+ Register

[Jimske]

The reason I bring this up is because I get criticized by Gr8 and Asymbacc for doing this - betting every hand.  Both say that somehow if you bet every hand you are negating an edge or somehow reducing your chances of winning.  So let's look at this with some common sense.

First off if you are not betting every hand than you are waiting for certain outcomes to make a bet.  Doesn't this mean that you are attempting to predict a certain future event?  So if you are and do then this future event must be definitive.  So what is it?  Asymbacc says he knows what it is and its occurrence is not that common - maybe only a few instances every several hundred decisions or more.  Gr8 agrees but has been able to find this occurrence multiple times within a shoe. 

Taking both of them at their word seems to present a conflict.  Is their really only a small instance of positive advantage or are there more instances?  If there is no predictable advantage based on waiting for a certain circumstance than why should it matter whether one waits or not?  So again you can't have it both ways.  You either have a clear definite advantage which is describable or you don't.

I say you don't.  In the end without a positive prediction we are both making a bet selection based on a certain previous set of circumstance.  It's called TRENDING.  It seems to me that Gr8 and as both have a specific bet placement to use against certain previous circumstance.  So do I.  Difference is that I have more than one and employ them at different times depending on the trend.  Sorry, I am not able to say there is a positive expectation for any of them because basically it's a guess.

Now here is my big secret.  I look at the shoe and make a series of bets with an expectation of what MUST happen in the future for me to win.  When it doesn't win that means some other placement would win and I employ that.  When that doesn't work it means I am losing!  Profound, huh?  I am now looking for an exit and hopefully will keep those losses to a minimum.  Sure, I could just as easily find that if I stayed I would recoup all and win big!  It's a gamble.  But I know that there are shoes that 1) conform to my placement from the get go without any changes and 2) conform to my changes after a loss and go on to win, and 3) shoes that are somewhere in between that don't do much at all (these are the majority).  Most good shoes require two changes.  I rarely will go for three changes in a shoe even though I can utilize four bet placements.

So patience, discipline, structure and consistency are all important for winning.  It's a betting game!  Without a positive real mathematical EDGE there is no advantage in waiting.  Wait if you want - no problem.

Oh, I don't actually ALWAYS bet every hand.  Here's a shoe I played the other day where I actually stopped playing for 1, 1, 3, 1, and 1.  Sorry I did but . . .  And no, they're not all this good (64% WR).  This shoe utilized two placements.  Not too hard to figure out which two they were.  Once in a long while I get a one placement shoe.  Talk about easy peasy!  I should really learn to make more money on those!  But I get scared an tend to back off too much!

P1221122212221212123433536421  So I made about 50 bets and called it quits after seeing the Player 2. 

[Carlitos]

P1221122212221212123433536421   

Nice serie of 2's and more with only 1 single break of 2  one's.


One thing that i found intresting about Baccarat is when 2 P or B come seem to be followed by more.


Carlitos

[AsymBacGuy]

Hi Jim.

You have stated that without a mathematical edge there's no point to wait. True, yet from a statistical point of view a kind of edge will appear, IMO.

If a person is capable to guess right more often than not playing every hand by BS and MM, good for him. It means he has an edge. Not different from mine or others who prefer to wait.

To decide to wait implies the idea that things will be restricted into decent detectable terms.
An example is when I know that a given event (better sayed a multiple class of events) cannot miss me  more than 4-5 times in a row.
Of course exceptions are the rule in gambling, still I prefer to rely on those observations.

To get such "heavenly" circumstance, I have to wait, wait, register and wait.
Maybe it's the same operation you make wagering every hand using a strategy taken from a different angle.

Even my strategy is a different form of trending, as I don't have any mathematical edge.

If you'll decide to purchase my book for the most part you won't find complicated formulas or sophisticated registrations or holy grail findings. My main strategy is quite simple even if it took me several years of study to find out something worth of it.

