Baccarat Proof that Jae's OG System is Validated

Listen guys i am an older dude in 60s not sure what is real and what is not, when i see( founder) under name i think this guy is under some flag within this web site, i did not even know about computers until in my late 30s no BS i am old time math guy and not sure who to believe any more but i give the most respect to the proper people that try to tell the truth, this is the only site i ever had any real dealing with and boy was i dumb as shit, i have no social media back ground no face book, twitter, nothing, only reason i am on here was pandemic sorry if i made bad statement towards anyone, i have listen to some people and formed opinion but am wrong so sorry, i am a true BAC player and i do what i do but i guess i am the one that is dumb as sheet sorry for bad statements that i have made, Jae i know the game upside down i can promise you that, if i offended you sorry, jimske you seem real thats why i reached out

 

OK I have solved one more step on the Vig issue.

I added two charts to show how each 100 series test run has end data for that test. Each line in the two pictured text windows on the right represents one 100 seris test. I ran 20 of those and then added up both.

The list on the left is a list of totals added up for the wins or losses without taking the Vig out.

The list farthest right is a corresponding, line for line, of the vig for each 100 series test.

As you can see, the Vig is a bigger number than the wins without taking out the Vig.

So I need to run a few more tests, but it looks like the sim does the math right and the Vig is much bigger than believed.

 

From one old guy to another...No problem don't worry about it. Your baccarat knowledge is very welcome here.

 

In these 26 hands, the bets are still programmed wrong.
I can list it out how it should be if you want. I tallied up the commission and based on these 26 hands, the commission is $100.

 

Fortunately and unfortunately, you’re also surrounded by a bunch of people who also claim to know the game inside out. I take no offense to what you said or what most people say. You’re just as welcome to your opinions as anyone else and I like that you have a method that you try and teach, it interests me, but I just have no idea what you are taking about.

 

Jae do you mean my betting system when you say no idea?

 

Correct.

While it may not seem trivial to you when you describe it, everyone with a system or a method generally has their own way of describing it. Some are easy to understand when the rules of it are similar to other methods, but yours (while easy to understand for you because you are the creator) come off pretty difficult for others. No offense, but you aren’t very good at laying it out in terms that most people can follow along with. And since you almost always put out little pieces here and there and I guess expect people to put it all together, it’s just pretty confusing. I’m typically pretty good at picking things up, but your instructions are too confusing.

I think I speak on behalf of a lot of members here that I wish you would essentially start over with your explanation and detail it more in layman terms in one take. But that ultimately falls on you if you want the common member to understand. If not, then basically a bunch of people including myself will just continue to be confused.

And also, I thank you for contributing, whether it’s a winning method or losing, it’s still appreciated. Your time and your efforts, sir.

 

Yes, i get it, i was going to post, start new thread but got caught up in this garbage, thinking about who is real and who is not

 

Again, several people would appreciate hearing your method. If you do decide to break it down, take your time with it. Teaching can be hard sometimes because we forget that the student isn’t always on the same page.

I think you fall into that category of dropping a series if letters/numbers/words that most people aren’t familiar with. I see things like oe1 mmu and am totally clueless. Your method doesn’t fall into the common baccarat lingo that most of us are used to seeing and understanding. To learn your lingo, I think most of us need a better breakdown or description of all the details. You may not like the feedback, but you’ll usually only get negative feedback whenever it’s either not understood or proven that it doesn’t perform better than most common failing methods.

There are members on here that may help assist you into detailing it if you want to talk to someone one on one. Even my email is open. They might be able to understand what you’re conveying and be able to help explain it better to everyone else once they fully understand.

 

Yes but every time i post there is some azz that will not let me finish like i am this moron that does eieieio shit and i get offended because i never had a full chance to explain

 

You have a full chance to explain every time you start. Write it in a word processor or notes program. Complete it, look it over, check for errors, post it once it’s complete. If it’s complete and understandable, then you might get criticisms or compliments, you’ll probably get questions. But it’s pretty easy peasy brotha.

 

Nobody likes to be made fun of, but you’ve been in this world long enough to see every type of person there is. And when a comment you don’t like comes from someone with “punk” in their name, I mean... did you expect something different. And honestly, I’m sorry to say this and push the blade in further, but when punk city did say that eieio shit I actually laughed out loud. It may have been the funniest comment I’ve ever read on the board.

But I wouldn’t take it too personal, he’s a good dude, most people are good dudes on here. It would be a pretty dull experience if we weren’t bustin each other’s balls from time to time.

 

I'm not to worried about the virtual section much because of the reset at +1 that occurs several times. The fact that it reaches the trigger at -20 is what is important. I'm a little suspicious of the adjustment to reach exactly -20. It resets and uses that reset value for the first real bets. There shouldn't be any commission, if commission means Vig in the first 26 virtual bets. Now if commission means the first level bet at +1 then that will need explaining.

" I tallied up the commission and based on these 26 hands, the commission is $100"

Virtual bets don't pay Vig.

 

this is my bread and butter, it is what pays my bills so when i started to break it all down it gets me going to the point of why even bother it takes many steps to explain, and when i try there is some idiot calling out things that they have no idea of what is happening

 

So then , are we only able to see the hands that lead up to the trigger, since I can’t see any hands after that, I don’t actually know if the program is running correctly it tallying the big correctly.

basically, if you say banker totals +$100,000 but the commission is -$385,000, I won’t be able to confirm the actual bets then, correct?

 

The obvious reason for my concern is that if I see mistakes in the preliminary section, the lines I can visually see, I can accept your explanation that there are some flaws in the bottom portion, but it appears that I cannot observe any flaws afterwards.

 

Jae this is done through math not anything else, when you look at structure there is only 1 that can beat me ,it is one play that can win within 1 line, sometimes you will get 1 out of 4 but most hits at 50%which is simple math 2 out of 4

 

Well, as to where it currently stands. You have genuinely interested people in your method. No one is going to make you explain it in layman terms. But they will most definitely call things out when they are confused. Especially when you make it confusing. In your original thread, you were continually making mistakes in your explanation. Popping in here and there, apologizing and correcting things, but talking in a manner than most people cannot understand. If you want to share it, then just simply do it in one take. If you chop it up into a bunch of different segments, you are going to get criticism and jokes at your expense. And you appear to be headstrong, so you are taking it personally and then shying away from your explanations.

I mean, you do you, I was just trying to help and point out a most likely general consensus.

 

Every decision in this game is just about 50%.

but slow down... if you are trying to explain your method to me, we have to back up.

so you are taking a random game and applying structure to it. I get that.

you have 7 columns.... but now I’m lost. If I simply present a shoe to you, can you break it down for us?

 

But maybe we should move this over to your thread as to not hijack gizmo.