Sitting at the baccarat table the other night and the last hand, an F7 comes. Yes, I was on it, because of numerous reasons. But it was the 4th F7 of the shoe and it finished 41 B to 30 P.

There was a very unique occurring five times, maximum 3 chop-chop in the shoe.  There were several other events that happened as well and were capitalized on by myself and others. I will post a picture of the scoreboard once our attachment posting problem is fixed.  The majority of people made money, but in the following shoe, which was classically easy to follow, most lost quickly. 

The next shoe brought a great start, banker-player player followed by a 7 streak Banker and an F7 on the 8th hand, within the streak.  Then there was a beautiful seven time chop-chop event that happened immediately after the seven banker streak. I did extremely well. I colored up and cashed out.

The cage is not far from the baccarat table. I cashed out and went back to the table to see what was happening. It turned out there was a problem with the hand after I colored up and left. There was another chop and the banker came out. The dealer picked up the first few spots Wagers which were on the banker and the game was stopped and surveillance was called to determine what the wages were to replace them on the spots. The hand was completed and I threw up a few hundred dollars and wagered max on the F7 and the rest on the banker. They all looked at me and said, "you don't see the chop chop". My answer was, "but there was eight hands in the beginning and an F7, now you have eight chop chop and I feel another F7 is coming or banker".

Most all were on players with large wagers. Myself and one other person wagered the Banker and the F7. Cards dealt, Players have two face cards, bankers have blackjack, players pulled a six and they were all fist pumping in the air and calling out, 'chop'.  Dealer flips another six for the banker and my F7 happened.

Clearly the player side is verbally citing, WTF and saying how that should not have occurred, Etc., Etc.

But as with so many things in the game of baccarat, the same things that won previously, lose presently. And the same things that lost previously, will win presently.  That my friends is random variance defined in realistic terms. 

And while sitting there at the table during the shuffle prior to the last shoe I just described, I dwelled on how the majority, mostly, confirm the absolute unpredictability of the game-over and over and over, week after week after week, but yet continue to get sucked in by the casino's score board. 

NOTE:  I will post both pictures of those two shoes as soon as the attachment for posting pictures is fixed on our forum. Thank you.

I have a question Al:

Do you think that the winning process is somewhat affected by the 'ability' of the other players sitting at your table?

Many players I know do not like playing alone at a table.
What do you think?

Thanks in advance

as. 
 

QuoteI have a question Al:

Do you think that the winning process is somewhat affected by the 'ability' of the other players sitting at your table?

Many players I know do not like playing alone at a table.
What do you think?

Thanks in advance

as.

Very difficult to define with short and concise answers.

But for sake of conversation I will state my opinion.

First of all, unlike many others, I rarely wager against another player because he is losing, etc.  I do know numerous (a lot) of players do exactly that. 

Second, I rather play at a table with numerous other players for camaraderie purposes.  I have won a heck of a lot more than I would have, by engaging in strong  camaraderie with others.  As far as losing while engaging in camaraderie, so what, you risk your money with no guarantees anyway.

Third, being the only player at a table, is extremely stressful to myself as I do not desire to engage in every hand. 

Interesting question asym /alrelax

alrelax:
"First of all, unlike many others, I rarely wager against another player because he is losing, etc.  I do know numerous (a lot) of players do exactly that."

I don't recall ever wagering against a player because he was losing. Though occasionally I have suspected that a player was wagering anti-kfb because I was losing. It wouldn't bother me if that occurred.
Nor do I wager with a player because he or she is winning. If Im at a table with a known player that I consider a veteran and student of the game(In other words I value their opinion), then I may glance at their bet selection and wager size/that wager size in proportion to their typical size,...etc. Especially if I was prepping to wager large and their selection was contrary. I may ask them: What are you thinking or how strong do you feel,...etc. Though I wouldn't switch I may consider their contrarian opinion as a nudge that maybe I shouldn't feel that strongly for my selection. But for the most part their selection would only have minimal effect on my selection.

alrelax:
"..Second, I rather play at a table with numerous other players for camaraderie purposes.  I have won a heck of a lot more than I would have, by engaging in strong  camaraderie with others.  As far as losing while engaging in camaraderie, so what, you risk your money with no guarantees anyway..."

I'm ok with camaraderie as long as the others are serious players or known from previous sharing-of-the tables. I'm not enthused when the "others" are recreational type or inebriated and or buyin with $112 dollars at a $50-2K game, in the middle of the deal, and then start telling everyone how to win and how much they have won, and start pointing to invisible patterns on the tote board,...etc. 

My preference is >2<=4 other players. Most of my tables do not allow free hands and I am often the first player at the first table to open in the afternoon. If >=4-7 players, then it takes longer between hands. That coupled with a larger group of say 6-7 at table along with 3-4 back bettors and too many buy ins/change, ...etc. Which is the reason I try to avoid playing fri/sat nights. So, IMO three maybe four players are just right for me.


Third, being the only player at a table, is extremely stressful to myself as I do not desire to engage in every hand.


I agree 100%.



Continued Success,

Thanks for your answer, Al.

Besides the third point (we are not ashamed to exploit the current strong loser misfortune), we agree on the other points you've posted.

as.

I've posted before the KFB interesting comment.
I'll make my personal comments on that in a couple of days.

as.

If there are people at any kind of bac table, some will win and some will lose, no matter what.  All will never wager on the side that continuously wins or loses every single hand. 

Like myself, when a player has had a nice run and begins to give it right back to the rack with aggressive wagering, especially wagering with the exact same reasoning that won him/her the sizable amount in the first place, it is a very commonplace event that their decisions are not generally going to produce continuing positive results for multiple reasons that occur more often than not.

Whether that influences you to wager the opposite, you are still attempting to match the presentment the shoe is setup to present, no one can change that.  You can only change or influence yourself and others what to wager on. 

The game does not allow anyone to continuously employ any type of mechanical system/method or decision making process in repetitive mode in abundance.  If it did, they game would not exist in a casino, period.

QuoteLike myself, when a player has had a nice run and begins to give it right back to the rack with aggressive wagering, especially wagering with the exact same reasoning that won him/her the sizable amount in the first place, it is a very commonplace event that their decisions are not generally going to produce continuing positive results for multiple reasons that occur more often than not.

Whether that influences you to wager the opposite, you are still attempting to match the presentment the shoe is setup to present, no one can change that.  You can only change or influence yourself and others what to wager on.

Very very nice passage!!!     

No jokes.

as.

QuoteVery very nice passage!!!     

No jokes.

as.

I believe those are the 'circumstances' where I realized and defined the M.M.M. I've written about, which includes my 1/3rd-1/3rd-1/3rd allocations.  The highest amount of times it allows myself to hold at least 2/3rds of my larger wins and my buy-in money, while keeping available 1/3rd of my win for continuous play/winning, etc. 

Although that is NOT in anyway a decision making tool for how to win, it does with physical regulation manage my win money.  Unlike most others that fall direct prey to winning, which results in 99% of the time or greater, feeding it right back to the rack as well as their buy-in and additional monies they will attempt to regain their good fortune that came and went. Sad but absolutely true. 

And BTW, that score board is one of the greatest 'suck'em things' in the casino's favor they ever did with baccarat.