+ Register

[Johno-Egalite]

Thank you

But hey, just step back for a second and ask yourself, why you felt the need to broadcast on a public forum that you are not sharing with anybody but asym!!!   

For your information, being a full time player, is the same as working for a living, sometimes the rewards are significantly better.

[Jimske]

Stratege - I have been warned about posting to much sensitive information that others steel and try to sell - also get several private messages about the question of how to play.
To be honest I only feel I been meeting two that are on a similar level.
That is you and the member AsymBacGuy at betselection cc.

You mean me, right? 

Anywho, coincidentally I was going to post something RE: Sputnik March or my best representation of it from my own perspective and from stuff you said.  I extrapolated that your flat betting is getting about 6 bets per 75 decisions?   Maybe you could comment on that.  So today I played a shoe with the specific intention of posting it.  It's an attempt to capture the bias as per your defined states: A, B, C.  Reason is that lots of players play what they consider the bias.  Glen does as well but mums the word with that guy. 

As everyone knows I play a lot of hands in a shoe.  I did here as well with full recognition that you are looking for certain spots within the bias.  So here goes.  Maybe some others would like to opine on this concept after reading your stuff.  BTW, this happened to be a pretty easy shoe.  I get that.  As you can see I am switching according to the bias of the shoe.  But, this is not exactly how you do it.  It appears you're looking for something a little different by waiting for a pattern to emerge with the A,B and C series.  I don't know much about that.  But it' not really rocket science. 

With A series going to bet for chop and 2<2.  For B series going to bet chop and 2>3.  For C series going to bet FLD.  Question is if you are not betting every hand (or most hands) which one do you pick?  I get 53% betting most every hand in a shoe anyway.  This shoe gave me 60% - it happens.

So the question here is if you want to pick spots within the bias, where do you pick?  I'm thinking for the A's just be OLD until 2 LIAR, for the B's bet 2>3 and stop then cut after run ended; for the C's 2>3.  Just kind of a guess.  I would have gotten 4 more on this shoe if I was playing my normal because the 1's were on Player but. . . I was doing this.

(I don't know how to put photo in so go ahead anyone if you want.)

[Jimske]

LOL how'd that happen?

[Jimske]

File

[alrelax]

?As somebody who has actually won a Baccarat tournament, it has nothing to do with bet selection, rather you are competing against other players, so this super secret method wouldn't work, because you have to look at your rivals chip stack, how much they are ahead bet accordingly sometimes on the opposite side of them if you are behind. ?     


?I can isolate one bias among other bias sequences and pinpoint out what will happen next or I can use a march to try to take advantage of all angles because I understand how to read random bits.
This means that I been working on solutions to play Baccarat Tournament and try to win the first price - there you have the serious money.?

______________________________________________________________________________________

Tournaments are a whole different game, usually a do or a die situation.  Here in the USA the tournaments used to be only open to the well known players by invitations of their casino hosts.  Did not matter if you where up or down in your winnings and standings, just based on your frequency of play and each host's top players, usually went from the largest buy-ins, highest average wagers and longest play times (which of course equaled every player's ratings, etc.).  Then at a tournament you would play a round of qualifying portions of shoes, usually 20 hands or so.  It was a do a die situation most times, like Lugi said, dependent upon the other player's good luck or bad luck.  Never enough time to space out your wagers and take time ti implement anything.  Hundreds of players all whittled down to one table of all the finalists.  All casinos had various ways of handling their payouts.  Some had a 1-7 place payout or a 1-5 or a 1nd, 2nd, 3rd, etc.  It was always a cash prize without an entry fee. 

Then a few years back, everything changed.  It varied from no cost for the best and heaviest players, to an actual qualifying type of tournament entry through on live floor play, etc.  Then the entry fees came about along with prizes drying up and promotion chips being issued in lieu of actual cash prizes.  It all changed.

But the bottom line is there is a limited amount of hands and a limited amount of time to play.  It is always dependent on what the other players will do first with the do or die situation or all in real quick and just hope you are getting the first few hands correct to really stack up the chips. 

Sorry, I just do not see the time factor in positioning oneself to take advantage of anything at almost every tournament I have ever seen. 

[Johno-Egalite]

I'll second that, I had forgotten about the short shoe, as you say it's about 20 hands or so.

[alrelax]

You mean me, right? 

It's an attempt to capture the bias as per your defined states: A, B, C.  Reason is that lots of players play what they consider the bias.  Glen does as well but mums the word with that guy.

As everyone knows I play a lot of hands in a shoe.  I did here as well with full recognition that you are looking for certain spots within the bias.