I know that by betting every hand and by mostly trending (and guessing) you have an excellent win rate, maybe it's me to have to buy your possible book, not you. ;-)

as. 

 

 
 

 





 



   



















 



 

[greenguy]

You can bet every hand, but there's often good reason to wait.

If you have no edge then betting every hand makes perfect sense.

If you have an edge through waiting then waiting makes perfect sense.

Everyone says you can't have an edge, so betting every hand makes perfect sense again.

I wait.


If you have no edge and you are betting every hand (EC game) then I suggest FTL would be the best bet. If not, then what would be better and why?

[Jimske]

I'll continue this a little while longer.
Hi Jim.

You have stated that without a mathematical edge there's no point to wait. True, yet from a statistical point of view a kind of edge will appear, IMO.

First you agree then refer to a "kind of edge."  What's a kind of edge?  Kind of like being almost preganant?

If a person is capable to guess right more often than not playing every hand by BS and MM, good for him. It means he has an edge.

So perhaps one could say that person is playing to an edge, not mathematical advantage, but because a prson is winning then that can be a localized edge.

Not different from mine or others who prefer to wait.

To decide to wait implies the idea that things will be restricted into decent detectable terms.
An example is when I know that a given event (better sayed a multiple class of events) cannot miss me  more than 4-5 times in a row.
Of course exceptions are the rule in gambling, still I prefer to rely on those observations.

If one knows for certain that a class of events cannot miss more than x times in a row than that is, indeed an edge.  But then one should be able to qualify that with a variance or SD.

To get such "heavenly" circumstance, I have to wait, wait, register and wait.
Maybe it's the same operation you make wagering every hand using a strategy taken from a different angle.

Even my strategy is a different form of trending, as I don't have any mathematical edge.

If you'll decide to purchase my book for the most part you won't find complicated formulas or sophisticated registrations or holy grail findings. My main strategy is quite simple even if it took me several years of study to find out something worth of it

I know that by betting every hand and by mostly trending (and guessing) you have an excellent win rate, maybe it's me to have to buy your possible book, not you. ;-)

I'm pretty sure your book will not define specific rules which could guarantee a win.  If I had such a method I certainly wouldn't put it in a book.  Rather I'd just use other peoples money to make a fortune.

 

 
 

 





 



   



















 

[Jimske]

You can bet every hand, but there's often good reason to wait.

If you have no edge then betting every hand makes perfect sense.

If you have an edge through waiting then waiting makes perfect sense.

Everyone says you can't have an edge, so betting every hand makes perfect sense again.

I wait.


If you have no edge and you are betting every hand (EC game) then I suggest FTL would be the best bet. If not, then what would be better and why?

Yup.  I do wait on occasion when I cannot decide a good reason to bet or am confused or maybe just "in between."

FTL, as I've written before, is a decent way to bet IMO.  A simple examination will show the nemesis of losing 4IAR and if one could reduce LIAR one would have a good way to win.

[AsymBacGuy]

Mmmh, generally speaking the difference between betting toward streaks and betting a chopping mood is that in the first case we have to bet every hand hoping to get a streak of a decent lenght; in the second scenario we could get rid of such long streaks stopping to bet at a given level, knowing that a long streaks shoe is very very unlikely and anyway a dominated streaks shoe is mainly composed by short streaks.

True, a FTL strategy will produce just one loss and hopefully many wins, however a chopping mood will provide just one win everytime a given side will change.

Imo, we better take care of the times when a side hadn't shown a chopping mood than the times where a long streak hadn't taken place.
This because many shoes won't provide any long streaks on one or both sides, conversely very few will form long streaks patterns on both sides.

Of course we have to register the average apparition of both probabilities after very long trials, knowing that the "unlikely" might come out in clusters.

The fact that singles and streaks will equal itlr shouldn't affect our way of thinking, as this is the overall long term situation of both sides.

