In my many years of research upon various sides of gambling, I found one conclusive thing:
Unless one can handle different varieties of variance with one well defined approach, he is bound to lose.
Ironically, all old school progressions and betselections(I do not think one can pick better bets with any methodology) are so much foolish that trying any of them is pretty childish. Every progression designed either fails easily or earn slowly till it loses all. I wonder that how come progression creators of Martingale, Labouchere, D'alembert etc deserved to be called mathematicians.
If anybody is even slightly serious about gambling and earning from there or atleast not losing huge, working on handling all sorts of variance with least harm is the only prudent thing to be done.
All talks of oldschool ideas are mere wastage of time.
You are correct, if you desire to continue to play.
The average player will win and many times, no statics but rather quickly. The problem you cite will enter the picture and the player is then doomed to give back the winning plus their buy in and probably continued buy ins until they get wiped or give up.
The player needs to learn how to walk when they win before giving it back.
Quote from: alrelax on December 09, 2016, 12:04:04 AM
The player needs to learn how to walk when they win before giving it back.
Actually I believe that giving some back is one of the things players need to factor into their method in order to handle the variances that Albalaha is talking about.
Again, correct.
1/3rds have served me well and many others
Personally, I am willing to give back 1/3 to continue, perhaps a tad bit more depending on the cards.
http://betselection.cc/alrelax's-blog/know-when-to-stop-or-go/
AND ALSO
http://betselection.cc/alrelax's-blog/13-13-13-summation/
Again, it boils down to one thing, in and above, betselection--money management--progressions.... Which to me are all important. But, if you win you have to get many many things out of your mind and know how and why you won.
For me, I realize if it was myself wagering on what the shoe actually produced or if it was 'sheer luck' and haphazard wagering. There is a difference, at least for myself there is.
As far as walking away and as far as risk additional win money or buy in money to see if you can really rack it in---the 1/3rds work spot-on for me. Here is an example as to what happened to player a few nights ago.
I know the guy from the casino, I don't know his personal wealth or struggles, I do believe he is not wealthy and makes an average living, he plays once or twice week, usually buying in for $200 or $300 and that is it. Many times he will triple his buy in and leave, calls it a session, sometimes not, but overall more so than not.
The other night he buys in for $200. Up and down. Hit a few and presses aggressively. Had $10.00 out on the Fortune 7 and hit for $400. Stack it up in the next couple of wagers and lost it. Hits another Fortune 7 in 5 hands after the first for another $400. Wagers between $100 and $300 a hand and hits probably 7 or 8 out of the next 10. Then about another 6 hands or so after doing well on the B's or P's having at least $2,000 in winnings, more than he normally ever wins, he hits another Fortune 7 for another $400 which now it is around hand 50 or so. He plays real aggressive and has that aura about himself that he is bulletproof. He lost it all by the end of the shoe.
My whole point to all this---is that you have to govern yourself. Easily said, harder and most of the time NOT done at the tables. Think about it.
Quote from: Albalaha on December 08, 2016, 11:41:22 PM
Unless one can handle different varieties of variance with one well defined approach, he is bound to lose.
...
All talks of old school ideas are mere wastage of time.
Actually you know what I think. Variance is a living, breathing, and constantly changing thing. It causes your bet selection technique and your money management to adapt to it or to be eliminated by a mismatch of consequences. Luckily, you can control your playing dynamics to compensate for these changes.
"Fortune rewards the prepared mind."
Quote from: alrelax on December 09, 2016, 08:32:05 AM
The other night he buys in for $200. Up and down. Hit a few and presses aggressively. Had $10.00 out on the Fortune 7 and hit for $400. Stack it up in the next couple of wagers and lost it. Hits another Fortune 7 in 5 hands after the first for another $400. Wagers between $100 and $300 a hand and hits probably 7 or 8 out of the next 10. Then about another 6 hands or so after doing well on the B's or P's having at least $2,000 in winnings, more than he normally ever wins, he hits another Fortune 7 for another $400 which now it is around hand 50 or so. He plays real aggressive and has that aura about himself that he is bulletproof. He lost it all by the end of the shoe.
If you don't know that all win streaks come to an end then you don't know much about gambling.
And that is what I have been preaching along with a few other things with figuring out a win and giving myself a boost with the 1/3rd system everyone here is apparently against. But hey, it's all good!
Mild progression works best but even that is not enough by itself to handle all varieties of variance. Gizmo's claim of identifying opportunities is a bit vague. In my humble opinion we can not identify any opportunities. By seeing WWWW, we can't say if it will go any further or end right there. Both are equally likely and house edge/house fees is still there to worsen things.
All money management approaches(be it progression, regression or flat betting) are tailor made to handle one type of situation only and disastrous in adverse cases making them fool's gold.
For example a ten step progression can handle a 10% hit rate and super variance like:
LLLLL LLLLW LLLLL LLWLL LLLLL LLW
but one incident of ten step loss like LLLLL LLLLL will kill this cleverass idea. Same holds true with all other progressions known to mankind. Flat bet winning is making castle in the air only.
Quote from: Albalaha on December 10, 2016, 11:31:51 PM
Mild progression works best but even that is not enough by itself to handle all varieties of variance. Gizmo's claim of identifying opportunities is a bit vague. In my humble opinion we can not identify any opportunities. By seeing WWWW, we can't say if it will go any further or end right there. Both are equally likely and house edge/house fees is still there to worsen things.
Here is how to look at it. In a 200 spin session you will see more than 50 six in a rows, 10 eight in a rows, and 2 fifteen in a rows of singles or sleeper opportunities. It takes a first win on double dozens to help average out the balance point of placing double dozen bets that balance two out of three times to make up a 50/50 outcome, by flat betting. By winning that first bet at twice the value of your second bets and beyond you change the dynamic of the balance point. This is done at a 64% chance of doing it too. At that point you are hunting for possible starting points that are completely unknowable.
You must admit at some point to yourself that gambling is a risk and reward activity. I risk first bets at twice the value of my other flat bets in an activity that rewards me for finding opportunities that would go unrewarded if I didn't set out to discover them in the first place. All the rewards became apparent when the Global Effect for sleepers or singles kicks in. It changes to a situation that these opportunities swarm together all at once and continuously.