I have posted numerous numerous threads about wagering.  IMO, and through your own admission, you read very little of what I have posted and at best, pick and choose.  That is kind of like desiring to learn how an author of anything that published a book about it, someone picks up the book and reads the first couple of pages, a few in the middle and the final page, then concludes rubbish or too long or does not pertain to me, etc., etc. 

But anyway, wagering in my gambling is different each time with no set scheduling.  Numerous triggers depending on the countless situations and presentments what is in front of me.  I have stated about + and - 10 to 20 counts, naturals, B or P consistently strong or weak within sections, Sections and Turning Points, and maybe 40 other topics concerning wagering. 

Furthermore, I strongly believe in the intangible as well and I might be wrong, but I do not think you do at all.  Which would be topics like emotions, psych and so on.  Once again, I have written extensively about those. 

You have chosen to combat and challenge countless times.  However, any long term, experienced player of Bac, IMO has upsides and downsides coupled with his own personal situation and play time, etc. 

To sit here in front of the screen, post and answer within a short thread, short-concise-#1-5, etc., to state definitely how I bet select to win, is impossible to do.  That would be a BeatTheCasino or Jay Silvo,  etc., system. 

I am sorry to state the above and it is certainly fuel for you to twist it a bit and find a way to post some sort of comment, that I have no clue how to play or I am bull poo-poo or something of the likes.  Which of course you have the right to post. 

Thank you, Alrelax/Glen.

[Jimske]

To sit here in front of the screen, post and answer within a short thread, short-concise-#1-5, etc., to state definitely how I bet select to win, is impossible to do.  That would be a BeatTheCasino or Jay Silvo,  etc., system. 

I am sorry to state the above and it is certainly fuel for you to twist it a bit and find a way to post some sort of comment, that I have no clue how to play or I am bull poo-poo or something of the likes.  Which of course you have the right to post. 

Thank you, Alrelax/Glen.

What I have done on this thread is to conduct a rudimentary analysis of Sputnik March from his explanations of the three different series and how one MIGHT interpret that to make actual bet selections.  Instead of participating or adding to this discussion you have chosen to accuse me.

It seems to me you have conflated wagering and bet selection.  You also seem to assume that bet selection must be some mechanical system rather than a fluid ever changing condition dependent on each and every shoe.

Sure, I have continued to press you on selection AND you have stated that you would opine on selection.

It's a lot of nonsense that you cannot describe just one reason you have placed a bet.  Maybe you just don't want to.  So just say that instead of attacking me!

 

[alrelax]

I have posted what I believe in, what I have found and what I subscribe to that has proved me profitable in my game.

Most of them are within my BLOG/Alrelax section and some are within the Baccarat room here.  I have spelled out in detail explanations and hows and whys. 

You have commented numerous times as to how you skim, read parts, read this or that off of one of my lengthy posts, etc.  That to me is disturbing and distracting as well as disrespectful in some ways. 

I stand by what I post. 

[alrelax]

And also J, I have stated (but maybe you failed to read or understand my writing) many reasons I wager and what I have found.

Specifically the 1 of 10 to 10 of 10 Series, highlighted/sticky'ed on the first page of my Blog Room.

As far as your statement, It seems to me you have conflated wagering and bet selection.  You also seem to assume that bet selection must be some mechanical system rather than a fluid ever changing condition dependent on each and every shoe, I wholeheartedly agree with that.  BetSelection is not one item, trigger or reason alone. 

[Lungyeh]

Hi everyone. Long time no post so here goes something from me :-

1. Decisions made in Baccarat tournaments are made on a different basis as alluded to by Glen. Yes you have to keep an eye on your fellow gamers and see their bets and count their chips. I don?t normally participate in tournaments but once awhile I do. I remember in one tournament with a first prize money of > US$1 million, I was in the semi finals. Only the top guy in each table would qualify for the finals. Coming into the last hand (I think only 8 hands are played in the semi finals), the top guy was betting on Banker which was what I was going to bet on. But if Banker won, I would still not qualify, so I put my chips (there are limits) on Player. Player won! And I qualified for the finals. And got soundly trashed there 🤣🤣
2. I also understand Glen?s position on explaining his bet selections because in each shoe there are various other intangibles. The momentum of the game, the presence of a drunk moron losing his pants off, a player on a hot winning streak making a choice different from what you were thinking, the sub charts etc etc. So its quite difficult to explain versus supposedly more mechanical approaches. For me, while the bet selection process is more subjective, my approach is to try to make the bet amount decisions more mechanical. For sure, no negative Martingale.
Cheers guys! God bless.

[Jimske]

A reason is a reason Lungyeh.  I'm not asking him to explain every bet in the shoe. It doesn't matter to me whether he made a bet because he wanted to bet against a moron at the end of the table or if his wife had a lucky feeling. Everybody has to have a reason to choose an individual bet. All he has to do just pick out one shoe and explain why he bet that spot. Maybe he could explain why he bet two or three spots. What's so hard about that?

