Quote from: Albalaha on June 04, 2018, 07:16:23 AM
We just do not need to know which hand wins but rather whenever wins come closer to  the real expected hit rate,we bet in a manner higher than our previous losing bets and win thereby a net profit.

This is just gambler's fallacy I'm afraid. 

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 03, 2018, 08:39:09 PM


Casinos advantages:

- math edge
- infinite bankroll vs limite players' bankrolls
- betting limits
- no emotions involved as they know the final positive outcome

Possible players advantages:

- selecting at most the situations to bet
- adapting a proper MM knowing that losing sessions or losing weeks are inevitable as a strategic plan can only get the best of it in a very diluted fashion. The same is true for casinos which may stay losers for long.

We can't alter the casinos advantages, just working on our possible advantages.

as.

Asym,

Spot on in summation.  There are numerous other Psych/Emotional/Vision/Desires, 'cons' or 'pros' that prey and hamper or pat a positive player on the back and encourage them.  Problem is, and a huge one--is almost all players have no clue or idea what those are and when they do set in--the player is usually defensive and resistant to the max--thus, falling prey or just plain being greedy/stupid, or whatever to the casino that is neutral and has that unlimited bankroll and cash for what they need to do, etc.

Problem is, IMO and after decades of playing, experience, family members of management in casinos admissions, etc., etc., is that the players will attack just those things you talked about with probably (unofficial and IMO) upwards of 90% of the time---the very first thing you mentioned:  "math edge" and work something out on their computer, paper, test programs, etc., and then attack for years and years knowing inside of them---"This has to work and it will work" therefore, missing what actually will work.  Maybe not on paper and maybe not with an elaborate arithmetical and scientific detailed proof statements, analysis and theory---etc., etc., but certainly does work 100% of the approx. 70-80% of the time.  The problem is, and maybe it is a quagmire---when we find ourselves in that ugly 20-30% of the time/space/section--we lose all decent and productive thought/goals/knoweldge and the ability to use of our experience, etc.  100% of the 'XYZ' time?  No, not double talk--my way of explaining you find what does win--because there is certainly a whole lot of winning going on at the bac tables, just almost everyone gives it back and then drains themselves for countless reasons and excuses as I pretty much wrote about on the board.  The entire 'key trigger/trick' is that player hold/realization/consciousness/decision making process outside of your body/and total conscious manipulation of your buy-in and win money without regard to goals, desires and what is sitting in front of you and your eyes in the dealer's rack, etc., etc., etc.  Longer and much more elaborately involved as some of us realize and are aware of. 

I remain.  Thank you for your great experiences you attempt to explain or bring-out here.

Quote from: Albalaha on June 04, 2018, 07:16:23 AM
... Flat bet win could only be achieved with a proven advantage play.

And that advantage play could be situational awareness.


| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  17
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  24
| X    | X    | X    | X    |   | X |  --  13
| X    |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  8
| X    |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  26
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  17
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  3
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  1
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19
| X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  2
| X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  2
| X    |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  26
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  24
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  12
| X    |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  8
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28
|    X | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  25
|    X | X    | X    |    X |   |   |  --  7
|    X |    X |    X |    X | X | X |  --  32
|    X | X    | X    |    X |   |   |  --  7
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  5
|    X |    X |    X |    X | X | X |  --  32
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  20
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  4
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19
|    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  34
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  1
| X    |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  8

Can you see it? There's a dominance of repeaters in the even chance variance of this past spin chart. That dominance caries on for quite a while too. Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that a player might time all their bet selections perfectly in order to lose every bet selected. And that actually happens too. But it happens very rarely. Most of the time a skilled player will capitalize on a stretch like this because the bets only need to win once in a row to balance every attempt after that in a repeating sequence. And there are for more streaks that go beyond one repeat in a row. There is a huge absence of singles if you jump around to other bet locations.

I'm suggesting that if variance is the culprit that creates the end-of-year bottom-line for the casino's earnings then turning that variance to your advantage is the winning key for the player. It's just a matter of properly evaluating the situational awareness and having a knowledge of expectation that fits these situations. To me that is a skill. I'm saying that this skill can increase your win rate and you could call it an edge. Many here won't want to call it an edge. But if it is a proven advantage they will have to live with that outcome anyway. So for me the task ahead is to prove it. If I can't then the idea of consistently, enough to beat the variance, beating the game with flat bets would also be validated by me as to being ineffective. So that is my challenge. I don't want to put all that into a massive algorithm. I did create a simple AI project that makes independent decisions. It just takes a ton of work to make all the choices. The human brain can do all that easy. So a large sample is the only true test. This is a tried and true method of validating research. And it's purely a set of data based on numbers too.

