+ Register

[Bally6354]

Thought I would put this here instead of adding it to my roulette blog for the sole reason that I have now entirely given up the game of roulette. It just makes no sense to me any longer to play a game with a 2.7% edge and have the 0 interfere when a tie in Baccarat = a push.
Baccarat isn't the rigid game that I originally thought and a few of the better ideas I had for roulette are workable in Baccarat as well.

I have really enjoyed reading Alrelax's and Assym's posts on this game and they have helped speed up my knowledge and understanding. Combine that along with the recent 'public' discovery of AP/VDW and there is no question in my mind that Baccarat actually offers a better long term prospect of coming out ahead as opposed to the wheel. The variance in roulette really is a double edged sword when it comes to the inside bets and it really doesn't matter how you slice and dice it in the end, there is no magical formula there.

So that leaves the EC bets and how to find a better approach than just a random guess. Can an imbalance due to the 'single P' and 'runs of B' help along with the Non-Random approach of AP/VDW? What other approaches can be discovered so a player can pick and choose what parts of the shoe he/she participates in? These are the things I will be looking at in this blog.

cheers

[Bally6354]

Here is a quote from L.G. Holloway in his book 'Full-Time Gambler.'

"On one hundred thousand authentic roulette numbers I made a "gap book". Each number was tabulated in terms of the gap figure between hits. Then each split, each street, each four-block, each six-block, each dozen, each column, and each even money play was "gapped". This greatly condensed the big run of numbers and put the whole thing into a new perspective or dimension. Through this kind of work, one is able to learn the true value of patterns and to avoid being tricked by coincidence.

By plotting graphs from the totals of each approach, we can determine the peak of each cycle - when to get in and when to get out. Ridiculous, you say? They said that about the atomic bomb, television, and the airplane too. I am not saying we know exactly when to pick up a number of group of numbers. What I am saying is that over the long-range period we can and do turn the percentage and improve cold selecting."

So I have started running some tests with real shoes looking at the gaps.

Here is a picture of something that I find happening quite often.

[attachimg=1]

When you get one side with a couple of runs of 3+ within a few gaps of each other, the other side tends to just run in 1's and 2's for a while. I will run a few hundred shoes and see how it goes. of course, it's not going to be an exact science, but having information and knowing when to use it is all part of having a strategy to cope with whatever gets thrown your way at the tables.

cheers

[alrelax]

Thought I would put this here instead of adding it to my roulette blog for the sole reason that I have now entirely given up the game of roulette. It just makes no sense to me any longer to play a game with a 2.7% edge and have the 0 interfere when a tie in Baccarat = a push.
Baccarat isn't the rigid game that I originally thought and a few of the better ideas I had for roulette are workable in Baccarat as well.

I have really enjoyed reading Alrelax's and Assym's posts on this game and they have helped speed up my knowledge and understanding. Combine that along with the recent 'public' discovery of AP/VDW and there is no question in my mind that Baccarat actually offers a better long term prospect of coming out ahead as opposed to the wheel. The variance in roulette really is a double edged sword when it comes to the inside bets and it really doesn't matter how you slice and dice it in the end, there is no magical formula there.

So that leaves the EC bets and how to find a better approach than just a random guess. Can an imbalance due to the 'single P' and 'runs of B' help along with the Non-Random approach of AP/VDW? What other approaches can be discovered so a player can pick and choose what parts of the shoe he/she participates in? These are the things I will be looking at in this blog.

cheers

I am going to answer some of what you address here in a min.

Just one thing and one thing is the MOSE IMPORTANT by far and large......the time you play and the time at the table.  It is more powerful and more 'able to suck in a player and completely wipe your mind'.  More so than roulette by far.  Be careful. 

[Sputnik]

Bally i will follow your writing and i think even money with roulette is a good pick.
I assume you have 1.35% house edge with La Partage Rule in UK.
That make the EC very attractive when comparing with other game options.

I have Holloways book, but don't fully understand the gap methodology.
This is how i look at it that you get a serie of six reds, then you have 1.5% probability to get a new red sequence of six and would wait for series of two or three to show and bet against the sequence.
But i notice a problem with this methodology, when you play against a serie of six, then you would also lose if a serie of seven, eight, nine and above would show.
This means that the probability with 1.5% would only be true if you bet against a serie of four and five and when you have six in a row you would bet for the six reds to continue to hit and become seven or above.
This is what i find wrong with MDB at BTC with same issue. For example two series of two and then bet for 3 or 3+ then three attempts would not cut it as we have a range from five and above with series of two to strike, so in the end it become a old common regular pattern bet.

One thing that is a bit different then gap methodology but base upon what you write above, when you get three series with 3 or 3+ then our expectation would be a serie of two to show as there is more of them, but then we have variance.
I just get remind off Marigny work where you can get the law of series into a strong 3 STDV bias.

But it would be great if you could define the cycle and how to enter and exit, been trying that without any conclusion or working solution.

Thanks for sharing your work Bally

Cheers

[Bally6354]

Hello guys, thanks for the replies.

Alrelax, I look forward to reading your post and Sputnik, I will read your reply in detail and give my thoughts. Thanks.

For anyone not understanding what I mean by gaps, here is an example.

