+ Register

[alrelax]

2 Absolutely great shoes last night.  Almost everyone was on it and wagering for the shoe presentments the majority of both shoes.  Great F-7s in the second shoe as well, all in a short order of time.  The flops were all 6s on Aces for a 3 card 7 except one was a 5 on a 2 for the 3 card 7!  We banged the casino big time.  Trick is, putting the majority of the win money away and not allocating it to the bank roll if you have your bank roll replenished, etc. 

First Shoe:

[attachimg=1]

Second Shoe with the F-7s and Banker Dom.  Every single Player natural cut to the banker side--great follow along we found in that shoe.  Every tie also cut except for the one:

[attachimg=2]

F-7s presented themselves at Hand 55, Hand 62, Hand 65 and  Hand 74.

[attachimg=3]

[Garfield]

How you define the presentments in the first shoe? For each section?

Thx

[alrelax]

How you define the presentments in the first shoe? For each section?

Thx

I do not and cannot define the presentments as they are happening and if anyone tells you that they can they are completely exaggerating and just guessing.

As far as the sections I defined them as Section A was extremely weak, Section B was strong, and Section C turned to all ones-twos and threes. I always define sections as15 to 25 hands but on an average of 20 hands each section. I do not guess where the sections are going to turn, I merely mark it up and I follow it to a certain extent.

[Blue_Angel]

I'm barefoot and was wondering where my shoes were, thank you for finding them for me!

[Babu]

Shoe is only great when you win.

[Babu]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lVzMkI3Svuw" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[8OR9]

1. "Listen to the experts"     Well who are the "experts"........and if the experts are making so much money, why  would they sell their techniques to anyone else....and why do they have so much time on their hands if they are playing all the time and making so much money?

2. It's just an advertisement to learn from the "experts"  .................for a charge of course!

[Babu]

That's Eliot Jacobson.  He's talking about winning as an advantage player.  I personally don't think that is beating Baccarat but if you want to get by living off comps, then that's the way to go.  Don't know about Vegas but it's not so easy to do it at my local casinos. They won't give you comps any longer if you're not playing with your own money for a while.

He tells you to understand the math before you can beat it. I think that is one good advice. Although his problem and most other math junkies is their close mindedness. I doubt he has spent much time at the casino or play the game enough. I was foolish and arrogant when I was younger and paid the price for it. I'll admit that I didn't figure this alone.  I picked up a lot of ideas from people who came up with what I thought were really foolish. Well, after I put all the foolish ideas together, they were not that foolish after all.

Flat betting will not work and neither bet selection or money management alone will work. For a less aggressive play, you can use a two step Martingale. Don't even know if I should call it that but it'll help better understand it. Most if not all system will only work when it's either streaky or short and will fail if it goes the other way. The solution is to force all streaks to be 3 max. Still unable to do that yet but manage to do it for 90 percent of the time.  That is enough to get an edge to win.

[AsymBacGuy]

This guy works for casinos and at the same time trying to sell his book.
Thus he set up a win-win situation. LOL. And, btw, many souls got a fkng phD degree without the urge to display it here and there. Nobody cares about one's degrees.

He suggests ridiculous strategies as tracking one card of the deck or stating that Phil Ivey won millions by edge sorting techniques.
Unfortunately Ivey didin't get a fkng dime about his edge sorting winnings, the idea that instructing the dealer to arrange cards the way one player wants to, is totally out of the world.

E.J. surely hadn't bet a dime at real baccarat tables, Babu (Johno) was right at this.

Among the experts he mentioned, only Grosjean would be a valuable source to be followed.

Thorp was just a card counting researcher coming well after other bj authors stating bj vulnerability.
And M. Shackleford knows about baccarat as what most members here know about intricate aspects of astrophysics, that is an average fkng zero.

Math values are reliable only when cards are coming from a perfect random source, so keeping to compare math values to baccarat shoes that are not randomly placed is just an idi.ot statement negated by theory and, more importantly, by practice.

as.


       

[alrelax]

Very well 'real world' said Asym.

[AsymBacGuy]

Quote from: alrelax on Today at 01:49:58 am
Very well 'real world' said Asym.

Thanks Al! :-)

No sh.it.

Best bac players are people who place real bets on the fkng felt, we cannot care less about math gurus who keep claiming this game cannot be beatable or telling stories about poker experts that won (fictionally) dozens of millions but collecting zero.

Side bets are math beatable? Good.

If a side bet is beatable by getting a 7% plus disadvantage, I guess BP hands are 7-fold more beatable.
Math geniuses can't find a math advantage over BP hands?
Need to study the game.

as. 

[Babu]

I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. John-O about 7 years ago.  He told me he was legendary in the Baccarat community.  Now I know it's true. We shared one of about a 100 system I've ever worked on.

It took me almost a decade to find a system that can profit some and executable. All I can say is, no simple system will work. Issue with complex system is the ability to actually execute it at the casino. Some dealers are just too damn fast and often the game is too slow.

[AsymBacGuy]

The solution is to force all streaks to be 3 max. Still unable to do that yet but manage to do it for 90 percent of the time.  That is enough to get an edge to win.

I like this statement!

as.

[8OR9]

A long time ago, I forget which forum it was , a poster named Pit Boss posted a simple, conservative negative progression which bet against a streak going more than 3 in a row. Makes sense because
in the "long run" most streaks will end at 3 or less  approximately 85%  to 88% of the time.

If you have a few scorecards, draw a line under the third row on the card and count the hands above the 3 line and then count the hands below the 3 line which went to 4 ( stop counting if the run went more than 4 since we are only interested if the run went past 3).... ...for example if 60 hands are above the 3 line and 6 hands ran to 4, then  the % of runs which stopped at 3 equals 60/64 = 94% of the time.
(60 hands stopped at a run of 3 or less and 4 hands hit the run of 4 for a  total of 64 hands played.)

For example if you have    PBPBPBPBPB
                                           PB    P    B
                                             B    P    B
                                                   P    B
                                                   P    B
                                                   P

Then 17 hands are above a run of 3 hands or less and 2 hands went to a run of 4........so it went to a run of  3 or less i 17/19 of about 89% of the time.

This is the reason bac is so hard to beat since when the hands are above the 3 line at least 85% of the time, you can get anything such as a chop  PBPBPB   a two   PPBBPPBBPPBB    a three PPPBBBPPPBBB   a
1-2 BPPBPPBPP a 3-2 PPPBBPPPBB a 1-3 PBBBPBBBPBBB or garbage   PPBPPPBPBBBPPBPBBPBP  so it's hard to come up with conservative negative progression.

And of course the first shoes you actually play for real money  that any run will end  at 3, you get         
6 shoes in a row where almost every run is 4 ,6  4 , 8, 5,  9  etc etc and you get whacked if you bet a negative progression hoping that the run will end at 3..

[Babu]

I don't know about most streaks will end at 3 or less. Many years ago, I looked at a set of about 1000 shoes and also did a test with random number generator.  By doing so, you will find out the number of singles will equal that of doubles, doubles equal 3s, 3s equal 4s and so on. That's because singles will be compared to doubles, 3s, 4s and so on. While you may see more singles than doubles, 3s contain doubles, 4s contain doubles, 5s contains doubles and so on.

By cutting doubles and 3s and not playing singles, you have more on the shorter end. Playing a short game though, the distribution isn't the same. For this reason, no progression will always work and guessing the kind of streaks you will get is impossible. Only way to do it is to force it to happen.