Baccarat Proof that Jae's OG System is Validated

Why should I do that when the rules came out like dripping thru a sieve. I had to get it wrong so that you guys would tell me the next rule. BTW, you said you would not give me the rules early on. I programmed you too.

 

I did this this way to show people the programming process. It's layers and layers of capabilities. I thought it would be fun to show others the learning and therefor programming process. You think I didn't know that I didn't know the rules of the OG? I knew I had to get someone to verify the rules. Geez. You must think I'm stupid. Don't you get it yet. I'm not afraid to start out ignorant of the process, knowing that if I apply myself I will get what I want. And I did. I got you to expose your method. Now it's been power tested and it just looks bad.

 

I think both of you are very smart but only one is right this is a great debate please continue

 

I agree, the Vig looks totally wrong. It can't go from +300,000 to -100,000.

What matters is once -20 is reached that the real bets are right.

 

So you’re saying that it’s off just on the virtual count but after that, the count is correct? Hmmm.

 

I'm saying that it get all messed up around the +1 reset but once it goes down to the negative side it tries to get the last part of the virtual bets right.

I'm saying it might be. The damn program is taking way too much Vig out. It has to be. I just have to find that one line in the code that is doing this.

 

You act like you have manipulated me somehow into giving you information that I hold secret. I originally said I’m not going to hold your hand through this process. I point out your mistakes and encourage you to do this properly, that’s not manipulating me. You don’t have to rely on anyone spoon feeding you information, there are no secrets here.

At times I really want to give you credit and say that you aren’t stupid, because you aren’t stupid, but you just approach certain things with so much back and forth and narcissistic biased bullshit, that it damages your credibility, but you don’t see that nor will you probably ever even grasp that. Take your time man, choose your words better.

You aren’t stupid, but you can do better.

 

It’s okay to start out ignorant, and if you think that makes you smarter for a useless attempt at manipulation, it doesn’t. Starting out ignorant is fine, continuing to be ignorant in the process is questionable, ending it ignorantly is just ignorance in general.

If you think errors in your programming code and posting a few examples with your errors is power testing, well... okay.

Back a page ago when you were saying that the method worked and that it would work on anything. Well, I have to assume that since you’re so back and forth at the moment that you might not agree with your own statement anymore, but if for some reason you end up believing that, don’t.

OG will not work on roulette. Someone may get lucky in the short to midterm with a well funded bankroll, they may even be able to do really well with the increased money management approach that I use, but it’s too dangerous of a game to perform it on.

Ultimately, I’m sure your end game here is to try and discredit me (which I really don’t care), but then admit that you see potential in OG, especially when you combine it with RR. That’s been my speculation since the beginning, I’m just waiting on your public pitch.

And if your selection process really did win more than 50% of the time, then I doubt there would be a better system fir it than OG, but since I don’t believe in your RR strategy, I think it suffers to the house edge along with any other bet selection, so roulette wouldn’t be a good game to utilize OG on.

 

No. I acted like a person that was just going to barge ahead even if I got it wrong. I suspected that you would take an interest and try to set me on the right course. It's all here in this thread. People can read it from the beginning. I had to go out and find some wiki crap and start from there.

Anyway it's the most fascinating system that I have ever attempted to program. I must admit that my AI project for RR and Double Dozen betting was the most difficult. But this thing has me all confused. There is no way 300,000 becomes -100,000. It's got to be a coding error. I'll find it. This is how software is developed. People go over other people's code as a common practice. I'm just debugging and writing on my own. All I have are you guys to point out the trouble. If I spend a lot of time on it I can get the starting parts of the areas around the
+1 and zero all fixed in the virtual bets.

 

Let me make everything more clear. When I started out as a mountain climber I was dumb and stupid and got away with beginner mistakes. I still risked my life. Make a fool out of myself trying to write an application is in no way life threatening. If it can't kill me then I will go there. You should try going on stage without a prepared show. That's a mind blower.

Geez. We are a bunch of gambling enthusiasts sitting around shooting the shit. I'm just working on a programming problem and trying to avoid "garbage in - garbage out." Please don't take any of the back and forth personally.

 

Now who's being an idiot? I would think that you could apply this to any coin flip type of betting.

No? OK wise guy. Please explain how you think that is true. We can all listen while I search for the issue with the Vig.

 

Wrong again. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of OG. You are far too important of a person to go after.

 

Wrong again. And you don't look that bad for being it. I already explained that RR works best with small bet big bet and good timing. OG is baby steps to big steps and a ton of wasted moves.

 

Imagine a mountain climber publicly announcing he is going to climb a mountain... the public is interested. He makes this announcement because he wants to show if it can or can’t be done. The public gives him tips along the way so that he understands how to climb the mountain. The mountain climber claims that he has climbed the mountain and it can be done, but then he backtracks and says he was wrong, that it can’t.

Point is, it’s okay if he has or hasn’t climbed the mountain, but either way, he shouldn’t claim that he has when he hasn’t. Going back and forth on that destroys his credibility.

The simple and best approach is to only admit that you’re still climbing, still figuring out how to and hold off your opinions and results of the climb until you have actually achieved it.

 

Wrong assumption again. I have clearly stated that with RR you can lose all the expected bets that the math suggest that you should lose and still come out way ahead. You just pay little to nothing during losing streaks. Course that takes skill.

 

thanks for the peanut gallery advice.

 

This is all good great minds do not think alike, this is good because i want to give my system out but i feel like i am not worthy, i can tell that Jae is no one to debate because dude has game . Giz you are real in your testing that is why this is the real deal, love the Battle, i have a system that makes a low unit a day profit and you guys are way out of my league, i will donate but man i am a little older then you studs but what you are doing is what every one should respect

 

None of this BS matters. I'm deliberately programming and debugging in plain sight. This is exactly how I wanted this thread to go. It's the substance of the matter that counts, not the method of delivery. Usually everything is understood about what to program up front. But this time I had to pull teeth and be liked for it. Who cares if I'm an asshole and you are a saint? For you it's downhill from here. And all I can do is stay at the bottom or go up. You are the one high on your perch. I'm a crazy dumb-shit that can't see how much harm I'm doing to myself. Meanwhile I have more code to debug.

 

I suspect that Jae and I are a lot alike. I would not waste my time if he didn't stand up for himself.

 

because EC in roulette is what... 47.4%?

that means in an infinite testing simulation, no matter what EC you are betting on, it can spiral into a drawdown that won’t ever recover. Even in the short term, that small percentage plays heavily into the drawdowns you’ll see. A 2,000 unit bankroll playing banker in baccarat will survive longer than a 10,000 unit bankroll in roulette. This is an educated guess on my part, but you have the ability to actually test it if you choose.

Another educated guess would be that a 2,000 unit bankroll betting banker would survive more times than a 5,000 unit bankroll betting player.

The comment I made that originally inspired you to code this was that I said in infinite trials, banker will always recover a grind. ALWAYS. And I believe I followed that up saying that while it will always recover, it doesn’t mean I will. I have a stop loss limit, and even if I didn’t, in an infinite trial run, I’m sure at some level of millions of simulations that a series would go well beyond the table limits. I’m not trying to fight the biggest drawdown. It’s not the holy grail that survives everything. But I will make more than I lose, and that’s as close to perfection in my eyes that any method will offer.