[attachimg=1]

What I am noticing in the tests I am running is how often you get something like the two runs of 4 for the Banker like in the above example. Then the other side (Player in this case) has small runs of 1 and 2. So you would wait for the Player run of 1 and 2 and then play for the opposite. Obviously using a negative 12 pogression would be enough to capture a win should this scenario continue.  The reality of course is that it is not going to be quite as simple as this otherwise Baccarat wouldn't exist, but I am just starting to look more deeply into this gap methodology and see what stands out.

cheers

[alrelax]

My answer is basically in the other thread, "Players Frame-of-Minds.

[alrelax]

Hello guys, thanks for the replies.

Alrelax, I look forward to reading your post and Sputnik, I will read your reply in detail and give my thoughts. Thanks.

For anyone not understanding what I mean by gaps, here is an example.

[attachimg=1]

What I am noticing in the tests I am running is how often you get something like the two runs of 4 for the Banker like in the above example. Then the other side (Player in this case) has small runs of 1 and 2. So you would wait for the Player run of 1 and 2 and then play for the opposite. Obviously using a negative 12 pogression would be enough to capture a win should this scenario continue.  The reality of course is that it is not going to be quite as simple as this otherwise Baccarat wouldn't exist, but I am just starting to look more deeply into this gap methodology and see what stands out.

cheers

With all due respect, no matter if you find 1's and then 2's or 3's or 4's will appear as a retaliation to the Gap of 1, or possibly you will find 2's and then 1's or whatever---are more prevalent, there is nothing that can be ascertained that will benefit the player wagering on a 'pre-selected wagering placement method' with any consistency that will even approach 50% wins in reality.  I do not care nor I am concerned with what an analyzation proves on paper, it will not hold in any casino past a few shoes here and there.  The down side and the side you better worry about, is the false methodology you begin to believe, which is reality 1,000%, are the shoes it does not stick to.  If you are subscribing to the 'pre-selected wagering placement method' you have to wager it every shoe or else those times it might come out---you will not (NOT) be able to capitalize on what you supposedly believe in.

I say that because the methodology you will convince yourself is there is coming from an analyzation of an 'X' amount of shoes; 50,000, 100,000, 2,000,000--whatever, and how are those shoes going to repeat themselves in the same order that got you sucked in from the beginning on this false-hood?  And what about the sections of that analyzation that you believed will always repeat itself,  the sections with even a greater lack of whatever the pattern or trend you identified as favoring a wager?

[Bally6354]

Thank you for your post Alrelax,

Any idea/concept that a player comes up with is only really part of an overall strategy (or at least it should be)
Nobody is really saying to wait for one specific trigger and then bet it come hell or high water no matter what the characteristics are showing at the present time. Stats show single P's and runs of B outweigh runs of P and single B's. This is true, however I can show anybody loads of shoes where the complete opposite happens. (I ran 200 shoes yesterdays, over 12,000 hands and player outstripped banker by over 150 hands)

On saying that, we all have things we are looking for, whatever it may be, to guage how we are going to attack.

Take this example:

[attachimg=1]

A standard AP/VDW player would have lost 11, won 2 and had 3 no-bet situations in the first 16 bets here. My question would be did the player know why he lost? Could he have interpreted the information differently to produce a win. That could only happen if the player had different ideas/concepts that he could utilize around the AP/VDW framework. To have no ideas and no reference points and you might as well just walk up to a table with a coin and flip it and place your bets.

I understand perfectly what you are saying and agree, but how one person sees a shoe and how another sees it and more importantly bets accordingly is not really going to be the same for any 2 different people.

cheers

[ADulay]

Wow.  Eleven "twos" in that set.  Unusual, but not unexpected.

A VDW loser no matter how you play it.

AD

[Sputnik]

 I just quote my self ...

I just get remind off Marigny work where you can get the law of series into a strong 3 STDV bias.

So twelve series of two and two series of four is 2.5 STD and pretty common.
When the law of series get a bias.

Cheers

[Baelog]

Thank you for your post Alrelax,

Any idea/concept that a player comes up with is only really part of an overall strategy (or at least it should be)
Nobody is really saying to wait for one specific trigger and then bet it come hell or high water no matter what the characteristics are showing at the present time. Stats show single P's and runs of B outweigh runs of P and single B's. This is true, however I can show anybody loads of shoes where the complete opposite happens. (I ran 200 shoes yesterdays, over 12,000 hands and player outstripped banker by over 150 hands)

On saying that, we all have things we are looking for, whatever it may be, to guage how we are going to attack.

Take this example:

[attachimg=1]

A standard AP/VDW player would have lost 11, won 2 and had 3 no-bet situations in the first 16 bets here. My question would be did the player know why he lost? Could he have interpreted the information differently to produce a win. That could only happen if the player had different ideas/concepts that he could utilize around the AP/VDW framework. To have no ideas and no reference points and you might as well just walk up to a table with a coin and flip it and place your bets.

I understand perfectly what you are saying and agree, but how one person sees a shoe and how another sees it and more importantly bets accordingly is not really going to be the same for any 2 different people.

cheers

Hi Bally's

Here is how I am currently testing VDW

- Only use AP (1,2,3) on the first streak. After that I only look at the 9 AP's
- No mutual bets
- LAST 9 possible AP's
- Flat bet

Baelog