About the OP topic, I recently witnessed a group of heavy betting players willing to wager every single hand by a super aggressive method. They were doing very good, properly (imo) shifting the betting side, but imo they didn't take care of the "enemy" pattern distribution, even if they were capable to find out the flaws of the game.

Anyway this was the best "every hand strategy" I've ever known of.

as. 



 






 







   













 
 

[soxfan]

Betting very hand ain't my scene. I generally come over the top makin 30 bets per shoe. So, in a year's worth of fulltime play I make about 43k real money bets. I would win more if I played every hand but would also get clipped for more progressions busts outs so it's a trade off I'm willin to make, hey hey.

[Jimske]

Betting very hand ain't my scene. I generally come over the top makin 30 bets per shoe. So, in a year's worth of fulltime play I make about 43k real money bets. I would more if I played every hand but would also get clipped for more progressions busts outs so it's a trade off I'm willin to make, hey hey.

When I say every hand I am meaning pretty much every hand until I quit the shoe.  Could be 15 hands could be 75 hands - depends.  Just want to make that clear.

But I need a reason to quit just as I need a reason to bet.  I start every shoe the same way and generally make up my mind what bet placement to use after about 5 hands.  There is no good way to start a shoe.  You either win or lose.  Occasionally I'll lose 5-7 hands or win 5-7 hands out of the gate but not often.  Most of the time I'm either up or down a few units or brake even.

So I was a little bored Sunday and decided to hit the casino.  I generally don't play on weekends and as usual there was no seats but just as I planned to leave a seat opened up and I sat.  The shoe opened up with ppppB and it put me up 1 unit.  I chose my bet placement and the shoe went ppppBBppBBBppBBpp which gave me +11 units.  I am betting every hand and not losing more than 1IAR.  Tell me why I should quit betting every hand and wait for some trigger or variance.  After that the shoe went BBppBBppBBpBBpBBBppBpBB.  At one point I won 10 IAR and am now having a very good shoe and then lost 2 IAR for the first time.  Next the shoe went ppBBBB and here I quit losing 2 IAR again.  I sat and watched pBBBpBBB go by and just left.  I made 46 bets.  W32 for a 69% WR.

Now. . .  obviously if anyone is paying attention that with an overall 52 or 53% WR I get a LOT of shoes that are well below 50%.  In those shoes I am NOT making a whole lot of bets and trying to keep my unit losses low.  Sure, I could get two shoes IAR where I get a 38% WR.  Even though I may only have accumulated 30 bets total in those two shoes that will really knock the hell out of a win %.  I also get a lot of shoes that are 47, 48, 49.  In those shoes I can still come out a head many times - not always.

Why wouldn't I bet every hand in this shoe?

Point is if I wait for some trigger than how many units might I miss in a shoe like this?  Depends on the trigger doesn't it?  That's why I use different "triggers" (bet placements).

This shoe is consistent.  Could be a whole different kind of shoe but still have uniform consistency and be a great winning shoe.

[AsymBacGuy]

When I say every hand I am meaning pretty much every hand until I quit the shoe.  Could be 15 hands could be 75 hands - depends.  Just want to make that clear.

But I need a reason to quit just as I need a reason to bet.  I start every shoe the same way and generally make up my mind what bet placement to use after about 5 hands.  There is no good way to start a shoe.  You either win or lose.  Occasionally I'll lose 5-7 hands or win 5-7 hands out of the gate but not often.  Most of the time I'm either up or down a few units or brake even.

So I was a little bored Sunday and decided to hit the casino.  I generally don't play on weekends and as usual there was no seats but just as I planned to leave a seat opened up and I sat.  The shoe opened up with ppppB and it put me up 1 unit.  I chose my bet placement and the shoe went ppppBBppBBBppBBpp which gave me +11 units.  I am betting every hand and not losing more than 1IAR.  Tell me why I should quit betting every hand and wait for some trigger or variance.  After that the shoe went BBppBBppBBpBBpBBBppBpBB.  At one point I won 10 IAR and am now having a very good shoe and then lost 2 IAR for the first time.  Next the shoe went ppBBBB and here I quit losing 2 IAR again.  I sat and watched pBBBpBBB go by and just left.  I made 46 bets.  W32 for a 69% WR.