A person that wants to exploit opportunities must know that if opportunities can swarm together all at once, then they can also disappear at times like a stretch of no opportunities all swarmed together. Situational awareness is the key to knowing when to go for it and when not to. You can't walk into a casino and expect favoritism to bid you good fortune just because you have arrived. You must see what the wheel is currently dealing out in the stream of randomness. Is there a Global effect or is there not? Is there an active pattern of phases or are there no identifiable phases? Are there a swarm of doubles and triples while there are no singles? These phenomenon are so common that it is unbelievable to me that anyone would knowingly ignore them.
People wait for an advantage in the game of 21 and then they strike. I wait for a swarm of consistency of any kind and then I strike. If you know how to be good at taking those first bets down, then you know how to position yourself properly to take advantage of the almost always present opportunities. You just have to keep track of enough data so as to see the spread out opportunities.
I wonder why you don't see the opportunities. I spent years learning to see them and to properly take risks on them. I've tried to share just how to go about it. But my basics are imprinted upon my playing style. I can't make a person recognize situations that are the beginnings of favorable stretches. To make money you have to know how to live with risking money.
I don't keep digging if I'm not getting anywhere. I use dynamite when I'm on the Gold. You can't prevent yourself from seeing a working Global Effect once you have been trained to recognize one while it's happening. If you walk away from a working Global Effect then I'm not sure that gambling will ever be a worth while pass-time for any person that would do that.
QuoteIn a 200 spin session you will see more than 50 six in a rows, 10 eight in a rows, and 2 fifteen in a rows of singles or sleeper opportunities.
It is only as good as saying in 100 spins you should get 48/49 blacks and reds and rest 0. What should happen averagely may not happen while you play. It could go better or worse.
Quote from: Albalaha on December 13, 2016, 01:11:09 AM
It is only as good as saying in 100 spins you should get 48/49 blacks and reds and rest 0. What should happen averagely may not happen while you play. It could go better or worse.
I'm saying that almost every time I sit down to play there are almost always continuous opportunities, and am willing to prove it to you right here. I track 12 sets of dozens that make up 4 individual groupings. Most people know what the dozens/columns are. That's two groups easily known. If there is a total absence of opportunities from the sleepers or the singles then that too is knowledge. The flow of randomness is always telling you something, if you can read the language. Now I too must read the variance, or handle it as you say. But I'm never at the mercy of long term statistical arithmetic. It is far better to exist in the here-and-now of what randomness is currently offering up. For that matter it is the here-and-now of the variance too.
Here: Try to read randomness.
| 1 2 3 | A B C | 0 3 6 | P |
| X | X | X | P | -- 9
| X | X | X | P | -- 17
| X | X | X | | -- 18
| X | X | X | | -- 13
| X | X | X | P | -- 1
| X | X | X | | -- 29
| X | X | X | P | -- 22
| X | X | X | P | -- 9
| X | X | X | | -- 8
| X | X | X | | -- 15
| X | X | X | P | -- 31
| X | X | X | | -- 18
| X | X | X | P | -- 22
| X | X | X | | -- 7
| X | X | X | | -- 35
| X | X | X | | -- 2
| X | X | X | P | -- 11
| X | X | X | | -- 15
| X | X | X | | -- 12
|-------------------| X | P | -- 37
| X | X | X | P | -- 34
| X | X | X | P | -- 9
| X | X | X | P | -- 34
| X | X | X | | -- 4
| X | X | X | P | -- 34
| X | X | X | | -- 2
| X | X | X | P | -- 6
| X | X | X | | -- 27
| X | X | X | | -- 16
| X | X | X | P | -- 21
| X | X | X | | -- 35
| X | X | X | | -- 25
| X | X | X | | -- 33
| X | X | X | P | -- 17
| X | X | X | P | -- 17
| X | X | X | P | -- 21
| X | X | X | P | -- 10
| X | X | X | P | -- 32
| X | X | X | | -- 36
| X | X | X | P | -- 6
| X | X | X | P | -- 9
| X | X | X | | -- 20
| X | X | X | | -- 4
| X | X | X | | -- 2
| X | X | X | | -- 2
| X | X | X | P | -- 11
| X | X | X | P | -- 22
| X | X | X | | -- 35
| X | X | X | | -- 27
| X | X | X | P | -- 5
| X | X | X | | -- 14
| X | X | X | P | -- 10
| X | X | X | | -- 25
| X | X | X | | -- 16
| X | X | X | | -- 4
| X | X | X | P | -- 9
| X | X | X | | -- 14
| X | X | X | | -- 30
| X | X | X | | -- 12
| X | X | X | P | -- 9
| X | X | X | | -- 3
| X | X | X | P | -- 10
| X | X | X | | -- 30
| X | X | X | | -- 29
| X | X | X | | -- 4
| X | X | X | | -- 20
| X | X | X | | -- 14
| X | X | X | | -- 4
| X | X | X | P | -- 22
| X | X | X | P | -- 26
| X | X | X | P | -- 5
| X | X | X | P | -- 34
| X | X | X | P | -- 32
| X | X | X | P | -- 5
| X | X | X | | -- 36
| X | X | X | | -- 18
| X | X | X | P | -- 9
| X | X | X | P | -- 11
| X | X | X | | -- 20
| X | X | X | | -- 29
| X | X | X | | -- 27
| X | X | X | | -- 14
| X | X | X | | -- 13
| X | X | X | P | -- 6
| X | X | X | | -- 29
| X | X | X | P | -- 1
| X | X | X | | -- 36
| X | X | X | P | -- 17
| X | X | X | | -- 18
| X | X | X | P | -- 28
| X | X | X | | -- 3
| X | X | X | | -- 24
| X | X | X | | -- 8
| X | X | X | P | -- 23
| X | X | X | | -- 27
| X | X | X | | -- 27
| X | X | X | | -- 8
| X | X | X | P | -- 21
| X | X | X | | -- 8
| X | X | X | | -- 30
| X | X | X | P | -- 31
| X | X | X | | -- 12
| X | X | X | P | -- 23
| X | X | X | | -- 33
| X | X | X | | -- 27
|-------------------| X | P | -- 37
| X | X | X | | -- 19
| X | X | X | | -- 12
| X | X | X | P | -- 1
| X | X | X | P | -- 32
| X | X | X | P | -- 5
| X | X | X | | -- 19
| X | X | X | P | -- 1
| X | X | X | P | -- 1
| X | X | X | | -- 36
| X | X | X | P | -- 21
| X | X | X | | -- 35
| X | X | X | P | -- 28
| X | X | X | | -- 14