It shouldn't take long to change the world that has already been changed since yesterday, in my opinion, because of this thread. The implication already implies that more chapters are required now in every gambling addiction and treatment book that I have ever read. And it gives a mathematical reason for understanding a gambler's mind set, when they gamble, as now a necessary part of any effective treatment.

Gizmotron, I like reading you charts.

Working with the ECs's I see a black dominance early, but then red takes most of that back. Evens does take over but black is strong too so only a few spins to take profit from an even dominance. From there a little choppy, but red takes a good hold in the second half of the spin file to ensure a positive result.

Leastways that's how I read it, or would have played it.

Gizmo,

I can see the patterns all right. But now what?

My next bet can be either for the pattern to continue or for it to end. Which do I choose, and more importantly, WHY?

Your proof starts here. 

Quote from: greenguy on June 04, 2018, 01:08:52 PM
Gizmotron, I like reading you charts.

Working with the ECs's I see a black dominance early, but then red takes most of that back. Evens does take over but black is strong too so only a few spins to take profit from an even dominance. From there a little choppy, but red takes a good hold in the second half of the spin file to ensure a positive result.

Leastways that's how I read it, or would have played it.

You read it like a genius. It's easy too. The trick is in noticing that the characteristic, which you noticed, jumps around. Every ending means to jump too. That is because you are noticing a characteristic in dominance. You can't predict where to jump. But you can use a factor of 4's for an example. You ask yourself if a factor of 4's works. You can know if it does just by betting on it. You will get your effectiveness chart just based on your attempts. 4's are any already existing 4 in a rows. Perhaps 3's are better. You can test the water for that. It's just a guess. There is no magic or claim of it working. But it will result in a data track that represents your real variance. And my method is to just get two net wins resulting in three units up. It's so close to the even point that it's a fraction of occurrences that most gamblers need in order to succeed. Nobody is agreeing with me that 3 units up is enough. It's human nature. They all want to summit on Mt. Everest. They just don't want to freeze to death on the Hillary Step.

Quote from: Mike on June 04, 2018, 01:36:38 PM
Gizmo,

I can see the patterns all right. But now what?

My next bet can be either for the pattern to continue or for it to end. Which do I choose, and more importantly, WHY?

Your proof starts here. 

For you the way I play starts here. That will not be the proof. I just explained it a little in my previous post. This is how my school worked. I gave examples and students asked questions and got answers. The point is to gain experience in seeing any characteristic that continues. You see these characteristics continuing. You would need experience in exploiting them. I give examples. Then I give out practicing software so that you can gain experience and actually improve your skills. This is not meant to pull the wool over unsuspecting student's eyes as some form of overloaded information bombing. It's meant to take the students to the next and final level. The bet selection method produces the data track for the variance being experienced. The true trend that matters is the effectiveness trend. It's the only place that you can validate the method. It appears to be the real ground at which any claims can be authenticated too. I teach how to live with the results of your guesses. That is a skill.


Big problem though. School is out. I don't teach anymore. I don't give out practice software any more. I only did it to prove to myself that it could be taught. Just because you want proof does not mean that I must give it. I decide if I want proof out there in the public domain. I decide when. I decide when to shake up the addicted gambling treatment world.

Quote from: Mike on June 03, 2018, 03:22:39 PM
But it's not really the strike rate which is the problem. Just cover 30 numbers on the roulette layout and you have an 81% strike rate, but this doesn't mean it's a better idea than betting 3 numbers (it isn't). And profit over a 16% strike rate doesn't tell you much; over how many hands must this minimum strike rate materialise? It can't be many.

  When I speak of strike rate I mean win rate.  So for instance my strike rate is now 53.2% for 3,019 bets placed.

Doesn't have to be a single bet.  Could be a series of bets, as long as the series in question provides a net profit.

QuoteI do concede that perhaps in the majority of cases, gamblers lose not to the house edge, but to variance.

Yes but it's the HA that basically creates the variance.  Without it any savvy player would easily determine a winning strategy.

QuoteOne way of countering this is to just place more bets, but the trade off there is that you're exposing more to the HA. Generally speaking if you're playing an NE game the bold plan is the best one. If you have the balls and bankroll then go for it.

You are getting warm!  Risk vs. Reward.  Not necessarily so risky.  Depends if you need to feed a Bulldog or a Chihuahua!   

