How many of you go for a trigger to start bet? Do you think it useful/helpful?
In my humble opinion and observation, it doesn't change probability further but it could be utilized to ward off the worst possible
probabilities and if we take multiple triggers together and their net total impact, I found it helpful logically and probability wise too. We should not expect any in built advantage with any trigger or flat bet win with it.

       Let me illustrate as to how I perceive it can be used.
Say, I m looking for a trigger of 1SD or worse to cool off and then I bet for the same length, expecting better.
LLLLLLLLLLWLLLLWLW , 15 LOSSES AND ONLY 3 WINS.
If I bet upto 18 more decisions hereafter, I might get a similar stretch ahead but very few times. Mostly, I will get something like 9:9 or 7:11 or 8:10 win:loss ratio. Getting LLLLLLLLLLWLLLLWLWLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLWLW is not impossible but definitely rare.

Such triggers might not be good for playing for +1 but excellent for my millionaire's plan where I want to play for 80-90% winning sessions, with 50-100 units' gain or loss.

What do you say on this?

Hi Albalaha

How many of you go for a trigger to start bet?

     I do though I don't view my trigger(s) as being causal to the outcomes. One thing(trigger) I generally do when I sit down at a new shoe and immediately post-cut. I like to wait for the outcomes to hit the other side/back to orig outcome (as a minimum wait), prior to placing my first wager. E.G., PPBP, with the third P being a trigger to consider placing a wager going forward.

Nothing scientific or projective about it. Simply a way as to not allow the cut to dictate the first few outcomes at a short-term stage where results are random and more difficult to discern(at least for me). Mostly due to the simple fact we don't have any intel at that point. Of course I would be first to agree that most anything we do as an attempt to tame undesirable variance will also dilute the desirable variance,...etc.


Do you think it useful/helpful?

     My perception is Yes, as it helps with my above objective. Though may or may not increase my hit/miss ratio.
IMO anything we do to reduce number of hands wagered at random is beneficial. At least for me, I don't have any perceived +ev strategies that would help on the first hand following the cut(especially in cas that don't show the burn cards). If required to wager that first post-cut hand I might be slightly more inclined to put it on P.


In my humble opinion and observation, it doesn't change probability further but it could be utilized to ward off the worst possible probabilities and if we take multiple triggers together and their net total impact, I found it helpful logically and probability wise too. We should not expect any in built advantage with any trigger or flat bet win with it.

     I agree in that most triggers won't change probability. However, they could possibly make us enter a wager when a W is perceived to be more probable. Also, as u mention above it could help ward off(side step) a negative cluster of outcomes, thus , potentially preserving bullets until we are getting the best of it.

     re: Triggers, Im always reminded that a perceived beneficial trigger for my side of the wager has just created the exact opposite perception for approx 50% of my table mates(and vice versa).

Albalaha--what  are a couple of your favorite triggers to sidestep losing clusters?


Thx/Continued Success,

QuoteAlbalaha--what  are a couple of your favorite triggers to sidestep losing clusters?

I use extreme variance management to ward off the worst possible like pausing betting after third consecutive loss and resuming after getting a WLW or WW only. If pausing isn't possible, I bet least possible.

Before using any trigger two things must be understood:
1. Waiting for a trigger, you might miss the best times to play;
2. A trigger could make you wait too long, yet might not yield something as we can't predict anything based upon past results.

Trigger and Extreme Variance management, my way, could complement each other.[/size]

Thx Albalaha

re: "I use extreme variance management to ward off the worst possible..."
   
     Do you also ward off the best possible to the exact same level??
Lets say (e.g., -4SD to +4SD),  OR  are u more likely to do a predetermined setup such as : (-4SD to +2SD, ....etc )  ??  Other?

thx,kfb

QuoteDo you also ward off the best possible to the exact same level??
Lets say (e.g., -4SD to +4SD),  OR  are u more likely to do a predetermined setup such as : (-4SD to +2SD, ....etc )  ??  Other?

It all depends upon the trigger. it is pretty configurable. Even 0.5SD could be a trigger.

Hi Albalaha
As always thx for your timely replies.

I know you have spent years studying live bac data. My questions:

A) Per lets say a <=10,000 decision random sample  what is largest extreme (-) variance u have seen with live table outcomes (e.g., -5.2SD, -4.8, -5.9,..etc)? Choose either side P or B for our discussion.

B) ""   "" (+)Variance u have seen (e.g., +5.2sd,...etc)?

C) Do you typically see both extremes within the same sample approach similar levels(e.g., one side lets say reaches an apex of  -5.0sd and the other side  lets say had a maximum spread +4.9sd )?

     "OR"  do you more often see one side take off in the lead and the other never really draw even after the first couple thousand decisions?
   



Many Thanks,

Quote(+)Variance u have seen (e.g., +5.2sd,...etc)?

I have analyzed over 20 millions roulette data and over 1 million hands of baccarat of both simulated as well as real data. I compiled many of the extremes of baccarat here : https://www.gamblingforums.com/threads/worst-stretches-in-baccarat.15221/
but don't forget that whatever we have seen is not the limit, it can always break that. My strategy can bear even -6 SD playing all over( even without any pause or even when my extreme variance management doesn't help). I would rather love to face -6SD. It would be an experience and will rather strengthen me.
           In a normal EC session, I do not expect more than -1.5SD though.
Recently, someone approached me via email asking for my MM that beats 35/165 case. I replied there is no such MM that can do this, in my little knowledge. Neither 35/165 case has been witnessed yet. However, if I play with my MM, I can sustain even 35/165 and might win a net profit thereafter with average sessions later.

Thx Albalaha

Your answer (-6SD), would certainly deplete a few players' buyin.