| X | X | X | | -- 19
| X | X | X | P | -- 6
| X | X | X | | -- 3
| X | X | X | P | -- 31
| X | X | X | | -- 2
| X | X | X | | -- 8
| X | X | X | P | -- 11
| X | X | X | | -- 16
| X | X | X | P | -- 23
| X | X | X | | -- 24
| X | X | X | | -- 36
| X | X | X | | -- 27
| X | X | X | P | -- 32
| X | X | X | | -- 29
| X | X | X | | -- 20
| X | X | X | P | -- 10
| X | X | X | | -- 27
| X | X | X | | -- 20
| X | X | X | P | -- 9
| X | X | X | P | -- 9
| X | X | X | | -- 19
| X | X | X | | -- 14
| X | X | X | P | -- 28
| X | X | X | P | -- 17
| X | X | X | P | -- 17
| X | X | X | | -- 14
| X | X | X | P | -- 10
| X | X | X | | -- 24
| X | X | X | | -- 24
| X | X | X | | -- 20
| X | X | X | | -- 19
| X | X | X | | -- 8
| X | X | X | | -- 25
| X | X | X | P | -- 28
| X | X | X | | -- 30
| X | X | X | | -- 4
| X | X | X | P | -- 21
| X | X | X | | -- 12
|-------------------| X | P | -- 37
| X | X | X | | -- 35
| X | X | X | P | -- 31
| X | X | X | | -- 30
| X | X | X | P | -- 31
| X | X | X | P | -- 9
| X | X | X | | -- 33
| X | X | X | P | -- 9
| X | X | X | P | -- 17
| X | X | X | P | -- 28
| X | X | X | P | -- 5
| X | X | X | | -- 24
| X | X | X | | -- 16
| X | X | X | | -- 12
| X | X | X | | -- 3
| X | X | X | | -- 3
| X | X | X | P | -- 31
| X | X | X | | -- 29
| X | X | X | | -- 27
| X | X | X | P | -- 6
| X | X | X | | -- 8
| X | X | X | | -- 8
| X | X | X | | -- 16
| X | X | X | P | -- 34
| X | X | X | | -- 24
| X | X | X | | -- 4
| X | X | X | | -- 33
|-------------------| X | P | -- 37
| X | X | X | P | -- 28
| X | X | X | P | -- 1
| X | X | X | P | -- 23
| X | X | X | | -- 18
| X | X | X | P | -- 1
| X | X | X | P | -- 6
| X | X | X | P | -- 31
| X | X | X | | -- 30
| X | X | X | P | -- 32
| X | X | X | P | -- 31
| X | X | X | P | -- 9
| X | X | X | P | -- 11
| X | X | X | P | -- 23
| X | X | X | | -- 25
| X | X | X | | -- 15
The spins: 9,17,18,13,1,29,22,9,8,15,31,18,22,7,35,2,11,15,12,37,34,9,34,4,34,2,6,27,16,21,35,25,33,17,
17,21,10,32,36,6,9,20,4,2,2,11,22,35,27,5,14,10,25,16,4,9,14,30,12,9,3,10,30,29,4,20,14,4,22,26,5,34,32,
5,36,18,9,11,20,29,27,14,13,6,29,1,36,17,18,28,3,24,8,23,27,27,8,21,8,30,31,12,23,33,27,37,19,12,1,32,5,
19,1,1,36,21,35,28,14,19,6,3,31,2,8,11,16,23,24,36,27,32,29,20,10,27,20,9,9,19,14,28,17,17,14,10,24,24,20,
19,8,25,28,30,4,21,12,37,35,31,30,31,9,33,9,17,28,5,24,16,12,3,3,31,29,27,6,8,8,16,34,24,4,33,37,28,1,23,18,
1,6,31,30,32,31,9,11,23,25,15,
I may not be competent enough to read randomness and predict anything on the basis that you are elaborating but I am kind of very convinced that gambling is all about speculations and never about predictions in a short session. In a very large span, things go very close to the expected average but one may not play considering that in a session. So, the most practical way that I consider is having a dynamic MM that can adjust to all the good and worse times in the best possible manner.
Charts don't predict anything. They never will. Past spins do not tell you that something is due. They let you know that a coincidental phase is occurring. Out of 200 spins I get 40 to 50 six in a rows. That gives me 300 occurring events in 200 spins alone. Now half of those are wasted on detection of some kind. It takes MM to live with the possible eventful 150 spins that are left to win or lose with. Then there must be a way to get in on those 15 in a rows, all those 8 and 10 in a rows too. It's like prospecting for me. I make educated guesses, cover the first bet in any speculation, and use the split winning as a fishing expedition. If I lose a next bet after the first win then nothing is lost, but nothing is gained too. But managing that first split bet gets me into a position to capitalize on any of the 8's, 10's, and 15's that could be lurking. For me it's all about allowing myself to win. This is how it is possible to beat the house's advantage. You don't have to go on a balancing, losing streak, just to make the house advantage come true. You don't have to stay at a flat bet level, just to guarantee yourself a 5% long term loss rate. It's best to test the waters to see if you are not in a swarm of second or first losses.
I play a game that wins 64% of every spin. If I'm not getting better than 64% wins then I'm out of there until I can find a swarm of 70% to 80% wins. Anyone can tell if they are in a situation that is not favorable if they just bother to take notice of it. I've seen straight down, lose every spin losses, occurring at the very start of many sessions. You don't have to start out in a hole. Nobody makes you keep placing those bets. You must take control. You might consider along with MM that Control Management is just as important.
Hi Giz,
Do you have a step by step rule that a simple player like me can follow without having to look at many possibilities? In other words, follow one target (i.e. Red) with rules?
The Crow
Quote from: The Crow on December 14, 2016, 11:44:52 AM
Hi Giz,
Do you have a step by step rule that a simple player like me can follow without having to look at many possibilities? In other words, follow one target (i.e. Red) with rules?
The Crow
I do. You follow the dozens 1-12, 13-24, and 25-36 in search of a sleeper in one of the three columns of X's. I use a chart because you can see a sleeper instantly by visual dexterity. I place bets based on two, three, or four in a row occurrences. Now that comes from experience for how the sleepers are flowing. If there is a swarm of threes then I would only place bets after two in a row occur and not for a fourth. Randomness flows is phases of continuations of like conditions, often. So I look for the continuing phenomenons. You are still focused just on the dozens and you are only looking for sleepers mind you. Once you can grasp the focus on just one grouping and just one type of condition you are ready to apply that knowledge to singles and the other groupings as well. But you still look for two's three's four's etc...
