System Scammer of the Week?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CIPHER

Member
ScottH said:
Hey Cipher, what starting bankroll do you recomend for your system to work? And how much is a session bankroll?

I downloaded the progam, and I didn't see where the correct wager to be bet was displayed.
Click to expand...
For those who use the CIPHER program. The program (when opened) will default to OASIS CASINO & SPORTSBOOK. The reason I have the program default to that casino is that the wager window at OASIS is $0.05 to $1,000.00 with the ability to split and double down as many as four times.

Additionally OASIS has the only software that I know of on the Internet that allows you to select to play for real or play money on a hand for hand basis without getting in and out of the system.

To answer your question I don't like to see any player play at an online casino with less than $1,000.00 on account and a $1,000.00 can go a long ways with the aforementioned advantages that OASIS offers.

BEFORE ANYONE SUGGESTS THAT I'M ON THE PAYROLL IN ANYWAY OF OASIS CASINO I'M NOT AND OASIS PAYS ME NOTHING FOR HAVING THE CIPHER PROGRAM DEFAULT TO OASIS.

Have a good one.

Cipher
 
QFIT

QFIT

Well-Known Member
I took a look at the site. Frankly, it doesn't make sense to me. First, if you could actually see the effects of flaws in the RNG and make any AP plays based on those flaws, then the casino software should go on a list of the worst software ever developed. And this claim contradicts everthing else on the site. Secondly, if the casino software is designed to cheat, then it would not make sense that you could beat it through sensing patterns and changing bets. Since you make a bet before the casino deals the cards, the casino would simply change the cards. Thirdly, every scam system built uses the same language of 'trend analysis.' Use of terms like dealer yield, switchbacks, triggers, etc sounds straight out of past progression nonsense. Reminds me of the "Turnaround" system of ten years ago.

None of the above proves that this is a scam. But the contradicting claims of flawed RNGs, trends and cheating don't jive.
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
Norm, what about... "CRACKPOT"?

It reminds me of the flawed theories of Patterson and Grant and Boris that alledge that real world shuffling procedures and pick-up procedures create similar suppossed non-random trends and clumps that can be exploited.

I am thus far unconvinced.

Norm, what about CIPHER's play-logs/videos that he's hanging his hat on - are they of sufficient trial length to have statistical validity? zg

Ps - Instead of "scammer", "developer", or "promoter", maybe I should use the term "CRACKPOT"?
 
Last edited:
Liquid Chips

Liquid Chips

Well-Known Member
zengrifter said:
Ps - Instead of "scammer", "developer", or "promoter", maybe I should use the term "CRACKPOT"?
Click to expand...
Come on, Zen. I know Cipher a little bit and he isn't a scammer or crackpot. He makes quite a bit of money just doing the blackjack games and doesn't need anyones money. If you approach his claims and website with a critical but open mind and just try it out, I think you will see the value of the software which is free for the Visual Basic version.

For people who have "been there, done that", bought books and tapes and courses, attended seminars for years but only to be left disappointed by it all tend to be too critical and/or expect too much when something that does indeed help comes along.

Playing blackjack, online or land-based, doesn't lend itself to be pinned down to a strictly scientific approach....there is still an element of art to be able to interpret what you see or experienced in prior hands. The Cipher software is a very good tool to use in interpreting the blackjack session you're playing right then, in my opinion.
 
KenSmith

KenSmith

Administrator
Staff member
I've had several people ask my opinion of this thread, where I've stayed quiet until now. I think QFIT expressed my opinion better than I could have myself.

So... Ditto what he said.
 
C

CIPHER

Member
zengrifter said:
It reminds me of the flawed theories of Patterson and Grant and Boris that alledge that real world shuffling procedures and pick-up procedures create similar suppossed non-random trends and clumps that can be exploited.

I am thus far unconvinced.

Norm, what about CIPHER's play-logs/videos that he's hanging his hat on - are they of sufficient trial length to have statistical validity? zg

Ps - Instead of "scammer", "developer", or "promoter", maybe I should use the term "CRACKPOT"?
Click to expand...
Seems to me that there are an awful lot of purported Blackjack experts on this site with an awful lot of opinion but not much green.

But you know what they say about opinions... they're an awful lot like assholes... everybody's got one. One would surely think that all you experts could go get together and scratch up enough green to either put up or shut up. Either that or you just don't know what the hell you're talking about.

My green is in INTERCASINO and I'm just waiting to see if any of you clowns have got the balls to take me on.

Have a good one.

Cipher
 

Attachments

S

ScottH

Well-Known Member
CIPHER said:
My green is in INTERCASINO and I'm just waiting to see if any of you clowns have got the balls to take me on.

Cipher
Click to expand...
And the plot thickens...

I am willing to contribute some money if we formed a team of players to come up with the money. That is provided that the betting terms be changed a bit. The number of hands would need to be increased, probably significantly from 1750. If anyone knows how many hands would need to be played to show any meaningful results, please chime in. So those who are interested in this little "test", let me know.
 
QFIT

QFIT

Well-Known Member
500,000,000 hands should do it. My advice is to avoid such "challenges." I've seen these discussed many times in the past and no one is ever happy with the outcome. Avoid them particularly when they are couched in terms like "asshole" and phrases like "put up or shut up" or "if any of you clowns have got the balls." See http://www.blackjack-scams.com/html/prog__systems.html for my comments on empirical evidence.

Just my opinion.
 