In a normal EC session, I do not expect more than -1.5SD though.
     I agree -1.5--2SD isn't that uncommon (within a shoe). I find that most of my multi-day trips are often required to endure the worst (-SD) stint in two consec shoes. I most often do a pospro so either abandon(and wait for easier battle), or abandon that shoe out of neccessity(busted buyin).


thx

I agree -1.5--2SD isn't that uncommon (within a shoe).

That is why -1.5 SD or worse could work as a valid and helpful trigger my way. Getting 2/10 in an EC is an easy to be seen phenomenon. getting 4/20 is comparatively rare and is nearly -2.5 SD. Getting only 16 hits in 80 trials is over -5.2 SD and as rare as next to impossible.
           Playing with rarer trigger mean waiting for longer. Hence 1 SD below mean or worse could be tried once a day, specially when we have multiple tables to access.

Any other trigger one might suggest?

Hi Albalaha

Alb:
That is why -1.5 SD or worse could work as a valid and helpful trigger my way.

     Agreed. Potentially it could help as a trigger. Though I think u will agree it would also depend on where in the shoe the deficit(-1.5sd) was triggered. For example, lets say at hand 20 vs  hand 60. The deficit side may indeed start accelerating in its attempt to catch up. However, regardless of how fast it is closing the gap, may simply run out of time(too little remaining distance to make up the deficit completely),...etc, in that same shoe.

     Alrelax also speaks of this often in his writings as it is his opinion re: side deficit. (re: sides: often desire to do a correction "snap back" once they reach a deficit of 10ish or the seldom 20ish, total score deficit). I agree and do indeed watch for this when I see a side creep ahead by a >=8 count (especially if it wasn't due  to single long runs of say 6-8 streak). Plus, as mentioned above it could have different implications if it occurred in first 10-15 decisions vs at say hand 60-70.

     I think these larger SD side deficits often sneak up on players. I know I've been guilty of suddenly looking back at my card and surprised to realize one side just increased its lead to 12(though it occurred gradually with 4-2,3-1,..etc type surges).

Alb:
Getting only 16 hits in 80 trials is over -5.2 SD and as rare as next to impossible.


     Indeed, and one of the reasons I like a pospro--it automatically omits(i.e., limits wager# or $) the extended long streaks of incorrect bet placement.

Alb:
Any other trigger one might suggest?
     I like your triggers above as a f(x) of Variance/think they are reasonable for the profile of Bac. However, I also think one should predetermine how long we want to  chase. IOW , do we enter the battle til victory or death--OR-- do we consider retreat as an option at some future stage.

Continued Success,

     

QuoteAgreed. Potentially it could help as a trigger. Though I think u will agree it would also depend on where in the shoe the deficit(-1.5sd) was triggered. For example, lets say at hand 20 vs  hand 60. The deficit side may indeed start accelerating in its attempt to catch up. However, regardless of how fast it is closing the gap, may simply run out of time(too little remaining distance to make up the deficit completely),...etc, in that same shoe.

     Alrelax also speaks of this often in his writings as it is his opinion re: side deficit. (re: sides: often desire to do a correction "snap back" once they reach a deficit of 10ish or the seldom 20ish, total score deficit). I agree and do indeed watch for this when I see a side creep ahead by a >=8 count (especially if it wasn't due  to single long runs of say 6-8 streak). Plus, as mentioned above it could have different implications if it occurred in first 10-15 decisions vs at say hand 60-70.

     I think these larger SD side deficits often sneak up on players. I know I've been guilty of suddenly looking back at my card and surprised to realize one side just increased its lead to 12(though it occurred gradually with 4-2,3-1,..etc type surges).

         Sadly, while I am talking of RTM you went for gamblers' fallacy. Nothing corrects or catches up after any deficit. It might happen, it might not. I do not expect a corrective or compensatory or even clumping wins after a very bad stretch. That thinking is fallacious. I only expect results to go better gradually. It can't remain horrible always. I do rely upon sequential probability as well. Chances of getting an LLLL is definitely equal to getting an LLL or an LL or an L put together.

               As I said earlier, waiting for a trigger( a very sensible one) for playing a session with a target could be tried. If a trigger is being used just to better chances of getting more wins than losses, it will not give desired result and is fallacious thinking.
Remember the old adage, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket."[/size]

Hi Albalaha
Thx as always for offering your opinions.

re:your previous statements:

"...That is why -1.5 SD or worse could work as a valid and helpful trigger my way. .."

"...In a normal EC session, I do not expect more than -1.5SD though..."


Was there a particular reason why u chose : (-1.5 SD) for your trigger, instead of let say (-1.0 SD or say -0.5 SD)?
thx

QuoteWas there a particular reason why u chose : (-1.5 SD) for your trigger, instead of let say (-1.0 SD or say -0.5 SD)?
thx

Well,
          One might try 0.5SD or 1 SD. There is no hard and fast rule. Bigger SD we want, longer we might need to wait, unless we have multiple tables to choose from. Remember, my variance virtual limit says that it could be upto 15x of break even point/mathematical expectancy. Therefore, at times even 1 SD could take hours of waiting. Since my current way of playing is looking for only one session a day, I can wait for 1.5SD below mean or worse to start from.
             I repeatedly warn anyone who is being confused a trigger based play to gamblers' fallacy. No trigger gives you more wins than losses, in the long run. It is not meant for everyone. Use it logically. Only average results could be achieved through this, in the long run and in short run, it can yield anything.

Hi Albalaha

"..Since my current way of playing is looking for only one session a day, I can wait for 1.5SD below mean or worse to start from..."



Thank you

kfb

Mostly playing online, I have got access to over a dozen tables of live baccarat, 24x7, 365 days. Not so tough to get 1.5SD once or twice.