I bet on what I'm seeing in dominance regarding the dozens/sleepers. If there are a ton of singles, and I'm ignoring them, then I'm stuck with the limitations of nothing special happening in the dozens. So I'm forced to wait until something does occur. You can kill the casino by winning a first bet at twice the level of all following bets until a loss. Hit a win streak and you might just have won your session. At my school I have presented the notion that at times a positive progression parlay can do for you all you need to get from a session if you time it right. My teachings are all about timing it right and gaining the experience to do just that. I built practice software that demonstrates what I mean. It's a skill. Seeing an opportunity and positioning yourself for exploitation of it is what that skill is all about. It took me years to get good at this. I'm trying to teach it to others in just a few months. I have no idea how much of it is sinking in. I have a few very dedicated students that look like they are trying to master it. Teaching recognition, conditional awareness, and playing strategy is a lot when it comes to so much data to be processed between spins.
Counting cards is only doable by a few well trained and skillful players. This is no different.
Thanks Giz.
Gizmotron's way to play, in no way answers variance. It presupposes good or average sessions only. Any methodology can beat those but tough times will still take away all. We need to focus there instead of dragging the old rhetorics.
Quote from: Albalaha on December 15, 2016, 09:11:09 PM
Gizmotron's way to play, in no way answers variance. It presupposes good or average sessions only. Any methodology can beat those but tough times will still take away all. We need to focus there instead of dragging the old rhetorics.
That does not take into account why anyone would back a dead horse. It is all about staying out of bad sessions. It is all about not playing into bad sections because of wishful thinking. In fact, a single loss is a signal that a perfect sequence has started to end. You have been there and you know that you are admitting that you can't see advantages or variance with regards to my methods. Thank you for your opinion.
[quote]It is all about staying out of bad sessions.[/quote]
That is not even possible. Whatever you do, you can not filter out all the bad moments from the game. We need to learn to live with them than having a dream of getting none. Nothing can see future in a purely random game.
Quote from: Albalaha on December 15, 2016, 09:45:19 PM
That is not even possible. Whatever you do, you can not filter out all the bad moments from the game. We need to learn to live with them than having a dream of getting none. Nothing can see future in a purely random game.
Live with this. Every loss is a signal. Get a skill with that and I'll be impressed. I'm an expert on changes. If you aren't, I think that you represent the casino's best friend. You certainly are not qualified to describe what actually works. I have learned to live with losses. If you don't believe me, then just look for it at this very forum where I have clearly pointed it out.
You look to me like the kind of person that just looks for confirmation of your own interests. I see a person that doesn't actually have a working plan for losses. Forget about what "we" need to do and please figure out what you need to do. Learn this if nothing else: You don't need to see the future in order to be able to live with the inevitable losses.
You don't need to see the future in order to be able to live with the inevitable losses.
You don't need to see the future in order to be able to live with the inevitable losses.
You don't need to see the future in order to be able to live with the inevitable losses.
You don't need to see the future in order to be able to live with the inevitable losses.
You don't need to see the future in order to be able to live with the inevitable losses.
QuoteYou look to me like the kind of person that just looks for confirmation of your own interests. I see a person that doesn't actually have a working plan for losses. Forget about what "we" need to do and please figure out what you need to do. Learn this if nothing else: You don't need to see the future in order to be able to live with the inevitable losses.
Lol. It is not me but you that try/claim to see future by past behaviour. I have strategy to handle even the worst. I do not need clairvoyance in order to win. Read the title of this topic to clarify this.
Quote from: Albalaha on December 16, 2016, 12:41:42 AM
Lol. It is not me but you that try/claim to see future by past behaviour. I have strategy to handle even the worst. I do not need clairvoyance in order to win.
It is you that needs to believe that. I believe in the single next spin being part of continuation or not being part of continuation. There is and has never been a need to know what comes next. I just know how to live with it if it loses. You say you have a strategy to deal with the worst. Prove it. You need me to be a blind feckless person as to how to deal with losses and you project to others here that I don't know how to deal with it as if it doesn't even exist for me, your own words.
Consider this for a moment. A past behavior of a consistent sleeping dozen keeps doing that until its first loss. If I get in on that consistency then my first bet has only two outcomes. It wins or it loses. I can live with either. I know that in gambling those are the only realities. I can lose or I can be in position for a huge win streak. You can't win a win streak unless you risk losing to begin with. Nobody can predict the variance that follows a strong coincidence. I say they don't need to. You say I am claiming that I do. Go ahead. Have a discussion on variance where knowing the future is impossible. I'm already down with that. It will be fun to watch you try to figure it out. This "we" and what "we" need to do stuff is interesting "we."
Gizmatron are you saying that you win flat betting by using your system?
Personally I don't believe it's possible to predict future outcomes in a random game, so some kind of money management is essential. By definition random means unpredictable.
Quote from: Jay on December 16, 2016, 06:16:48 AM
Gizmatron are you saying that you win flat betting by using your system?
Personally I don't believe it's possible to predict future outcomes in a random game, so some kind of money management is essential. By definition random means unpredictable.
This is getting old. Nobody predicts future spins. Not having that ability, I don't predict future spins. I don't ignore win streaks like 15 sleeping dozens in a row either. It is impossible to know when 15 sleeping dozens will occur. Knowing that, if you are getting past the prediction hangup, are you listening? I'm winning by attacking the streaks of wins. These moments always continue until the first loss. This loss is a
GIANT SIGNAL! It takes the awareness of current conditions to know if you are in the middle of a win streak. It is then, AND ONLY THEN, that I up my bets.
Part of my method is prospecting. I use two $100 bets, one dozen, and one other dozen, to get a first win. Once that occurs, I split the winnings of $100 to two bets, $50 & $50. Those probing bets can not hurt me. I win or I break even with them. About once every two years I see 30 sleepers in a row. You can study millions of spins and I can assure you that you will find several 30+ sleepers or singles in a row. I don't care what uneducated people really think real is.
Just to be clear, I have not told you about how to live with those first bets that lose. Don't bother trying to say that I'm unaware of them. I know how to live with the losses. It's not that hard to figure out how balance occurs in three bets placed at the same price and what the odds are for double dozen bets doing that.
I hope that helps. Do you have any other questions?
With so much confusion in this thread I suggest that a definition of variance is in order.
RTM or losing time. Or, simple terms, you played a section on a baccarat card and hit 4 times wagering on the opposite side---after it was already 3 in a row repeating. Then the following half a shoe or a section, went 7 or 9 times or even more---once the 3 repeats showed up. Or you won 15 units/wagers and lost the next 15 unit/wagers over the course of an equal amount of time playing. Or, your 'key triggers' worked each and every time for the shoe and failed on the two subsequent shoes.
