Nice reply Al. Thanks.

It's quite known that I'm hardly working to set up a no brainer mechanical method capable to get the best of it no matter how whimsically will get the hands distribution.

Many shoes are not playable at all just for the reasons Al outlined in his several posts.

This as sh.it tends to come out in clusters than being balanced in subsequent portions of the shoe.
As well as good outcomes can be detected right at the start.

Into a finite and dependent model, probability works by various degrees and whereas some levels are "unlikely" reached, our best move is to not play at all.

Notice that imo we do not want to follow "unlikely" lines, we just want to get rid of them.

Baccarat is a game of balancements and deviations, whenever a given deviation is "due" we follow it, whenever is harshly going against the "expected" (it's sufficent to lose 2 bets in a row) we better wait the next shoe.

Imo never ever try to adhere at an "unlikely" distribution as it's more inclined to form difficult detectable results.

It's like poker where to get an edge you have to fold some possible best hands.

as.


















 

Quote from: alrelax on March 26, 2019, 03:22:37 AM
Absolutely spot on, no matter which way you think or desire.

I know in that shoe I posted last night of 23 or so players against he 2 Bankers out there in the very beginning of the shoe, winning large money compared to a relatively small buy in, that if I continued playing, most of it--if not all of it would have gone back to the casino.

The two of you crack me up!  I mean you and John, Glen.  No matter what either of you say the other pats you on the back and says "spot on."  Yet one says the math and computer sim is hogwash and bets many hands based on past history while the other insists flat betting few hands based on mathematical edge is the only way to win!  There are no two players that couldn't play more opposite than you two.

But to your last statement quoted above, Glen.  NONSENSE!  We can just as easily got even more wins.  Quitting while ahead always prudent psychology but in no way increases the probability of losing.  I do but many times regret it.  Here's a good example from today:

WWWW L WWW LLLL WWW L W LL W L WW L W LL W L WWWWWWWWWW L  and quit +45 units.  The interesting thing was the last 12 hands went pp BB pp BB pp BBB and quit losing to the 3 B.  But the rest of the shoe finished with:pp BBB pp BBBB pp B pppp.

Hadn't been a singleton last 14 hands or so!  Just betting for the dom 2nd line would have reaped more wins.  Shi.t.  Probably would have made another 5-10 units.  It happens.  Long dragon can come anytime.

FYI.   Next shoe went L W L WWWWW LLLLL WWWWWWW LL WWWW L QUIT  +27 units. (made some mistakes on that 5 LIAR given the history.)grrrrr

I agree with you, but I was up literally hundreds of units, it was enough.  I would have struggled or won and lost at best.  The best opportunities are not always there, sticking around and praying for more or waiting for more would be frustrating and tempting.  I do believe it was well after midnight as well with an hour and half drive home and had to get up by 6 am.  I know myself and the same as the days I was in NYC or NJ and at Mo Sun or FW and it was midnight or 1 AM and I had a business to open early in the morning, limits are limits and things get complicated when a person plays to win and is not at ease.   

Good job on the wins for sure!

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on March 26, 2019, 04:02:12 AMMany shoes are not playable at all just for the reasons Al outlined in his several posts.

I guess I missed anything Glen wrote about unplayable shoes.  Maybe you could opine on the subject and present an example "unplayable" shoe?  Thanks.

J




















[/quote]

You guys need to have my problems trying to get a game.

Unable to get access to my local casino (no viable reason given, other than they don't like how I played perhaps), another local casino have removed the game al together.  So have to travel to the formers sister casino (Gentings) 30 miles away. I take the train which don't run 24 hours, so either have to rush to catch the last train before midnight or stay until 5:30am, no matter if I've hit my goal target.  I dislike like playing after getting what I went for, because the longer you play the more difficult self control becomes, besides who wants to risk turning a profit into a loss 

I have not had to re-buy at all this year and am making 100%minimum of my buyin, usually 8 ~ 12 shoes per session, it is a slog, but safe, the ultimate grind. 

Decided to re-activate my Grosvenor online account today, live table from Victoria London, why not play at home when I'm too buggered to travel, for some extra extra tax free cash.

Played first shoe no drama's, won 13 bets lost 5. 

Second shoe, I placed a bet 4 bloody times and was logged out of the site, EACH TIME THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN WINNING BETS.  B@stards, I finished the second shoe winning 7 and losing 1 bet, should ve been W11 L1.  Complained like hell to their support people, they will investigate, meanwhile, in total disgust I withdrew my deposit and winning.

Wasn't playing big, very small in fact, maybe it was nothing, maybe they didn't like the win ratio and the fact I sit out a lot of hands.