I think it's ridiculous to post a screenshot and say there was a lot of winning bets in first section of the shoe and not have a clue as to why all those bets were chosen. Was it luck? Does he use a Ouija board? Besides that, Glen did say that he was going to talk about some reasons.  Now all of a sudden it's impossible.

Maybe some brief explanations will help people decide how to choose bets?

[Johno-Egalite]

Does he use a Ouija board?

Maybe his Golden Monkey tells him...

Coming into the last hand (I think only 8 hands are played in the semi finals), the top guy was betting on Banker which was what I was going to bet on. But if Banker won, I would still not qualify, so I put my chips (there are limits) on Player. Player won! And I qualified for the finals. And got soundly trashed there 🤣🤣

This is exactly what I did in the last hand of a final after scarping through the heat.  Waited to see which side the leading guy was going to bet, and bet the other side.  Him losing and me winning, meant I snatched the final from under his nose.  I got $5000 in play chips, which they let me bet both sides on a Baccarat table to turn into cash chips. Hopefully you got a runners up prize. 

[Johno-Egalite]

It doesn't matter to me whether he made a bet because he wanted to bet against a moron at the end of the table

You mean he was betting against himself??

[alrelax]

Fooled by Reality--Fooled by Desires

What is so sad, is that we really just fool ourselves. 

Be careful what you fail to check at the doors, as you walk through the entrance of the casino!  I have written about it before and specifically, I am talking about consciousness and reality.  I am not talking about being awake and alert, I am talking about remembering, being 100% conscious of and putting your knowledge and experience right there in front of you, recognizing them and paying extreme attention to them while you are playing.  Not an easy task.

The highest majority of the players sit down at the casino table, buy-in and then, 'game-on'.  Not much else really happens until the player begins to lose.  Then the emotional and the reactions come about.  Rather than being constantly pro-active, they become reactive to their deluded minds.  Sheer reactions to attempt damage control, getting even, recouping previous losses, trying to place themselves in another player's frame-of-mind and virtually everything except, playing the game the way it should be played. 

Problem being, as I see it, is that there are two different forms of, 'Probability', 'Variances' and most importantly, 'Dealing with our Ignorance'.  First of all, the highest majority of all players enter a new session with an attitude and belief that they have been there, done that and although handled too many sessions the, 'wrong way', they suddenly convince themselves that everything has changed and really nothing at all has.  When they win, they get more obnoxious, more de-tuned and more self-righteous than ever before.  Because they have all convinced themselves they are finally on the right track and that special time has come.  When really nothing at all did, they just failed to allow themselves to deal with their own ignorance.  They also coupled that with locking themselves into uncertainty failing to actually apply themselves to what is about to happen. 

Whatever you want to entitle the upcoming shoe presentments, 'Variance', 'Results', 'Randomness', etc., it will happen.  It does not matter one bit what side you are wagering on, what side you did not wager on or in fact, if you sat out and did not wager at all.  It will happen.  That is when the damage occurs the highest majority of the time.  Say a player believed what he read on a gambling message board or in his, 'elite pay-per-month internet club' of professional baccarat players that it is wiser to wager on 1's and 2's because they happen the most rather than streaks, patterns, trends and other presentments that also happen.  So here this player bought in with several thousand dollars and got into a wagering war with himself of going for 1's and 2's at the baccarat table.  Just about the same time he was doing that, the shoe presented 2 long streaks of say 8 to 12 Bankers in a row, followed by the same amount of Players in a row as well.  The person repeatedly wagered for the, 'cut' because of the proven statistical odds (The probability) that what just happened, should not have happened at all.  But it did.  And, it could have been one of several other shoe presentments such as, 1's and 4's, 2's and 6's followed by 3's and 5's with one long streak.  Countless other presentments that do come about. 

The damage happens when that player has just lost a straight $1,700.00 and has $300.00 remaining of his buy-in.  His mind is clouded, his vision is blurred and his frame-of-mind is extremely dangerous.  Now, he observed a player that caught the highest amount of the past 20 or so hands and won well over $10,000.00 with just a few hundred on the table, when he sat down.  That other person says something like, "Now the cut is coming, it has to because it was too strong", all the while pointing at the score board.  So, you are down the $1,700.00 or so, the guy that just won what you desired to and knew you could, is speaking and you are gullible.   Here is what you really do not realize, here is what really happens with 'Probability' and the computation of the odds of shoe presentments coming about in baccarat.   Probability is not a computation of the odds of making winning and losing hands based upon what has happened or based upon what has not happened.  It is actually, accepting the lack of certainty of your knowledge and dealing with the reality of your ignorance.  In other words, harsh and real words--you beat yourself, you talked yourself out of wagering what would have won.  Simple and done.  Of course, that is like saying you are unhygienic and physically unattractive and unpleasant to be around because you are simply gross.  But our brains will not allow us to really do that, even if it was factual and 100% true. 