Quote from: Gizmotron on December 16, 2016, 09:53:17 AM
I hope that helps. Do you have any other questions?
Well thanks but whether you choose to call it "prediction" or something else doesn't really resolve the dilemma as far as I can see. What you seem to be saying is that you try to anticipate a winning streak based on one or more past wins, and the signal to stop betting is when you get one or more losses. If there was an advantage in this it should show up in the stats shouldn't it? But according to my research it doesn't. What I've found is that past successes don't reliably indicate future successes, and also past losses don't indicate more losses. What seems to be the beginning of a trend could reverse at any time, and similarly what seems be the end of a trend could also be just be temporary. What happens is that the false starts and ends eat away at your bankroll so that in the end you break even, or worse.
Quote from: Jay on December 17, 2016, 02:36:25 AM
Well thanks but whether you choose to call it "prediction" or something else doesn't really resolve the dilemma as far as I can see. What you seem to be saying is that you try to anticipate a winning streak based on one or more past wins, and the signal to stop betting is when you get one or more losses. If there was an advantage in this it should show up in the stats shouldn't it? But according to my research it doesn't. What I've found is that past successes don't reliably indicate future successes, and also past losses don't indicate more losses. What seems to be the beginning of a trend could reverse at any time, and similarly what seems be the end of a trend could also be just be temporary. What happens is that the false starts and ends eat away at your bankroll so that in the end you break even, or worse.
Exactly! There is no 'prediction' that can prevail past a section/shoe/a couple of shoes here and there. The key to it all, is hit and run, or bang it out big time when it is there, etc., etc., and so on.
Ref the 'false start and eats away at the bankroll statement. That is what gets the highest majority of the players. Again, the key is to bang it out with larger wagers when your key triggers are present and capitalize on that section and then be done with it.
Exactly! There is no 'prediction' that can prevail past a section/shoe/a couple of shoes here and there. The key to it all, is hit and run, or bang it out big time when it is there, etc., etc., and so on.
I don't agree, i use prediction with succés. Clustering EC into 1 in 3 probability. EC distribution with same distribution as dozen with bias/domination. Very common to see two events out of Three hitting 5. 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, times in a row.
Don't see past clustering results as gamblers fallacy, i see them as a Dice with odds and probability.
Here is one example that 8 Clustering Entering poinsts has bias/domination where only one combination fail.
333 a x
331 b xx
332 c
311 a xx
312 b x
313 c
322 a
321 b xx
323 c
- - -
222 a
221 b xx
223 c
211 a xx
212 b x
213 c
233 a
232 b
231 c xx
- - -
111 a
112 b xx
113 c x
122 a x
121 b xx
123 c
133 a x
131 b x
132 c x
Its easy to win when you use Dice as your benchmark and ride on sleepers to contine to sleep and put your Money on domination/repeats/bias.
But most don't understand the complexitiy behind clustering and using a Dice as benchmark for EC.
Quote from: Jay on December 17, 2016, 02:36:25 AM
Well thanks but whether you choose to call it "prediction" or something else doesn't really resolve the dilemma as far as I can see. What you seem to be saying is that you try to anticipate a winning streak based on one or more past wins, and the signal to stop betting is when you get one or more losses.
It is clear to me just how far you can see. Thanks for being so transparent. If you don't know that winning streaks are always mathematically ahead then your use of describing my technique as trying to anticipate a winning streak is short sighted. Have you ever heard others on gambling forums talk about clustering. You clearly have not heard me talk about the global effect and the effectiveness states. I don't anticipate, I observe conditions that are actually already there. I described this, coincidentally, as something as simple as conditional awareness. It's not me that is semantically attempting to describe prediction in other words. It's you.
P.S. That's funny. The very next post has the topic of clustering in it.
When advent of a streak can neither be predicted nor it can be identified till it passes, how can one take benefit of them conclusively?
For example, if we are playing say two dozens, a 7 step streak could come in a few spins or in 100s. How will one plan to extract from that in all those cases? You won't get near perfect cases always but opposite mostly.
Quote from: Albalaha on December 17, 2016, 09:15:37 PM
When advent of a streak can neither be predicted nor it can be identified till it passes, how can one take benefit of them conclusively?
For example, if we are playing say two dozens, a 7 step streak could come in a few spins or in 100s. How will one plan to extract from that in all those cases? You won't get near perfect cases always but opposite mostly.
You are right. You will not get seven in a row in your favor very often. Perhaps you should go back to school and find out why. Ponder this. If you don't risk anything you will not get anything. All I hear is excuses. If you can't predict the future you are going to take your toys and go home. My question to you is why do you gamble? You sound like you are already beaten just walking in the door. You don't get the first bet / win concept do you? The only thing you need to figure out is that with a two out of three chance at balancing you need to figure out how to live with one third of your bets losing. Once you know how to break even with the double dozens bets then and only then are you ready to go beyond that level of play.
Quote from: Gizmotron on December 17, 2016, 12:06:14 PM
Have you ever heard others on gambling forums talk about clustering. You clearly have not heard me talk about the global effect and the effectiveness states.
I'm aware of the idea of clusters, perhaps you could clarify and define what a cluster is? when it begins and when it ends? At the moment it all seems a bit fuzzy. Sputnik says for the even chances a cluster is 2 out of 3 wins in the past 3 spins, what would it be for a double dozen?
And correct, I haven't read any of your other posts. Can you point me to where you have written about this? Thanks.
Not saying 2 events in the past 3 spins.
PM me and i will give you a link that explain how you can clustering EC into same distribution with the odds and probability 1 in 3.
Cheers
Quote from: Jay on December 18, 2016, 03:34:50 AM
I'm aware of the idea of clusters, perhaps you could clarify and define what a cluster is? when it begins and when it ends? At the moment it all seems a bit fuzzy. Sputnik says for the even chances a cluster is 2 out of 3 wins in the past 3 spins, what would it be for a double dozen?
And correct, I haven't read any of your other posts. Can you point me to where you have written about this? Thanks.
You should know that clusters come in all kinds of sizes. I go into this in depth with regards to the global effect.
It is because I get questions like this all the time that I opened up a school to teach my concepts. I wrote several versions of teaching software to not only teach but to make it possible to gain needed experience. I put it all in one private forum for students only. I charge the price of a well informed gambling book. PM me and I will show you how to sign up. There are over 500 posts and many many answers to questions just like yours there to go through. This is a major undertaking imparting instructions on how to gain a skill. It will teach you the nature of randomness as a readable language.