S

ScottH

Well-Known Member
QFIT said:
500,000,000 hands should do it. My advice is to avoid such "challenges." I've seen these discussed many times in the past and no one is ever happy with the outcome. Avoid them particularly when they are couched in terms like "asshole" and phrases like "put up or shut up" or "if any of you clowns have got the balls." See http://www.blackjack-scams.com/html/prog__systems.html for my comments on empirical evidence.

Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
Well, we could simulate 1 billion hands of flat-betting the minimum(what I would do in this bet), verses his "system". I have a feeling "Cipher" isn't going to accept this one, since his system depends on short-term results! How about it Cipher!
 
C

CIPHER

Member
QFIT said:
500,000,000 hands should do it. My advice is to avoid such "challenges." I've seen these discussed many times in the past and no one is ever happy with the outcome. Avoid them particularly when they are couched in terms like "asshole" and phrases like "put up or shut up" or "if any of you clowns have got the balls." See http://www.blackjack-scams.com/html/prog__systems.html for my comments on empirical evidence.

Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
No QFIT, I think you're looking for the phrase: "AVOID AT ALL COST, LEST I GET RIPPED A NEW ONE AND LOOSE ALL MY BONUS MONEY FOR NEXT THREE YEARS." :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

By the way the only thing that'll change about the deal is that I'll personally invite Jerry Patterson to observe the whole process.

I'll say one thing about Jerry Patterson, if this same challenge was issued to him, you can bet he'd take me up on it. He might loose the bet but he'd at least give me a damn run for my money. You guys are nothing but a bunch of pathetic ten cent juveniles.

Have a good one.

Cipher
 
S

ScottH

Well-Known Member
CIPHER said:
No QFIT, I think you're looking for the phrase: "AVOID AT ALL COST, LEST I GET RIPPED A NEW ONE AND LOOSE ALL MY BONUS MONEY FOR NEXT THREE YEARS." :cry: :cry: :cry:

By the way the only thing that'll change about the deal is that I'll personally invite Jerry Patterson to observe the whole process.

I'll say one thing about Jerry Patterson, if this same challenge was issued to him, you can bet he'd take me up on it. He might loose the bet but he'd at least give me a damn run for my money. You guys are nothing but a bunch of pathetic ten cent juveniles.

Have a good one.

Cipher
Click to expand...
This looks like the beginning of the end of this little discussion. Betting systems can't hold up to a billion hand simulation, so cipher wont accept that. And on the other side, I don't think anyone wants to bet 5000 on 1750 hands.

And btw cipher, personally attacking your critics doesn't make your argument any stronger, it's a fallacy! :)
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
CIPHER said:
No QFIT, I think you're looking for the phrase: "AVOID AT ALL COST, LEST I GET RIPPED A NEW ONE AND LOOSE ALL MY BONUS MONEY FOR NEXT THREE YEARS." :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

By the way the only thing that'll change about the deal is that I'll personally invite Jerry Patterson to observe the whole process.

I'll say one thing about Jerry Patterson, if this same challenge was issued to him, you can bet he'd take me up on it. He might loose the bet but he'd at least give me a damn run for my money. You guys are nothing but a bunch of pathetic ten cent juveniles.

Have a good one.

Cipher
Click to expand...
Speaking of Patterson, will the CIPHER system work for real-world card games - BJ (and Bacc)? Or is it strictly for the suspicious RNGs? zg
 
C

CIPHER

Member
ScottH said:
This looks like the beginning of the end of this little discussion. Betting systems can't hold up to a billion hand simulation, so cipher wont accept that. And on the other side, I don't think anyone wants to bet 5000 on 1750 hands.

And btw cipher, personally attacking your critics doesn't make your argument any stronger, it's a fallacy! :)
Click to expand...
Fallacy or not look who's backing down full. You'd be much better suited in the Actuary field than the Gambling field because in real everyday life millions and billions of hands means absolutley nothing. Give Micheal Skackelford a call in Las Vegas. You never know he just might be looking for an apprentice wannabe.

I'll see what I can do to get this thread memorialized by google and the other search engines so that your combined cowardice does not go unnoticed for a long time to come.

Have a good one.

Cipher

By the way, thanks to all for the bump in traffic yesterday.
 

Attachments

S

ScottH

Well-Known Member
CIPHER said:
Fallacy or not look who's backing down full. You'd be much better suited in the Actuary field than the Gambling field because in real everyday life millions and billions of hands means absolutley nothing. Give Micheal Skackelford a call in Las Vegas. You never know he just might be looking for an apprentice wannabe.

I'll see what I can do to get this thread memorialized by google and the other search engines so that your combined cowardice does not go unnoticed for a long time to come.

Have a good one.

Cipher

By the way, thanks to all for the bump in traffic yesterday.
Click to expand...
If millions and billions of hands mean nothing, then what would 1750 hands mean!

And who said I am backing down? I will accept your challenge if we run a 1 billion hand simulation of your system vs flat-betting the minimum. After a few 35 hands sessions, even a martingale player is likely to be ahead, but not after a billion hands he wont be! So if you're willing to put your "system" to a billion hand test, let me know. Or are you the one being a coward?
 
Liquid Chips

Liquid Chips

Well-Known Member
It is extremely hard to program a computer to do pattern recognization which humans can do well at a glance. There are many factors that are nearly impossible to program. That is why humans regularly do well against the computer in chess, for example. Like I wrote earilier, playing blackjack is more art than science. That is why it is hard to do this "billion hand" simulation with Cipher's software.
 
Sonny

Sonny

Well-Known Member
Liquid Chips said:
It is extremely hard to program a computer to do pattern recognization which humans can do well at a glance.
Click to expand...
But isn't that what Cipher's software does? If not, then isn't it just like keeping track of your sessions with a pencil and paper?

-Sonny-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top