Here, let me explain where I am coming from.  Outside of textbooks and casinos, probability and variance really never continually presents itself as a problem or something that constantly has to be figured out.  Yet, within a casino, it always does, 100% of the times we play.  Here is where it is complicated on one hand and yet, not really so.  IMO, there are really two areas that have to be realized and addressed.  1)  Randomness and Non-Randomness, and 2) Certainty and Uncertainty.  This is where 100 gamblers will have 99 varying methods to decipher, understand and convince themselves that they are on the right track and will soon be on 'easy-street'. 

Simply, 'randomness' is what the shoe will present, or the dice or the slot machine wheels, or anything else within a casino.  Randomness is not in any way purely mathematical, neither is non-randomness.  If you view randomness and non-randomness as skepticism, rather than attempting to apply and decipher it down to micro-managing levels mathematical interpretations, you will be far better off.  As well, 'probability'.  It is not in any way purely an engineering theorem and able to be broken down as well, you would be far better off viewing it as a type of applied skepticism. 

And the problem most all will not or ever admit, is that when they are wrong according to their methodical and probability deviant, they were merely taking the educated and best guess as to what should have won.  When they do wager and won, they build their persona into a larger and more destructive belief that they have it all figured out and that is when the real destruction can do greater damage to their play.  Basically, if you really do decide something with uncertainty that was in your belief decided upon with risk-based method, rather than ignorance or outside the textbook mathematical statistical variance, you will be much better off by far and large.  Because eventually your eyes will open, your frame-of-mind will realize and you will understand that you capitalized on visions, chance and opportunities rather than science, mathematical and discovering what the multi-billion dollar corporations wished you never did. 

The naysayers will label what I just attempted to lay out above, as saying, "being on the right side of luck and chance will only last for so long", etc.  Then they will always say, "If you really had something, you would be able to use it over and over and over again without failure, time constraint or losses".  Which is not true. 

Here, let me break it down a bit further.  Chance, being correct, taking advantage of an opportunity, etc., all might seem similar to saying, 'luck'.  But, in reality, since no one really knows with mathematical or scientific certainty, what presentments will ultimately come out of the shoe and in what order, mathematical and statistical formulas that define what wagering protocols should be, really do not matter.  Why?  Because when you are at the casino table, you are at a highly random environment with certain windows of opportunity that can be successfully taken advantage of.  Unlike the practice of medicine, engineering or anything else that requires the highest majority of correct results to originate from non-random and non-variant sets of protocols, determining the outcome.  And in those endeavors, knowing the protocols will award you the knowledge to have the correct answers.  It is virtually the opposite, when we are at the casino table. 

The whole other, 'half-way educated' group, maintains a firm belief that there is only a few types of plays that will profit from wagering and those are all elementary in their repetitive writings and one-liners.  They are very good at attempting to have everyone believe that there is actually only one or two ways to wager and everything else is 'false belief' by the gambler.  They insist that it is all non-rocket science and yet, while they actually will never actually divulge their 'correct and only' ways to properly wager, they really do put on a good show.  I would have to put them in the same league as to those women that actual curl up with a bowl of potato chips and soda and get lost in watching those old fashioned soap-operas on television.  Great entertainment, even losing yourself in 'make believe' but sorry pal--not reality by any means! 

However, what most people know in their hearts--but will never ever admit is that we are into the new-age of info sharing, instant everything and no need for, 'blood-sweat & tears' any longer.   It turns out that we aren't very good at distinguishing the knowledge we keep in our heads from the information we find on our phones or computers. As Dr. Wegner and Dr. Ward explained in a 2013 Scientific American Journal article when people call up information through their devices, they often end up suffering from delusions of intelligence. They feel as though, "their own mental capacities" had generated the information, not their devices. "The advent of the 'information age' seems to have created a generation of people who feel they know more than ever before", the scholars concluded, even though "they may know ever less about the world around them".  And, it is no different for the gambling crowd.  I read and researched on the internet, I know everything you learned over 20 or 25 or 30 years, etc., I know it all, so what? 

That insight sheds light on our society's current gullibility crisis, in which people are all too quick to credit lies and half-truths spread through social media by Russian agents and other bad actors. If your phone, tablet, I Pad, or laptop, has sapped your powers of discernment, you'll believe anything it tells you.  Which is reality.  It's your money, spend it the way you see fit and make yourself comfortable with all the fake reassurance that you give yourself by simply believing what is not true and what makes for 'good print', because in reality, that is all it really is.