We do not need to predict the future outcomes. It is just not possible and hence not worth trying. What we need is an approach that is dynamic enough to handle the variance of all sorts without losing much foolishly. With Regression towards mean we should be able to win in the long run. That is what I am pointing out here.
All money management approaches that we see around failed to ignore this vital truth and hence worthless.
We can predict only one thing with some kind of accuracy. In long run(enough trials that can be numerically defined) things would be closer to the average expectancy. Identifying trends or patterns or any other kind of fanciful guessing doesn't work in a short playable sessions. I am not talking of the so called "advantage gamblers".
Quote from: Albalaha on December 30, 2016, 10:58:25 AM
Identifying trends or patterns or any other kind of fanciful guessing doesn't work in a short playable sessions.
I am not talking of the so called "advantage gamblers".
I think you are absolutely dead wrong, 1,000% concerning this. Although you can say it both ways, meaning-one cannot identify anything 'before hand' or, one cannot identify when it is happening.
If you are merely saying, one cannot identify when it is going to happen, you are correct--of course. However, in reality and in live casino play, players all the time can and do, identify a cluster or section or 'short playable' that will produce winner after winner. I do it all the time. But cannot say because of XYZ---ABC will happen and it will happen between hands 20 to 35 or whatever number.
As far as a section with numerous hands that are either weak, strong, repeating trend or pattern, numbers strong or weak, cutting, etc., etc., etc., it is still the greatest and easiest way to capitalize on a cluster/section, etc., of baccarat.
Anyway, as far as baccarat, I have no idea about Roulette or anything else.
QuoteIf you are merely saying, one cannot identify when it is going to happen, you are correct--of course. However, in reality and in live casino play, players all the time can and do, identify a cluster or section or 'short playable' that will produce winner after winner.
If you are now seeing say BBBB what can you identify seeing this? If you guess this is streak, the chance of ending the streak right here and goin one more time is equal. How can you utilize that? After the end of a session it is easier to analyse but identifying an "opportunity" at correct times could be done only with clairvoyance. Sadly I do not have clairvoyance. I work on logic only.
This is amusing. Magician, master of magical thinking, and not ashamed to show it. Albalaha, trying to ignore opportunities by dismissing the clues people hand him.
Dismiss this: Every 300 spins there are coldest numbers that always closely produce the same statistical average number of hits. If you filter these numbers out of balanced play choices like the double dozens or the EC's, if you have the skill to identify them, if you know the nature of how cold numbers wake up and active numbers go to sleep in 300 spins, then based on that alone, without any magical math, but with plain old arithmetic, you can beat the math. It all comes down to clod number identification. If your balanced play follows the math you should be about 5% down at the end of the 300 spins. But if you filtered out the coldest numbers along the way you should be well above the even point. The needed information to do this is experience. I have it and both of you don't, by your own admission of understanding.
You've been schooled.
I am not that naïve to say a guess is clustering on a BBBB.
I am actually referring to something more tangible. I know I wrote about this stuff somewhere here on the board.
Clustering and Sections is gold in baccarat. However, there are numerous factors that go into the identification of such a cluster or section that could be picked for the gold.
As far as the statement, 'when you know it is too late'. I agree for those new to the game or those that wait too long.
I can only conclude my argument by saying, "every guess or method of guessing" is equally like to help or kill. Claiming of gaining an advantage from any wild method of guessing or identifying the running trends is as frivilous as it could be. Be real guys.
If I remember, you play on line and do not have access to a live casino? Is that correct or am I mistaken?
Go ahead and believe what you say.
Thanks and hope your new year is of course lucky and may you sheer guess correct each and every time because there is no other way................................
Quote from: Albalaha on December 30, 2016, 11:25:38 AM
If you are now seeing say BBBB what can you identify seeing this? If you guess this is streak, the chance of ending the streak right here and goin one more time is equal. How can you utilize that? After the end of a session it is easier to analyse but identifying an "opportunity" at correct times could be done only with clairvoyance. Sadly I do not have clairvoyance. I work on logic only.
OK, nobody knows anything because there is no evidence showing context to go on.
What do you do with this: BBBB PPPP BBBB PPPP BBBB PPPP BBBB PPPP BBBB PPPP
Now that was a perfect example of the global effect but even a neophyte gambler can figure this out if it were just a little less than perfect. Sometimes there is context. I recommend that you ignore this when it stairs you in the face. Just keep mumbling the mantra 5% hopelessness.
Quote from: Gizmotron on December 30, 2016, 12:22:41 PM
OK, nobody knows anything because there is no evidence showing context to go on.
What do you do with this: BBBB PPPP BBBB PPPP BBBB PPPP BBBB PPPP BBBB PPPP
Now that was a perfect example of the global effect but even a neophyte gambler can figure this out if it were just a little less than perfect. Sometimes there is context. I recommend that you ignore this when it stairs you in the face. Just keep mumbling the mantra 5% hopelessness.
Same..................
Sad things about what some say like Albalaha, is in so many words, don't recognize anything. Anything, is just a coincidence according to them. But they contradict themselves to the max here. Because if the shoe was producing 1 Player and then 5 Bankers and then 1 Player again and 5 more Bankers and then 1 Player and then 6 more Bankers, etc., and I wagered on the multiple Bankers each time and only lost the one wager when it fell off and went to the 1 Player, I would still have been guessing. It is always a guess if someone needs to label the winning decision but when I play I am not trying to be correct in picking out a pattern or trend or a certain order of winning hands at such and such a point in the shoe. I am trying to be on the correct side that prevails as the shoe is producing those hands. And the easiest and most successful way to do that, is to be in some kind of section/cluster to group of hands that the shoe is producing.
However, I can always shut it down and not 'wager with what the shoe is most certainly producing'. Those that wager for the cut or whatever it is, even a sheer guess to the opposite side, when the shoe produces those 14 in a row or those 5 Bankers and then 5 Players and then those 5 Bankers again and then those 5 Players again, etc., I find it relatively easy to wager with the shoe rather than against it. The list is long, when the shoe is producing 8 or 12 or 15 sheer chop-chop or perhaps it is producing a series of 8 or 14 doubles or whatever. Or perhaps it is 1 Bankers and then multiple repeating Players for say something like, B-PPPP-BPPPPPPPP-B-PPP-B-PPPPP-B-PP and so on. My stomach loves it when I only lose that 'last wager' as it falls off whatever it was.
