shoe starts can be mechanized based on the pattern presented by the first 3 or 4 plays.
The whole idea is to take all the guesswork out of it so that everyone would play the same shoe the exact same way from the standpoint of which side you place your bet.
I think we should still have progression options so everyone can suit their own personal tastes from an aggression standpoint.
But, I also think we can get into more aggressive betting techniques like U1D2 or maybe even U1D1.
There is a nagging thing in system design I call entrapments. The designer MUST know how to avoid them. I see systems for sale all the time on the internet that contain this fatal flaw.
Nemesis are bad enough. They can cause you to lose a 3 or 4 bet progression. Entrapments are far worse. They are usually a repeating pattern that can cause you to lose ten or more bets in a row – in other words fatal errors in design.
The question I’m strugglinging with is: Is there a way to design switches that stave off all nemesis. I used to think this was mathematically impossible but now I’m not so sure. Ha, I used to also think it was impossible to design a system that beats all 3 run types. But now I have designed several that do just that.
If we had no nemesis why not bet more aggressively???
You know humans thought that traveling more than ten miles an hour would be fatal. Ha, of course sometimes it still is.
Then we thought the speed of sound was a fatal barrier.
Now we’ve moved the barrier up to the speed of light. And we aren’t too sure about that.
Ha, You know we send these cripted messages into outer space expecting a reply some day. I recently learned that one of the messages we send is the Fibonaci progression. What in hell are we thinking? That there are intergalactic Baccarat Players?
Ha, no, no. I assure you I’m quite sober at 3:30 A.M.
You know , I’ve been thing more and more about virtuoid’s excellent presentation on ‘The Law of small numbers‘.
The more I think about it the more I realize how well it explains the basis of NOR and why we win so often. There is a method to our madness after all.
Scamer’s nice play. A math teacher never believe statistics, shamed on him, because any system fails for a statistics test; shamed on the people blindly believe in this. He is their last straw.
Hmm, I seem to keep having “nice play”. It is foolhardy to “blindly believe” in anything. Correct, all purely mechanical systems eventually fail, just as I have said a million times. This is exactly why NOR is not a purely mechanical system. It is an approach to the game that begins upon entry into a casino. Observation and table selection are critically important. Not all games are beatable. Not even all casinos. Recognition of table trends is critically important. as is the absence of trends.
You sound like someone who has bought purely mechanical systems expecting some sort of mathematical miracle. Shame on you. If Baccarat were that easy there would be no casinos.
You should read this entire thread so you have some idea of what you are talking about. Baccarat takes work and study and practice – lots of it. This game is definitely not for everyone.
“Luck” is just a semantical term to conveniently explain statistical aberation. It is not some mystical force controlling the universe as many believe. Luck could explain some cardcounter’s occassional 0.5% ROI. It cannot explain a 26% ROI over 6 consecutive shoes. But skill CAN.
You need to know when to enter a game and perhaps even more important, when to exit. As Virtuoid may recall, at one point, I pulled his $25 bet back and said,”let’s leave”. Sure enough, Virtuoid noted we would have lost the bet. The trend we had just killed had ended. Luck? Perhaps. And perhaps not.
Virtuoid is obviously a highly skilled mathematician. Perhaps he could calculate the odds of achieving a 26% P.A.over 6 consecutive shoes??? Or maybe an educated guess???
My own comparatively feeble math attempt puts the odds at something less than 1 out of 4000 attempts ???
Ellis,
I don’t know how you arrived at 1 out of 4000 attempts.
The proper way to calculate it shows that your performance over the shoes I witnessed you play that weekend were well within the realm of simple chance.
First of all, you can’t base any calculation from the 26% P.A., because you used a progression. Rather, we need to consider your raw number of wins and total number of trials (bets). I had to consult my original scorecards, of which I have only the 5 games I played with you. In those 5 games, you scored an overall 26.4% P.A., so it is comparable to the overall 6 games I witnessed that weekend (one of which I only watched you play, the first game on Saturday evening).
In those 5 games, you won 74 out of 142 bets. This is an accuracy rate of 52.11%, where 50% is the expectancy.
Consulting a Laws of Chance Table, we see that for 50% expectancy and 150 trials, the range of results which is expected by chance is 59 to 91 at the confidence level of 1-in-100.
In other words, you would have had to win at least 92 out of 150 of your bets (61.3% accuracy rate) to give you 99% confidence that that result was not by chance, that only 1-in-100 such results would be due to chance.
