I'm a strict objective statistical results lover but our bac earnings had gotten a huge increase by additionally adopting the suggestions you have posted here.
And I'm talking very seriously.

It's about 6 months I've chosen to mentor a couple of very high stakes players and so far we haven't experienced one single losing session.
To the point that in one occasion floormen stand behind us to ascertain we were not applying an edge sorting strategy.
LOL.

as.




 







 

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on September 12, 2018, 10:12:13 PM

our bac earnings had gotten a huge increase by additionally adopting the suggestions you have posted here.
And I'm talking very seriously.


as.


Define???  Explain??  thanks, Glen.

 

Ok Glen.

First our plan is to assess how much an average shoe will conform to the actual shoe.
Such players are betting $5.000 or more per hand, thus they won't to be fooled.

Secondly but more importantly, is how the actual bets are conforming to a general flow of the game.
Now everything comes out in handy such as the general propensity to get good starting points at a given side, predominance of one side, cutoff points.

Moreover, we are carefully noticing what other players' results are. For example, univocal good or bad results are coming whether the shoe is not prodcuing simple patterns as long streaks or long univocal easily detectable patterns.

To simplify, display results are just one side of the issue. Cumulative players outcomes are another part of it.
Naturally very rarely display results are just correspondent to the sum of every single player distinct results as it's quite difficult to get "humanly" easily and long detectable patterns.

If poker is a game of imperfect informations, bac will be a lot more on that issue, but yet one side must win no matter what. Not forgetting that balancement is just a virtual accomplishment to get.

Example,

Say we think that next hand will be B and most players are betting B.
Now I want to assess if majority of side players are winners or losers.
Say most part of players are losers or heavy losers. I won't bet B, I won't bet anything.
I could be right or wrong but the overall probability is slightly oriented to get a loss.

Now say that the previous hand was a loss, we have no indications on which side to wager and most players bet one side. What to do?

Even if we could be trapped in the middle of a losing streak, I would follow the majority of players. Thet is players who  had lost the previous hand so probability to get a winning hand for them is slightly endorsed.

I mean that it's quite difficult to find spots where every player at the table is wrong or right, besides very rare situations when the shoe is very polarized.

Imo, our task should be to spot the situations where 0 goes to  1 or viceversa or at most where 1 goes to 2 or 2 to 1. The rest is pure randomness.

What do you think?

as.

 


 

 






 

 Yes, what i have written about lately called,  getting sucked in, 

I will comment tomorrow,  but yes right track about perception, etc.

Asym,

Yes, and I am not attempting to take anything away.  IMO, this is reality to a certain point.  I have written about it in several other threads, similar, a bit different, more detailed, etc., etc. 

Everything all over the internet is so theorized, so "bookish", so system/mechanical holy grail oriented, it make me laugh and puke at the same time.

The casino game, especially baccarat, is so player driven for its results, wins, losses, and everything in between, at times it has nothing to really do with the shoe presentments as far as wagering goes. 

Please read the following and comment, positively, negatively or otherwise. 

https://betselection.cc/general-discussion/fooled-by-realityfooled-by-desires/

About the forums and the transformation, interpretation and believability of the info written and presented, etc.:
https://betselection.cc/general-discussion/'there-is-no-truth-there-is-only-perception'-on-the-forums/

Relevance of info, test results, false positives, etc.:
https://betselection.cc/general-discussion/relevance-versus-perception-versus-reality/

My thoughts on getting sucked in and screwing yourself as most all players do, experienced or not:
https://betselection.cc/baccarat-forum/seriously-baccarat-betselection-lets-talk-discuss-players-and-wagering/

Dealing with the how comes and the whys, etc.:
https://betselection.cc/baccarat-forum/theoretical-vs-practical-reality-knowledge-in-gambling-baccarat/

'Probability', 'Variances' and most importantly, 'Dealing with our Ignorance':
https://betselection.cc/general-discussion/fooled-by-realityfooled-by-desires/msg64030/#msg64030

Asym,

You might have read those???  But it fits in with my many years of playing B&M at all levels and all types, as well as the rage of the internet and the chase for the holy grail, that does not exist, never did and never well, at least in mechanical systematic form, etc. 

Thanks, Glen. 

Everything you've posted makes much sense to me.

But we know that only real live sessions are the proof of what we are talking about.

Anybody wanting to win money could PM me. We'll meet us in Vegas.
Anything for free.

as. 

AsumBacGuy I want to say thank you for a nice topic.
Wondering if you could give a concrete example of the staking plan.

There are so many variations!

Cheers

Quote from: Sputnik on September 27, 2018, 03:11:48 PM
AsumBacGuy I want to say thank you for a nice topic.
Wondering if you could give a concrete example of the staking plan.

There are so many variations!

Cheers

Thank you.

What do you mean as "staking plan".
Thanks.

as.

Let me put it like this, how would you wagering your money ...
For example multiple levels:


1 2

1 3

2 4

2 6

3 6

3 9

4 8

4 12

5 10

5 15

7 14

7 21

9 18

9 27

12 24

12 36

15 30

15 45

Soxfan always talks about big bankroll and all in ...

Ok, thanks for the explanation.