I said it before and I will say it again. I rather wager with the shoe than against it for the one unit win after numerous Martingales', etc.
Magic, pull somebody else's leg. Anyone can cherry pick a great win streak. You should read what I have to say about the three and now five stages of the Effectiveness States.
Do yourself a huge favor and go to a casino and really put it on the line. If it works like you say, you might want to capitalize on it before the opportunity to do so dries up.
QuoteThanks and hope your new year is of course lucky and may you sheer guess correct each and every time because there is no other way................................
If you gamble in the belief of being lucky, sadly you can not be lucky in the long run. http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/19400636/Long-run-in-gambling#.WGagRFN97IU
QuoteWhat do you do with this: BBBB PPPP BBBB PPPP BBBB PPPP BBBB PPPP BBBB PPPP
Lol. there can still be both probabilities of P and B in the next hand and a chance of getting PPBB is as much after this as of BBBB or BPBP or any of the combinations possible. Patterns are illusions only. You can not extract from emerging patterns in the long run and will lose ultimately. This is extreme ignorance only and nothing else.
"Gamblers are more impulsive and 'see patterns' where there are none." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150429100937.htm
Quote from: Albalaha on December 30, 2016, 01:07:20 PM
If you gamble in the belief of being lucky, sadly you can not be lucky in the long run. http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/19400636/Long-run-in-gambling#.WGagRFN97IU
Lol. there can still be both probabilities of P and B in the next hand and a chance of getting PPBB is as much after this as of BBBB or BPBP or any of the combinations possible. Patterns are illusions only. You can not extract from emerging patterns in the long run and will lose ultimately. This is extreme ignorance only and nothing else.
"Gamblers are more impulsive and 'see patterns' where there are none." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150429100937.htm
Seriously................I have played this game for the better part of 35 years plus.
Hell with the long run, we can get killed by a drunk driving on the way home tonight or tomorrow or in 10 years from now, etc.
No one knows what the long run is anyways, different for each of us in reality.
Illusions only. Okay, never ever again. Same as I saw at the Bellagio during Asian New Year in 2015. 15 plus blacks in a row on the roulette table. All the money that was constantly lost, each and every hand by people wagering for the Red cause it was due to come out. Hundreds of thousands of dollars. There was one or two little jerk gamblers as everyone called them wagering a couple green chips or one black chip each time on Black. They both made about $1,000.00 each and then cashed out and left happy. Numerous people cited, 'luck, pure luck with those two'. LOL.
I had some respect for you but it all went out the door a minute ago. Seriously.
One very last thing and like I said, never again. I, would wager on certain parts of what the shoe is producing strongly, not continuously and not repeatedly for 15 or 30 or the next 60 or 120 hands as a pre-set strategy to capitalize 'bet select' on an upcoming pattern/trend I predict will be coming out. You twisted and took my words and had fun with them, all good!
Like Gizmo referred to, each and every time I am playing and see the 'illusion' of a pattern/trend or whatever it is, I will rename it and warn each and every player there to steer clear of the illusion in front of us!!!!
At this point I believe I am right, you rarely or never have played in a live real casino.
So, I will take my extreme ignorance and move on from this point.
Quote from: Albalaha on December 30, 2016, 01:07:20 PM
"Gamblers are more impulsive and 'see patterns' where there are none." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150429100937.htm (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150429100937.htm)
Very interesting experiment. Flawed research, passed off as Psychological research, does not impress me much. True psychological experiments involve much larger control groups than this to be considered valid. This BS would never pass a peer review for any credible journal. This: "In a laboratory setting, the researchers compared the betting habits of 91 habitual gamblers against 70 community members," This exhibition of proof is suspect because the researches have already decided that certain characteristics that confirm their conclusions already exists in 91 people tested. This is flawed research using confirmation bias. Perhaps the article should be about Pathological Research Psychologists that see patterns in gamblers.
I'm sure they justified their findings enough to keep getting government grants. Funny how money taints things. This is junk science. They didn't even bother to allow for chemical reactions obstructing reason. The world of headshrinkers is still not a settled science. Not by a long shot.
BTW, you are calling us habitual gamblers, Pathological Gamblers in your association with their conclusions. Here's one for you to chew on for the rest of your gambling life. A perfect pattern that reoccurs for up to 30 spins in a row is an Elegant Pattern. Keep your blinders on for that mirage.
Was not going to answer but since Gizmo got re-involved and shedding some light on the worthless articles written, etc.
I don't want other readers not familiar with this board or those counting on 'word typed', etc., please understand what Gizmo wrote. Many writers of articles in trade journals and other publications are funded by 'grant' money from somewhere and they justify their haphazard research with small numbers and some poorly researched and written article. Sure 100 people surveyed at random and some conclusive decision is reached for whatever subject/topic. LOL.
Also, please look at the source, even on here--this board, as to their background and where their info/data comes from. A third world country, the internet at random and their evaluation of it???? That is what I am trying to get across, open your eyes when you read something.
I was in the truck repair garage business for some time. Pick up some trade magazine and some farming community technical/community college shop class instructor writes some article and gathers all his info from his own community, students and the local trucks coming into the shop class for repair. All fine and good. But does that article and his local research apply to the trucks running up in the artic or across the nation's highway's under a complete different set of maintenance and driving conditions, etc.???? Get my point.
Validation & peer review. That takes real research methods that are accepted. For me to be impressed they would need to exclude newbies and slot players. It takes at least 1,000 in the control group to be considered as a very small sample. And the Adrenalin and Endorphin levels would need to be part of the research too. Now that being said, it would be great to isolate real problem gamblers and see what it is that they really think.
QuoteSeriously................I have played this game for the better part of 35 years plus.
QuoteAt this point I believe I am right, you rarely or never have played in a live real casino.
Buddy, I have taught people of your age and experience from all the continents of the world. I have played a lot in real and live casinos but can not play daily there as they are far from me and I have my profession to carry as well. I play in real casinos in long stretched trips and published many of the trip reports since last 8 years on Victor's and many other forums. Now I feel that instead of wasting my time in travelling, I can play online with my pace and comfort. I believe a fair RNG is as good as a real wheel(I primarily play roulette and seldom baccarat be it real casino or online) as a roulette wheel and ball do serve as mechanical RNG. If someone says online gambling is not real it is comparable to say that an e-mail/sms is not a real mail and I will handwrite a mail, buy tickets for that and put that in a post box and wait for that to be delivered safely and read.