All based on Mathematics, couldn't care less what pattern(s) "random binary decisions" are producing, as they are IMO meaningless.

Anyway, if sputnik reads this post, I have a question for you (or anybody who fancies it).

What is the ecart (SD) of a 128/1 outcome occurring 2 times and 3 times within 8 trials?  I'm curious!!!

In a perfect scenario a 128/1 trial would occur twice per 129 trials, however with random outcomes, nothing is perfect, anything can occur, as in multiple occurrences of 128/1 trials within a small sample of 7/8 attempts.  I was interested in the actual SD.   

Trust that makes sense and wasn't too confusing, back to the train station tomorrow. 


   

Quote from: Jimske on March 27, 2019, 08:02:20 PM
I guess I missed anything Glen wrote about unplayable shoes.  Maybe you could opine on the subject and present an example "unplayable" shoe?  Thanks.

J

In order to win two units one needs to win one unit first.
It's a mathematically undisputable fact that it's a lot more likely to be ahead of one unit than to be ahead of two units and so on by a logarithimic scale.

Therefore any strategic plan should be oriented to get that one unit profit per a given series of trials and this is an awesome result as it will deny the math negative edge.
When an initial loss comes around, we must hope that subsequent outcomes will first balance the previous loss, then inverting the losing line dictated by the first loss.
In a word, to get a profit we need two positive results to balance that first loss.
Without a verified edge, attempts directed to get a balancement even by the use of progressions represent a totally worthless effort. That is it will be more likely to be +1 after a 0 cutoff scenario than to be +1 after a -1 spot.

People who like to state they can get multiple winning units per any given shoe are bighornshitting themselves and anyone reading them.

It's not fkng possible to be ahead of multiple units not only per any single shoe but per a decent sample of shoes unless whether a lucky (unlikely) positive variance is acting.

We can't be right on every shoe dealt, maybe placing the "turning point" to -1 is the best option to get an edge itlr, that is to get rid of that shoe (best if the process is made fictionally).

To get a long term edge at this game one needs to bet huge and very rarely and it would be an outrageous statement to say otherwise. Especially if someone tries to demonstrate that every single shoe is controllable, a total fkng bighornshit.

No human can be more right than what probability and math dictate, otherwise this game wouldn't exist.

I'll be more convinced of the contrary if any "foolproof system" claimer would bet $1000 or more per hand, and this thing isn't going to happen.

Watch me when I'm playing and you'll get a better idea of what I'm talking about.

as. 























   

At least when I'm sober and focused :-)

as.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on March 28, 2019, 04:05:39 AM
At least when I'm sober and focused :-)

as.

Were you sober when you wrote that?  Are you calling your bud a bighornshit loser lyin' coksuker?   Because he doesn't believe any of that since he plays many hands a shoe and does raise his bet.

Quick shoe yesterday:

L WWW L W L W LL WW LLL WW LL W LL WWWWWW L W LLL WWW L WWWW LLLL WWW L W L W L WW     

"To get a long term edge at this game one needs to bet huge and very rarely and it would be an outrageous statement to say otherwise. Especially if someone tries to demonstrate that every single shoe is controllable, a total fkng bighornshit".

The size of the huge wagers is all in perspective to the buy in as well as the average or the regular wagers of that player.

Every shoe is not controllable, 100 percent in agreement with that one.  Whomever says that either just started playing, has not played for any length of time and/or is attempting to spark up some drama talk. 

What should make "unbeatable" a given plan?

My answer: the certainty that a class of events must show up per any shoe at different degrees of presentation.
I'm not talking about a very very high probability that something is going to happen but the certainty that something happens.

Of course just knowing that something is 100% going to show up doesn't help us too much as we need to estimate when and how many times those events come out per any shoe.
In a word, we must build a proportion between searched events and number of attempts.
If we know that some shoes will provide just one searched event, we must restrict at most our attempts to spot this event as we're risking many to win one.
Conversely, knowing that some shoes will present many searched events, money utilized to spot those situations will be spent with a way higher probability to be right AT LEAST IN ONE SPOT. That is the minimum requirement of certainty we should look for. 

That is I do not want to win several bets within limited intervals of time with high degree of uncertainty but to win very little in safe conditions of certainty within relatively large amount of samples.

If such certainty would be ALWAYS limited in the space of 5-6 attempts per shoe, a simple martingale would solve the problem.
Unfortunately not every shoe will provide the room to make 5-6 attempts, in other words certainty becomes certainty only in selected circumstances.
And not by magical forces, just for a matter of space as any shoe is a finite separated dependent world.