Increasing the confidence level to 1-in-10,000 (99.99% confidence) would require you to win at least 99 out of 150 bets (66% accuracy rate).
And the gold level standard needed to qualify for scientific certainty is 1-in-1,000,000 (99.9999% confidence), which would require you to win at least 105 out of 150 bets (70% accuracy rate).
So, put in its proper perspective, your winning 74 out of 142 bets for an accuracy rate of 52.11% is completely within the range of what would be expected from a chance outcome and not at all remarkable from a statistical perspective.
Also, for full disclosure as I had described in my earlier reply to your continuing to bring up your performance that weekend, you really need to include your Friday night losses. For an honest and objective picture of your performance, you cannot only triumphantly trumpet your wins and conveniently hide your losses. That is the epitome of selective memory. I wasn’t there Friday night to document your losses, but others have told me the losses were substantial. Summed all together for the entire trip, your P.A. would be substantially less than 26%, and possibly even negative.
Dave
Ha, could be that Virtuoid happened to catch me on my lucky day. Er, I mean my lucky 2 days.
Well, I know better than to argue math with Dave.
In gambling the gold standard is 0.5% PA. This is the standard established by all the BJ card counting gurus combined and has been for many years. When a card counter does everything by the book but fails to achieve a 0.5% PA he is said to be on the negative side of the standard deviation. My problem with this is that ALL counters are on the negative side of the standard deviation. Which brings to question whether the card counting world (tens of thousands of players) really understands the concept of standard deviation.
I regularly achieve a double digit PA playing NBJ high stakes BJ. I did this again my last Vegas trip on a Fri and Sat night at Flamingo in front of many spectators from my seminar winning about 40 units. This was not that remarkable by my standards. My normal stop win is 100 units. I did this twice at the Taj inside of a half hour both times and in front of a very large audience both times and W/O ever betting more than $200 or less than $100, – the table min. THAT is what I would call remarkable. The card counting world admits that I did this because several watched me do it. They say it is impossible and therefore I cheated. I’ve been around this game for 30 years and have never figured out any way to cheat in BJ. Has anybody? I do know one way to cheat in Bac but it only produces a small advantage.
I regularly see Baccarat trip reports from my own students. Single game PAs above 20% are extremely rare. Out of thousands of games I think I could count those over 20% PA on my fingers. Full trip reports above 20% are non existent – not even close. Anything over 10% is considered excellent by me and impossible by others regardless of the game played.
In doing my own feeble math I did not look at the total hands played at all. I used 25% PA for a simple rough estimate. I did not look at the fact of progressions either but I do have more to say about that. To achieve 25% PA you need to win 2 units every 8 hands or 5 out of 8 hands. Whether you accomplished this in 8 hands or 80 hands makes no difference to me. 25% expressed fractionally is 1/4 or 1 out of 4. Never mind the fact that no one achieves a 25% PA 1 out of 4 shoes. Two shoes in a row would be 1/4 X 1/4, agreed? 3 in a row would be 1/4 X 1/4 X 1/4 or 1 out of 256 attempts. 6 in a row is 1 out of 4096 attempts. Therefore I concluded that 26% PA 6 times in a row is something less than 1 out of 4000 attempts assuming random cards. This would be bolstered by the fact that I have never seen or heard of this ever being accomplished before or even anything remotely close to it. Card counters would laugh at the prospect.
Now, yes I read your explanation of the uselessness of progressions with interest and I totally agree with you. In a random situation your 3 bet has no more chance of winning than your 1 bet. This is why expert Baccarat players avoid random situations through table selection. We want to see a strong trend.
To take a simple example lets take a table recording 2 opposites for every repeat. (very common) A dumb player will bet repeats thinking that repeats must catch up to 50/50. And it eventually will over maybe a hundred shoes. But we play the game in single shoes. A much smarter player will bet opposites because that is what the table is producing. He recognizes that the card prep used is favoring opposites. How or why is really beside the point. What is, is. Any highly experienced dealer will tell you he can control such things to a large degree through the shuffle techniques he has been taught by the casino.
In fact when we did a practice play session at a Vegas dealer school recently the school owner asked me if we wanted streaky or choppy shoes because her dealers could supply either.
Recognize that I am greatly over simplifying reality. No pro Bac player would ever bet solely opposites. That would leave him defenseless against the occassional long run. He will bet mostly opposites but he will bet a repeat or two at stategic points.
If you look at the shoes we played together you will see they favored opposites with very few straight runs. They didn’t need to favor opposites by much. A little goes a long way. Likewise the system we played favored opposites but we did not bet opposites exclusively, just most of the time.