What people are missing here badly is to understand the reality of a random game. Poor understanding of how randomness works and how house advantage slowly kills us, there is no room for becoming an informed player. A player can neither control the random good and bad times, nor can reduce the house edge. It could still be possible to win a net profit with correct money management approach.. Sadly people know of the Archaic MMs only and they are meant to plunder players even faster. Those ill made progressions/MMs are pretty silly as they are meant for short sessions where one can get very hostile sessions too and that will put things upside down for any progression player and cause irreparable losses.
Seeing trends and patterns in a purely random game is pathetic and willingly or unwillingly their advocates are manufacturing a new set of
problem gamblers. See: https://www.problemgambling.ca/EN/ResourcesForProfessionals/Pages/WhyWeSeePatternsinSequencesofRandomEvents.aspx
Nice try. These bone headed headshrinkers are as pathetic as they can be, all be it total ignorance. They project their logic as a cause of problem gambling.
You don't EVER have to believe anything is due in order to use trends and patterns. There are times when following obvious trends produces absolutely dismal results and there are times when the same obvious trends produce incredible results. I know how to tell if following the trends is working for me or not. A room full of psychobabble speaking psychiatrists can be taught the difference between winning most of their bets and losing most of their bets. This is a needed requirement of their observation skills. They don't need to be put on a couch to get past this.
Now the real test. Can you tell when you are in a losing streak or a winning streak? It does not matter how you arrive at your bet selection. Can you tell if you are having an easy winning session or a difficult losing session? I don't see expectations having anything to do with real results. Expectations of any kind are "gamblers Fallacy" and they only serve the academic community as an excuse to validate subjective arguments that impress the uninformed. You are such a person that is effected by their arguments.
It will be fun to watch you miss the point. It will be a real education for everyone here for you to have this go right over your head.
Choke on this one. There are times when I'm playing that all my guesses line up perfect and I get 20 to 30 wins in a row without a loss. Now the chances of winning the next bet still remain at only 61% on any spin, no fallacy here, yet I manage to see it for what it is and hammer the casino for seeing it. I don't care if you think it is stupid. I think you can't hear me. Perhaps someday you will see the difference. I know people can't see things all their lives. They dig in and fight back every time they are disagreed with irregardless of the truth.
The results of real live play are not an illusion based belief. They occur and should be observed. Using a trend to create a stream of results data is in fact a real existing method. Confirmation of situational awareness is the only thing that matters.
Can you see the difference?
Quote from: Gizmotron on December 31, 2016, 12:50:40 AM
Nice try. These bone headed headshrinkers are as pathetic as they can be, all be it total ignorance. They project their logic as a cause of problem gambling.
Wow! Calling a purely scientific and mathematical observation pathetic shows ignorance is lying somewhere else. Relying upon Predictions, forecast, Trends, patterns in a purely random game or a wishful thinking that one can "pick" better bets and win flat by any methodology is pretty childish.
Thankfully we are not here talking of intutions, precognitions, numerology or occult to help us win. Seeing tends and predicting in an interrelated events and in a totally random game where every bet is totally independent are poles apart.
May God help you.
Short term players do NOT worry about this animal. They know better.
Serious money is won in short term. Doesn't matter the shoe's stats, evening out, catching up, finishing ahead, etc., etc., and so on.
There is a new bred of player, more so than the past years, now those are still short-term, however they sit there and pretend to play for the 'non strike' short-term.
Short-term is unique to each of us for the 'how many' definition, but FYI, I classify it as a small section here and there within the shoe, 1 or 2 shoes max for the session.
Also, what I have noticed the past several years, say in the past 5 to 8 years---is the younger players (defiantly under 40 years old) with a couple-few years experience, they suddenly became self-proclaimed experts with all their long-term statics, etc., etc. A fact in the places I frequent anyways.
Quote from: Albalaha on December 30, 2016, 11:26:17 PM
Buddy, I have taught people of your age and experience from all the continents of the world. I have played a lot in real and live casinos but can not play daily there as they are far from me and I have my profession to carry as well. I play in real casinos in long stretched trips and published many of the trip reports since last 8 years on Victor's and many other forums. Now I feel that instead of wasting my time in travelling, I can play online with my pace and comfort. I believe a fair RNG is as good as a real wheel(I primarily play roulette and seldom baccarat be it real casino or online) as a roulette wheel and ball do serve as mechanical RNG. If someone says online gambling is not real it is comparable to say that an e-mail/sms is not a real mail and I will handwrite a mail, buy tickets for that and put that in a post box and wait for that to be delivered safely and read.
What people are missing here badly is to understand the reality of a random game. Poor understanding of how randomness works and how house advantage slowly kills us, there is no room for becoming an informed player. A player can neither control the random good and bad times, nor can reduce the house edge. It could still be possible to win a net profit with correct money management approach.. Sadly people know of the Archaic MMs only and they are meant to plunder players even faster. Those ill made progressions/MMs are pretty silly as they are meant for short sessions where one can get very hostile sessions too and that will put things upside down for any progression player and cause irreparable losses.
Seeing trends and patterns in a purely random game is pathetic and willingly or unwillingly their advocates are manufacturing a new set of problem gamblers. See: https://www.problemgambling.ca/EN/ResourcesForProfessionals/Pages/WhyWeSeePatternsinSequencesofRandomEvents.aspx
You cite basically elementary research and believes by academic 'professionals' working for some kind of free-grant money in most all cases. You 'discovery' has nothing to do with a baccarat shoe in a live casino. IMO, you are confusing people for your own agenda.
If you want to believe your 'great research find' so be it. However, baccarat is not a game of great difficulty if one is comfortable with it and has the vision to play along with the shoe. It is tons easier than black jack and other games where a gambler must beat the house.
QuoteHowever, baccarat is not a game of great difficulty if one is comfortable with it and has the vision to play along with the shoe. It is tons easier than black jack and other games where a gambler must beat the house.
Lol!!!
You or Gizmotron can not beat even simple random sessions without much dispersion and you are saying it is not a difficult game to beat. Anybody claiming to beat baccarat(or any game of pure chance) by "intelligent picks" seeing trends or patterns is pretty novice and ignorant of basic mathematics. Sadly common sense is not so common. It is not EASY to beat baccarat in permutations and combinations of wins and losses coming where losses has to surpass wins by count or house fees. You and Gizmo are making people believe that one can simply pick bets having better chances to win than lose but not able to prove your point in any manner.
I think this debate is going pretty repeatitive with same set of arguments being offered hence closing the topic.