Gizmo,

I only mentioned proof because you did :

Quote from: Gizmotron on June 04, 2018, 12:36:05 PM
Many here won't want to call it an edge. But if it is a proven advantage they will have to live with that outcome anyway. So for me the task ahead is to prove it. If I can't then the idea of consistently, enough to beat the variance, beating the game with flat bets would also be validated by me as to being ineffective. So that is my challenge.

Ok, so maybe you're not in a position to prove it yet, no problem. But I'm interested in how you could prove it without using some kind of algorithm. Yes it would be a lot of work, but how else could you provide a real proof? You say that the human brain can do it easy, but a computer can keep track of many more variables than a human could, and it would double as a documented proof, if it worked.

Quote from: Mike on June 04, 2018, 02:34:04 PM
Ok, so maybe you're not in a position to prove it yet, no problem. But I'm interested in how you could prove it without using some kind of algorithm. Yes it would be a lot of work, but how else could you provide a real proof? You say that the human brain can do it easy, but a computer can keep track of many more variables than a human could, and it would double as a documented proof, if it worked.

It took a lot of work to just have two characteristics programmed with several variables, including making changes caused by the effectiveness results. It changed bet sizes as well as bet locations. This was all programmed in Object Oriented Programming classes. Big problem though. I'm not motivated at this point to go back into it and keep going with many more characteristics and pattern recognition where the software actually learns on its own. It's kind of fun to teach the program to program itself. For example pattern learning lists. I'd only do it if I'm convinced that I've done it enough in a casino as to eliminate a lucky streak as the cause. I can use a little more for retirement too. Once those two hurdles are done then it makes sense to validate it. It would be easier to write a book and have many others attempt to validate it by using it in a casino. Counting cards was easy. Variable Change was a real concept that could be proved by showing examples of it. This must be executed by people that have self control. I'm sure a test model could be set up as a form of a confined set of conditions.


It's just too soon. But variance and size of bankroll have a huge consideration in writing any book.

Thanks Al, I'm very glad you remain here! ;-)

as.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 04, 2018, 11:15:56 PM
Thanks Al, I'm very glad you remain here! ;-)

as.

This has to do with topic how?

BTW, I been away a long time not checking in.  Did you get the Baccarat book published you were promising?

Quote from: Albalaha on June 03, 2018, 06:03:16 AM
Ranting over the house edge is pretty foolish in my opinion. It helps the casino but it is not the sole culprit for players.
Actually there are three more bigger evils in gambling from gamblers' side:

1) Ignorance of what can happen with any bet, whenever you choose to play;
2) Greed to beat the casino with fistful of chips and in an hour or two
3) Variance and wrong presumptions regarding your betselection and your proven failure money management approaches/strategies.

Reality is, you can never guess or predict with any accuracy as what will happen in your session with your bet. When you win, you win the least(usually) and when you lose, you lose all you have(usually).

So I hope that those with savvy gambling introspect noticed what just happened when this thread was posted? I wonder if Albalaha would like to give credit to an originator or author of this logic or stand for the claim of it's origination himself. Because the world changed forever. All I see is that Al, the great AL, has brought it to my attention. I consider it the most profound revelation in the past 200 years of gambling logic. How the heck would I know that anyway, I'm just 60+ and have not read every gambling book through the ages?


I have been running tests where, with the bone headed plan to just bet on the red numbers, all 18 of them, I end up with a large number test result of almost breaking even for the number of sessions won vs the numbers of session lost. Sounds good, right? But when I use a stop loss, set at the exact same level as a stop win, and add educated guessing to the effort, it changes. I get 3 losses to 7 wins. Now further testing will show a big number value for this ratio. All it takes is a skilled guesser, with the knowledge of coincidence distributions, a coined phrase now, with the ability to exploit randomness changes that offer advantages over an otherwise mathematical expectation or outcome. It's a way to see past the probability expectation of the house's advantage, a once accepted rule, now just a favorite axiom. YEP!. the world has changed. I'm so glad that I saw it. This thread is history being made or it is something that someone else has already made a notion about. I wonder where it originates from?

A skilled guesser huh?   

Quote from: Xander on June 06, 2018, 04:09:03 AM
A skilled guesser huh?   

Here is how the final resolution of your question will work itself out. Someone or team will validate the skilled guesser method with real peer reviewed data, actual results, or we will argue until that research is done in a real research experiment. The notion of losing at the expectation rate is forever history, just an old belief that is now and forever deFunct. In the words of hipster type people, you are no longer Funky.