See tomorrow

as.   









 

Hello Asym,

Take Al's turning points/sections as an example. Looking at his examples, you might get on average 4/5 of these throughout a shoe. They don't appear one after the other in short order, rather they appear spread out. So here you have several opportunities to attack and also know that one particular characteristic has given way to another. I think this is a worthwhile way to look for that 'certainty' where you have some information to help/guide you.

AsymBacGuy why not stop with the clues and riddles, simply post a shoe to explain exactly and precisely what you are referring to. It is that easy, no need to make things complicated.

I tend to agree with Glen's statement which is in bold and underlined a few posts up. 

Thanks for your inputs and replies.

Look how awesome is to know that one specific situation is going to happen (or not) per a given class of shoes dealt.
But the specific situation must be firmly set up in mind BEFORE playing and adjusted accordingly to what the shoe produces but always in terms of "playable" or "not playable" shoe. 

In order to do that we need to take advantage or, even better, to build several random walks endorsing the probability to look for the searched situation.

Playing by instinct or by experience may be valuable random walks but too much affected by emotional and actual factors. More importantly playing instinctively leads to bet too many hands.

Five random walks are directly diplayed on the screen (big road, bead plate road, etc) but we could build infinite random walks even not based upon the B/P results (for example about the first and second card dealt).

For example, one of the artificial road one can easily add is the third to last hand registration.
We wait three resolved hands then the fourth hand will be classified going back three hands, then registering it into two separated columns (S=same, O=opposite).

for example:

BBPPPBPPBPPBBBB is

OOOSSSSSOOS

Of course there's no a direct value in registering the outcomes in such a way, it's just a ploy to raise the probability to cross the searched situation that could be delayed on other roads.

But the real value of registering multiple random walks simultaneously is whenever our plan dictates to get B or P on more than half of all random walks considered.

The reason is all about the difficulty to get a sudden inversion of probability's plan on many roads, at least on more than half of them.

In case our plan suggests all roads to get the same outcome in the same point (a relatively rare finding even adopting only 3 or 4 roads), our wager will get an astounding EV+.

Despite the wonderful profits such scheme will produce, I know there's a methodological issue to be solved: the presence of ties. At least theoretically.

Since we have to discount ties in our registrations (besides big road and bead plate) we know that results' distribution may be affected in some way.

In a word, shoes particularly rich of ties at the start should be avoided (along with the shoes not fitting other conditions we're looking for).

as. 

You said; "Playing by instinct or by experience may be valuable random walks but too much affected by emotional and actual factors. More importantly playing instinctively leads to bet too many hands."

1)  Exactly;

2)  Spot-On;

3)  Absolutely;

4)  No Argument;

5)  100%;

6)  Again, all the above 100 times!

However, if you do not play, you cannot win.  The emotional aspect of the game is huge and countless people playing for years never recognize that, address that or factor it in. 

Thanks Al.
We're speaking the same language even though is taken by different angles.

There's no fkng way that playing into a random taxed model we'll be more right than wrong by instinct or by following trends or by mechanical placements unless we assess carefully what's happening, what's happened so far and what is slightly more likely to happen.
Moreover, we should know what's our real goal per every session played. We can't hope to win every session and we can't break even after an harsh losing session.
Are casinos going to win every fkng day or week? No way.   

The certainty of a given outcome can only be extracted by the proper use of time or by utilizing other tools (defect of randomness for example).

Example.

We know that the probability to get a big road shoe without any B or P single or streak or double or 3+ streak is close to zero.
But if we consider the common three additional derived roads is absolutely zero. ZERO. Mathematically.

Going down to some of less likely outcomes and testing a lot of real shoes, we'll see that what happened so far tends to represent it in the same shoe and, at a lesser degree, what not happened so far gets a slightly increased probability to appear.
The process is endorsed by a supposedly flaw of randomness.

The problem is when to start to bet and when to stop it.

It should be an idiocy to stop the betting when crossing a winning streak, but the exact counterpart (stopping to bet when losing) will provide huger benefits.

Casinos want us to gamble, playing every hand or betting side bets.
Therefore we should disappoint their hopes, so betting very few hands (or betting small every hand and wagering 10x or more on key hands).

It's very likely that a team formed by me, Al, Sputnik, roversi, Bally and some others will crush every casino in the world by the simple concept of convergence of probability taken by different angles.
To get a decent profit we must join $1000 or $2000 min tables, let casinos think we're stupi.d gamblers.

Our goal will be to be banned in the casino we're playing at.

Our motto is

put your fkng math edge in your behind

as.