The same system in a streaky shoe we would have lost big time. But we would not have played S40. We would have played F which takes advantage of streak. Just as if opposites and repeats were running about equal we would have been playing OTB4L which takes advantage of balanced opposites vs repeats.
But back to the 3rd bet of a progression. Yes, it is 50/50 in a random situation. But it is not 50/50 when betting opposites in a shoe favoring opposites. Otherwise we would flat bet. But I do not know of a single flat bettor who consistently wins in either Bac or BJ, let alone a 26% PA. and I know some 4000 players. In fact I don’t know of a single flat bettor who is even a bottom line winner over time. Many have tried.
The reverse is true in BJ. Basic strategy performs best by far in random cards. This is why casinos see to it that the cards are NOT random. If they were, there would be no casinos. Basic Strategy alone would have put them out of business a long time ago.
In random cards the NBJ third base system has an extremely high win rate on your second bet for various reasons. This is why we advance from a 123 to a 134 to a 146. I have played the 146 up as you lose head to head for as long as 17 hours straight. Yes, you do lose the 6 bet once in a while but often far less than once per 8 deck shoe. I’ve gone hours W/O losing the 6 bet at all. And of course, every now and then you BJ on your 6 bet or get a very good double down. You not only need to know how to play but also when and more importantly when not to play. NBJ 3rd base very strongly tends to win every other bet. So it is not that hard to get to $21,000 with only a 50% hands won rate. Head to head keeps the cards random. 50% is not an unreasonable hands won rate in random cards wherein B.S. only achieves a 43% hands won rate in BJ overall.
Yes, Dave you have math prowess on your side. But I have experience on my side. Winning is not solely about math.
Ellis,
Regarding your calculation involving multiplying 1/4 six times to get 1 in 4096 as your estimate of the odds of getting 25% P.A. in 6 shoes, allow me to explain why your procedure is incorrect.
First, you are confusing two entirely different things, P.A. and odds. That is, you can’t equate 25% P.A. to 1/4 odds. 25% P.A. means that for every $1 dollar bet, you netted $0.25 profit. On the other hand, 1/4 means you have a 1 in 4 chance of getting a certain result (for example, flipping a fair coin twice and getting two heads in a row). So, equating 25% P.A. to 1/4 is equating apples to oranges.
Secondly, the reason why you must disregard progressions when calculating odds in a game like baccarat is, as you acknowledged, the size of your bet does not in any way affect the underlying odds of a decision.
For example, let’s say you bet only twice, and you make a $10 bet on the first decision and a $1,000,000 bet on the second decision. And let’s say you win both. Well, your P.A. would be 100%, since you doubled your money. But what are the odds of that happening? Simply 1-in-4 chances (or 25%), since you had a 50% chance of winning each decision. In fact, the odds that you had lost both bets, such that your P.A. is -100%, is also exactly the same 1-in-4 chances (or 25%), for the exact same reason.
So, we see in this example a couple of things, that
1) the size of your bet had nothing to do with the odds, and
2) your P.A. had nothing to do with the odds.
Rather, the odds of something happening depend only on the number of ways it can happen.
In the case of baccarat, the odds of winning (or losing) a decision is to a practically good approximation 50%, which is a good enough estimate when considering the situation on the basis of a single decision. (For the uninitiated, Banker has a tiny edge up on Player, but the slight difference becomes apparent only in the long run.)
So, to objectively answer the question, “What are the odds my results are due to my ability and not chance?”, you should take your results (number of times won in number of trials), and compare those numbers with how many times the same thing would happen by chance, something which can be calculated using binomial probability to obtain confidence levels and intervals, or straightforwardly determined by Monte Carlo simulations, the results of which are summarized in the kind of tables used to determine the values I quoted in my previous comment above.
Actually, this gives me an idea for a topic of a new post (if I can find the time to do it … so many possibilities, so little time!).
Dave
That was fast! I concede to your greater math dexterity which is a pleasure to behold. You know, when I converted 25% to 1/4 it did raise an eyebrow. I said “Could it really be that easy?” I should have listened to my inner thoughts.
BTW, I’ve got a math oddity you might enjoy if you’ve never seen it. I’ll post it on the other thread when I get a chance. Might be a few days. My calendar is full.
Thanks, Ellis,
Yes, I would enjoy seeing the math oddity you have, thanks.
Take your time.