Now. . .  obviously if anyone is paying attention that with an overall 52 or 53% WR I get a LOT of shoes that are well below 50%.  In those shoes I am NOT making a whole lot of bets and trying to keep my unit losses low.  Sure, I could get two shoes IAR where I get a 38% WR.  Even though I may only have accumulated 30 bets total in those two shoes that will really knock the hell out of a win %.  I also get a lot of shoes that are 47, 48, 49.  In those shoes I can still come out a head many times - not always.

Why wouldn't I bet every hand in this shoe?

Point is if I wait for some trigger than how many units might I miss in a shoe like this?  Depends on the trigger doesn't it?  That's why I use different "triggers" (bet placements).

This shoe is consistent.  Could be a whole different kind of shoe but still have uniform consistency and be a great winning shoe.

ppppBBppBBBppBBppBBppBBppBBpBBpBBBppBpBBppBBBBpBBBpBBB

This is the shoe you've played/observed.

ppppBBppBBBppBBppBBppBBppBBpBBpBBBppBpBBppBBBBpBBBpBBB

This shoe perfectly fits a general plan I mentioned many times in my posts. Let's say is almost perfect, there's just one losing spot and 24 winnings. You made a lot better than that, congrat!

Let's say is a very deviated situation of what happens most likely by astounding degrees. expecially noticing that:

- There's just one B single and 12 B streaks

- There's just one 3+ P streak and 12 P singles and doubles.

Interesting to notice that such "heavenly" shoe contains a very unlikely sequence of 8 doubles in a row.   

I would have just bet a couple of spots here, so you made a very brilliant play winning 46 units.

as.




     

[Jimske]

Lest anyone thinks the above ALWAYS happens . . .

Today shoe #1 kind of a struggle because I missed some parlays.  Wi 17 L12 for 58%.  Win only 6 units so almost may as well flat bet it.  Played every hand except 3 until quit and just quit because I was cycling up and down so just quit on an yp cycle.  I sat and watched the rest of the shoe - wouldn't have helped.  I might have jumped in if I saw something I liked but . . .

Shoe #2 W18 L34.  Yep, it happens 34% WR.  I missed the first 14 hands cause I was on the phone but after that played every hand until the 66th hand.  Lost only 6 units!  Getting killed betting small and made a little bit larger bet using the variance.  I won it so next time hit the same variance I parlayed the last win bet and won again.  Then again made a smaller bet once again using same variance and got back to -6 so just quit even for the two shoes.  Largest bet 4 units.  I could very easily taken a 12 unit hit that shoe.  I would have tried the variance bet twice and if lost 2 of 3 I'd just have to leave bigger loser.

Shoe #3 will be my last shoe of the day.  Exactly W 17 and lose 12 again.  I'm trying to work with parlays a bit and was breaking even on them not doing so well so as soon as I won a couple parlays and some flat bets just left 8 units ahead.  Bet every hand but 4.

Total W/L for the day W52 L58 for or 47%. 

J

P.S.  If I had played Soxfan prog I would not have gotten clipped even on the real bad shoe BUT would have got to the 10th stage once but would have pulled down about 25 units.  Just sayin'. 

[AsymBacGuy]

Jim, I just wonder if you have ever considered to restrict your bets in order to try to get a minor variance impact and less volatile outcomes.

Of course if both your betting selection and MM are capable to get decently low fluctuations you don't need any "waiting" periods.

In reality I too applied for a long time a high frequency betting plan utilizing a 4-5 step raise of my units when I encountered some expected more profitable outcomes; at the end I've found that only those more selected bets were slightly having the best of it. The rest perfectly fit the old known disadvantage.

