Originally Posted by
J-Gilbs
Wow. This just keeps getting better and better each day. Kyle... I mean Christopher, can’t stop lying to the point that he’s painting himself in so many corners. In the comments from the video on the strip someone asked him why he needed a borrowed bankroll if he was a millionaire. His response was “I wasn’t a millionaire at the time” which flys in the face of two things he’s said over and over. 1) Never gamble money you can’t afford to lose/ is for something else. 2) He is an entrepreneur with multiple streams of income.
I also have to add my 2 cents here on this. I’ve watched a lot of Christopher Mitchell’s videos and realized that you can bust his “strategies” pretty easily using math.
First he claims he uses Martingale. The thing about martingale is, no matter how deep you go (5, 8, 12 times) you only “win” 1 unit. If you go to his “rare” 6 martingales, you only win 1 betting unit.
Win#1- $3425 in 75 minutes at Hollywood Casino in Ohio. 5 tables.
He says he was making $100 bets. With $100 bets using his betting system that’s 34 wins. That’s a win every 2.2 minutes. That’s not counting joining a game, getting asked for a players card, waiting for people to cash in/ out, waiting for the pit to verify a buy in, checking the score boards when changing tables to be sure the shoe hasn’t changed, or the phone call to his wife. Doesn’t seem to work out.
Win#2 - Golden Nugget Las Vegas over $20K
He said it was a streak of 21 in a row. He said it was a table that was $15 - $2000 min/ max bet. Using Martingale, the most he could be betting per-hand ,while sticking to his “6 loses” technique, was $50 ($50 at 6 martingales is $1600, table limit was $2000). Well, $50 x 21 is $1050. Quite a far cry from $20K+. In fact, the only way he could have made $20K+ on a $2000 max bet table with 21 wins in a row was to bet $1000 a hand, which wouldn’t be possible with his own strategy, because if he lost 2 in a row, he couldn’t recoup his bet.
His own wins are not possible using his own system, which means he is either lying, or not using his own systems. Either way, winner or not, using his own systems under those exact same circumstances will not get you the same wins he is boasting.
Now this is from his official Baccarat Strategy PDF (that he actually charges people for).
“Baccarat Winning Strategy #3: Play An Entire Shoe
-This strategy was actually the first winning strategy that I ever created. It’s made me A LOT of money. This strategy is also how I won my BIGGEST payday ever of $24,525 at The Golden Nugget Casino in Las Vegas. Click here to watch the video:
-Sit down at a table and play an entire shoe (70-80 hands). Here’s how this strategy works:
-I created this strategy specifically to capitalize on WINNING STREAKS for both Player and Banker. A winning streak is at least two wins in a row.
-You’re always going to bet on whoever just won the last hand.
-If you win your first bet, keep the entire profit and repeat the same bet again.
-If you win your second bet, keep half of the profit and parlay the other half. This will make your next bet bigger than the previous bet, but you’re using the Casino’s (Bank’s) money instead of your own bankroll. Keep doing this for every single win you get in a row. When you play a shoe that has a big streak (eight or more wins in a row) you can literally make hundreds or even thousands of dollars. This is exactly what I did on my personal record setting 21 Player streak.
Once you get one good streak, take your money and leave the Casino for the day.
-If you have a BIG bankroll and you lose your first bet, double the size of your next bet (Martingale) and bet on the opposite side (whoever just won).
-If you have a SMALL bankroll and you lose your first bet, keep the size of your next bet the same, but bet on the opposite side (whoever just won).
-If you have a BIG bankroll and you lose your second bet, double the size of your next bet (Martingale) and bet on the opposite side (whoever just won).
-If you have a SMALL bankroll and you lose your second bet, keep the size of your next bet the same, but bet on the opposite side (whoever just won).
-If you ever lose four hands in a row because it starts going CHOPPY, do not bet again until one side wins two hands in a row. Whatever side wins two hands in a row first is the side you immediately bet on the next hand. Repeat the above sequence (betting on whoever just won) for four more bets. If you haven’t got a win yet in these eight bets, stop playing that shoe immediately. If you do get a win, then start playing the strategy again from the beginning.
-This strategy is 100% focused on getting streaks for either side (Player and/or Banker) and parlaying half of your bet after every single win.
Pro- on shoes with big streaks you can make A LOT of money. Con- you must sit down and play every single hand of the shoe and possibly never get a streak.”
That strategy makes absolutely no sense. He says to play a whole shoe looking for streaks. But he only tells you how to bet on the first 3 hands if they win. No instructions on how to continue betting. But then back to my original point, his “strategy” for streaks is bet, win, press, win, parlay. But you also have to have the ability to bet Martingale 4 times if you lose (it’s right in the strategy) so on the Golden Nugget table that he claims was a $2000 max bet, his starting bet could only bet $250 in order to keep with his 4 Martingales rule. So, following his advice he would bet $250, win, press that and bet $500, win, parlay that, bet $750, and win. We are now 3 wins, 18 left, and only won $1500. Now obviously this is where things get muddy, because now you’re already outside the ability to Martingale more than once if you lose. So if you keep that parlay technique up, you’ll be at table max in a few hands and unable to use Martingale to recoup any losses. Not to mention, if that is what he did, he wasn’t following his own strategy, and therefore it isn’t the technique he lays out in his document. When you break down the technique even further to follow the guidelines, you’d actually not want a bet greater than $250 when not on a Martingale bet because you need to be able to Martingale 4 times according to his strategy. So that would mean an initial bet of $80 ($80, pressed to $160, parlay half, which is $80 again, making it $240, as close as you can get to that $250 on a $2000 limit table to allow 4 martingales). So doing the math from there, once you get to that $240, you’re capped. The first 3 bets in the 21 wins streak have only won $480. Now every bet after that, 18 to get to 21, is capped at $240. 18 x $240 = $4320, for a total of $4800. That is the max he could have won following the guidelines of his own strategy. Now, could he have started at $250 or higher? Absolutely. But again, that would mean he wasn’t following his own strategy that he himself claims he used to win $24000 in 21 hands. That to me makes it an even scummier scam. Selling a system as your way of winning is bad enough, but selling it claiming you used it to win a dollar amount not possible if you mathematically break down the system is worse.
Anyway, that’s just my 2 cents on him and all of his scamming YouTube vids.