Dave
Hi! I’ve been following your web site for a while now and finally got the courage to go ahead and give you a shout out from New Caney Texas! Just wanted to mention keep up the great job!
Thanks! Glad you enjoy it!
love the idea and would really like to see the NOR in person. i am in philadelphia and go to the local casino and would travel to AC. i have a counting system i have used and am up handsomely for the year but it is starting to slow down for me.
Baccarat is not BJ. Unfortunately there is no counting method that can create an advantage in Baccatat. It just seems to for a while because everything works half the time in a 50/50 game.
Ellis,
Ellis it is a bunch of horseshit! Baccarat can not be beat. You guys all end up divorced lonely in a game what is 50-50. You see what you want to see. All systems works for a while. Even an ape can win at baccarat. Con artist Ellis. You have no money left Ellis, IF you had you would look a bit better. You look like miserable gambler. LOL
Hi Tom,
The vast majority of people think I look pretty darn good for my age of 73. Most guess me at 10 or 15 or 20 years younger. I’m still a scratch golfer and play a mean game of 8 ball. I usually beat the kids. And my army uniform still fits perfectly.
Your opinion of my looks is going to sound extremely tainted to the many people who know me. You ruin your own credibility especially when you resort to name calling because you have nothing constructive to say.
Yes, the game odds ARE 50/50. But, in actual fact, the worldwide average player finds a way to lose at a far greater rate than the game odds together with the 1.25% commission would dictate.
The fact that there is a way to lose at a greater rate than the odds dictate points to the fact for any thinking person that there must be an opposite way to play that wins more than the odds would dictate.
That is the method I teach. But you must know how the game is presented and all games are not presented the same way.
While far easier than learning winning BJ, It is still difficult for some. Some quit as soon as they see that study and work are involved. But most of my students stick with it and become winning players. They are happy to talk about it and post their casino shoes.
One just posted his last 60 Vegas shoes. He won at a rate of 80% and his avg winning shoe was greater than his avg losing shoe.
Simple good luck? Perhaps. Sure, luck could explain a winning shoe or 2 or even 3. But can luck explain an 80% win rate over weeks of play? – and some of my students are at 90%.
But I’m sure you will find a way to explain that as well. Maybe you could call them names. Maybe that would help your cause. NOT!
“Well Tom, I’m not a professional but I’m quite certain that looks have nothing to do with Baccarat skills. I wonder why you even bring that up?
But at 73, Ellis is slim and trim and hotly admired by many women as some of the photographs here imply. Perhaps he looks a little rough because he is nearly twice the age of others photographed with him – and more than twice the age of some. But what difference does that make?
I don’t know but maybe the 6 shoes posted here that he won at a 26% PA was just a stroke of incredible luck. I don’t even know if that kind of luck is possible. I’ve never seen or even heard of such a thing myself.
But just how far does luck extend? Two of his students just posted a total of 76 shoes played consecutively in Vegas and CA in several casinos. They both played to an 80% shoe win rate yet their avg losing shoe was less than their avg winning shoe. Does luck explain that too? I don’t think so because it just keeps happening. This thread was not about the first or only time Eliis has done such a thing. Many of his students, including me, have watched him do it.
I called Ellis and asked if I could watch him play just as Virtuoid did. I was immediately invited to Sam’s Town Tunica where I met with Ellis, his son in law Thurstle, and Ann who has been with Ellis since 1994. I remember everything that happened including a black Lexus SC400. Ellis and Thurstle played exactly alike while Ann explained what they were doing. An hour or so and maybe 3 shoes later, they play very fast, they both suddenly quit, up a total of exactly 140 units. Then Ellis treated us all to dinner and drinks at their finest restaurant.
Once Ellis is in the game he is all business. He is in his element. The win came as no surprise to anyone including the dealer and pit boss, who all know him along with many of the players. This is just an everyday occurrence for Ellis. He does what we all wish we could do. He plays Bac and BJ professionally.
And you know what, no one mentioned a thing about the win. There was no bragging, no sales pitch, no strings. It was purely an invitation to watch him play. Nothing more, nothing less – just as he did with Virtuoid and countless others.
But learning does require some intelligence and some work. Which reminds me – check your grammar.”
Dear Dave,
Thank you for sharing the baccarat information to us. Your dedications to helping people understand this game is greatly appreciated.
I wonder if the NOR system is difficult to play. I am worried about when to choose what method to play.
Regards,
Prajna
Thanks, Prajna,
No, NOR is not difficult to play, but like any other baccarat system or method, it does not win in the long run.