Actually I'm playing a very conservative strategy: 80% of the time 1 unit, in the remaining 20% bets are raised from 50% to 100% (maximum is always 2 bets).

More rarely I employ aggressive strategies when I want to bet very few spots where the supposedly probability to win a series of progressive wagers is very close to 100%.

I do not apply anymore long strategic plans as sooner or later they'll easily sink into the variance ocean.

What about you?
as.   





 

IMO and experience, unlike any system module and program on a computer that will eventually win with unlimited bankroll, the real casino is not the same.  Coupled with the unforgiving and clouding real players inflict upon themselves in the wagering process when they lose.  Likewise, when they win, those same players ignore or forget upon what will eventually happen. 

I have posted details about positive progressions of 1-3-2-6 units, as well as a few other things, I believe one can call staking??  Staking to me, is the amount of my future bets dependent upon if I win or lose my current wager. 

A couple parlays at most and than pull down the winnings.  Always attempting to recoup as quick as possible my initial wager, no matter if i am winning or losing.  I do my best when I am gambling with the casinos money.  I have argued back and forth with many over the years about that very statement.  But there is always a risk for the player, no matter if you started out and lost/losing your wagers or winning.  As far as the grind with looking for 2 or 3 or 4 units, each day, that will always fail. 

You have to totally understand and control human nature.  It is no different in most all aspects of life, hobbies, business, etc.  Gambling is the same, but so many have no clue as to how human nature does and will effect your decisions. 

Hello AS ... I have some question and I hope you can help me solve them.

You wrote in the beginning:

Quote
We'll bet a 1-2 unit progression whenever a P single or a P double had come out, in order to get at least a two P 1-2 clustered succession in any order. After winning the first (single) or second (double) event, we stop the betting waiting for another 1 or 2 P situation and going over and over. Meaning we have to wait a 3+ appearance cutting the pattern.

And in the reply above you say that you are conservative and flat betting.

Question 1: Assume I want to stick to the original idea of playing 1-2 progression, then what happens after two losses, in some way I need to use a smooth progression without implementing Marty 100% I mean I can not start flat betting after using 1-2 progression, there has to be another way wagering the money?

Question 2: You say you use a conservative method flat betting. Do this mean you win and break even with WIN and LOSS WIN patterns W/LW and only raise the money when you encounter negative variance?

Cheers

Hi Sputnik!

I'll answer tomorrow extensively to your interesting questions.

Cheers

as.

Sputnik ,

Check out  the JP   Baccarat 1-2-2.


Dr. Mabuse



Tsi Nan Fu

Let's go back with my idea on baccarat.

Step #1.
To be ahead of the game we have to get more wins than losses. Easier to say than done. But any bac player should remember this.
We do not need to be rocket scientists to do that: itlr betting Banker and its related distributions will provide more W than L. Period.
The obvious problem is that any W won't be counterbalanced by the L weight but only FROM AN ECONOMICAL POINT OF VIEW.
Therefore we must operate either in form to raise the  general W probability or, more likely,  to restrict at most the W appearance within the shortest periods of betting.

Step #2

Math gurus and fkn bac pseudo experts abounding on internet will teach us that every bac bet is EV-

This is a total bullsh.it statement.
It could be true whether any resolved hand is totally independent from the previous one and, of course, if the game isn't finite (that is determined by a finite deck). 

For example, we know that sooner or later a 4 Player streak formed by no asymmetrical hands is a perfect EV=0 disposition (actually it could have a EV+ due to card distribution). We know that such P streak isn't the product of 0.4932 x 0.4932 x 0.4932 x 0.4932 probability.
The same is about a Banker 4 streak not forming one or more symmetrical hands in between.
In this case the probability is just 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5.
Various streaks at either side will come out at different times but itlr the number of different mix of as/s hands tend to be correspondent to the expected values.

Step #3

The most important thing in order to take advantage of what I've written so far is restricting at most our probability of success per each series of bets we wish to place.
In a given infinite succession of pseudo coin flips, trying to win one unit in two consecutive attempts by a kind of progressive wagering must invert to our favor the general 75% probability.
At baccarat this 75% W probability may come out or not, it's our duty to select the spots where such probability could be higher or lower.
Thus it's not about how we'll raise our bets.

Why 2 consecutive wagers are better than 2+ wagers or a succession of single bets followed by a kind of progression on next bets?

Easy answer.   
Variance acts by steps. Our bets must be winning on the very first bet or the second one. The rest will sink into the uncontrollable variance ocean. And such ocean may present several consecutive deep holes we can easily fall into.
Restarting to bet will be covered later about step #5. 

Step #4

416 cards can arrange in numerous ways, yet it's more likely that what happened first won't be perfectly balanced by the next outcomes of the same shoe as the previous card distribution must affect subsequent card dispositions (not results).

Step #5

Besides strict statistical issues, everything comes in handy to ascertain what's the best course to take: if a given negative pattern had come out, odds are it will represent again on the same shoe.
Predominance, cards issues, overall other players' outcomes, turning points, Alrelax wrote a lot of interesting and valuable  topics about this.

A final note, a kind of gift: study the shoes where the very first pattern is a 3+ streak on any side (especially on B side). You'll find valuable spots to bet into the subsequent hands by a 99.9% accuracy.

as.