Starting from this supposedly slight (and diluted) advantage, I worked trying to spot better edges right on those patterns. And that, imo, means to wait and wait. And to carefully register the outcomes.

Imo and according to gr8player writings, only a strict general betting plan could have the best of it, providing a careful assessment of every step we are going to bet or to register without betting.

Again imo, the more we're going into details, the better will be our results, leaving the least place to the obvious random world even if it will be profitable for us.

I don't want to bet 3 units just because I've lost a given series of previous real bets, hoping to get a RTM effect.
Better sayed, I want to bet my high unit knowing that itlr I'll have the best of it.
And the more I wait (even missing many winning spots) the better should be my outcomes.

I don't want to be in the position to win 20-30 or more units in a very small interval of time. That means to easily and invariably lose 20-30 hands (plus the negative edge and a higher vig impact) into a short amount of time, no matter how sophisticated or good is our bet selection or MM.

Variance should be kept in low terms by not betting at all rather than evaluating small betting amounts, unless you use a huge spread betting plan.

as.     

[gr8player]

I don't want to be in the position to win 20-30 or more units in a very small interval of time. That means to easily and invariably lose 20-30 hands (plus the negative edge and a higher vig impact) into a short amount of time, no matter how sophisticated or good is our bet selection or MM.

Variance should be kept in low terms by not betting at all rather than evaluating small betting amounts, unless you use a huge spread betting plan.

as.

You are a wise man, AsymBacGuy; a man who understands variance and its impact upon one's game and, most importantly, their results.

Variance is a "ying vs yang" proposition, especially so within our "short term" sessions.  So, as you stated above, winning 20 to 30 units in the short term will translate itself, eventually if not immediately, into a similar loss.

So the wise variance player learns to keep his bet selection process as limited as possible, and learns to keep his win goals and, yes, loss limits as limited as possible, and learns to keep his sessions as limited as possible....all done for the sake of the viable bet-adjusting that accompanies variance play.  (Sidenote:  Most everybody adjusts their bets, you see it all the time.  But the true variance player does it so that it produces, over the long term, a viable advantage over the house's edge.)

Stay well.

[AsymBacGuy]

Thanks gr8player and I strongly think that if someone wants to consistently try to win at this game it's you one of the person to look for.

During my years of studying this game I collected every kind of average statistical information available.
I know the average probability of almost every possible pattern coming up per every shoe.
Some patterns are almost 50/50 placed, others aren't.   
But as I many times pointed out, the word "average" doesn't fit with a long term winning plan.

The fact that 99,9999% of bac players are losers is due to their ignorance, trying to get the best of it within too short terms.
Almost every player thinks that after 2-3 or more losing shoes the expected more likely favourable outcomes must come out, ignoring that some unexpected losing runs (or worse yet, some simple WL ratio quick assessments) tend to show up in clusters or not coming at all.
In that regard the member sqzbox provided a scientific work about that somewhere.

Long term data show that some more likely outcomes can last per many shoes, obviously.
Therefore we should continue to ride the positive wave, not fearing the possible upcoming RTM effect.
   
But whenever a slight unexpected event comes out, we should put the brakes on.

This is just a statistical effect tested on millions of shoes.

And it's just a variance issue.

Imo, and I'm not alone to state this, to better evaluate what it's happening we should consider a strict betting placement and not trying to guess hand after hand.

as.

[gr8player]

Imo, and I'm not alone to state this, to better evaluate what it's happening we should consider a strict betting placement and not trying to guess hand after hand.

as.

Correct, AsymBacGuy.

"Guessing after every hand" will negate any edge that the astute and calculating variance player is seeking.  Only with a consistent and "strict betting placement" can that same player effectively utilize variance statistics to their advantage.  Then the game comes down to, for the most part, calculated bet sizing.  Done and done.  Stay well.