Hope that helps,
Dave
Dave, please accept my sincere thank you for your prompt reply to my question.
You are saving my $600.00!!
May God bless you and your family abundantly.
Regards,
Prajna
Thank you, Pranja,
To you and your family, too.
Dave
Dave,
I’m shocked at your statement that NOR does not win in the long run. Have you played NOR, according to all the rules and guidance shared amongst players on the NOR forum, for “the long run?”. I am profitable with NOR — the long run — no, not yet — only for the last 3 1/2 years! My winning shoes over that time are at 78%, and I see no reason why this can’t continue to move up, as it has for the last couple years.
You make such a strong statement that at least some of your readers (Prajna) blindly by into, even though it conflicts with the REAL WORLD results of regular players.
Way2fast
Way2fast, I wish you the very best of continued luck.
As for me, I’ve decided that my time and resources are better spent elsewhere. 🙂
Happy New Year, Dave!! Hope all is well with you and your family!!
Do you happen to have a copy of this “baccarat attack strategy” please?
Thank you very much.
Thanks, and to you, too!
No, I don’t have a copy of that one. I assure you, though, it cannot win long term.
Thank you very much, Dave, for your kind and prompt response!!
Well, NOR is first and foremost a table selection process. It does not apply to areas like Chicago where there is virtually no table selecton. Unfortunately, that is where virtuoid played. I cannot perform miracles – neither can virtuoid.
Among areas with adequate table selection are Atlantic City, CT, NY, some of PA, Las Vegas, some of CA, Tunica MS, some of Florida, and the Gulf Coast – But certainly not Chicago. That is like a guy living in the Andies saying golf is impossible!
Right, the 3 basic systems that comprise NOR are easy to learn – a couple days. The 2 Modes, another couple days. Then the real work starts: how do you know which table to play and which system to play at that table?
I can walk down a casino isle of ten tables W/O breaking stride and tell you the most biased table in that casino, which system to play and which Mode to play or if we should change casinos. So can my experienced students. But that takes time to learn. Along the way you learn many tricks of the trade.
For instance: When virtuoid and I played Atlantic City, I already knew which casino to play and which system to play before we ever got there. Two of my students had already cased the whole city. They had dinner with us that night BTW. It helps tremendously to have many player friends like we all do at BTC. It is a team effort and it usually prevails. Ask anyone there.
I agree
Ellis is a loser at baccarat. Last 4D seminar he lost a lot. And doesn’t want to pay his taxes. Tisk tisk.
True, I had a bad night Sat night. Sunday and Monday were much better.
This serves to demonstrate two rules I always profess:
Never play on Saturday – no table selection.
Only play when you are in peak condition.
No one my age can be in peak condition after conducting an 8 hour standup seminar all day.
Unfortunately, Saturday is the pnly day most can make it to a live play session. Nevertheless I have vowed never to play on Saturday again for any reason. It is suicidal and against my better judgement.
But you yourself teach me another lesson: Be careful who is listening in on your private conversations. Yes, I was trying to get some tips from the tax expert during the coffee break. I pay hundreds of thousands in taxes but I’m no expert.- He WAS. Getting advice from an expert isn’t cheating, it is a duty.
But I don’t see how this is any concern of yours or why you would post such a remark publically. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Shame on you. We trust our members to be confidential. We’re usually right about that. – but obviously not always.
Hi everyone. Thanks for sharing and helping us to learn more about playing Baccart.
After spending time during the last months, trying to learn as much as possible and running some code (and building some apps), i dare to ask some questions.
-Virtuoid, do you play Baccarat still? And could i ask which method?
– Would it be possible to use a smartphone at a Bac table to track the outcomes instead of scorecard?
I have made some apps that help to play strictly by the rules… thinking it as a way to avoid fear and greed to wreck one’s play.
Thanks again!
CheEsteban,
Regarding your questions:
-Virtuoid, do you play Baccarat still? And could i ask which method?
No, I have not played baccarat for many years. The best method for long term profitability is: Do not play! 😉
– Would it be possible to use a smartphone at a Bac table to track the outcomes instead of scorecard?
I don’t know about other countries, but most casinos in the U.S. prohibit the the use of devices, including phones, at the table. They don’t even allow you to make a cell-phone call at the table. If they allow you to use smart phones where you play, I think it would be a great idea to use it instead of paper for recording the game. Just remember that no matter what kind of statistics or charting you perform, unfortunately, it cannot help you overcome the odds in the long run.