+ Register

[alrelax]

And being Random, certainly  does not mean you cannot win....

First of all, to read randomness, i.e.; looking at the scoreboard and defining what is happening and then applying a scheduled wager because of the trigger that appeared—is complete fallacy with slight potential at times but greater failures by far, with much larger percentages awaiting. 

Any person can interpret a score board of baccarat anyway he desires.  Twisting and turning it to suit his thoughts.  But to wager according to scheduled redundancy will bankrupt your bankroll in time, every time, some sooner and some later depending on the size of the bankroll and the length of sessions.

The game of baccarat is truly random produced presentments.  That is a given and a proven fact.  If it was not, the baccarat tables would not be in the casinos.  Period.  No discussion needed. 

To qualify a scheduled wager and wait for a trigger is too varied and far too unclear and to indecisive, in order to solidify any type of results that might or might not come about. 

The object to make money at the tables is to exploit what is happening (being presented) and not necessarily on what happened, did not happen or what might be curtailed from happening.  IMO, those are the exact points where most all people will lose or be side tracked and confused. 

As far as a scheduled wager that is thought of as a 'trigger' by a person—if it was anywhere over a factual and proven 50% successful result rate, he would be a multi-millionaire or multi-billionaire and definitely would not be seeking drama and humiliation from posting on gambling boards for his desire to 'help' others.  Period.  A simple fact and no need to discuss whatsoever!

There can not be triggers that will always repeat themselves.  Period, at least that I have ever discovered after 4 decades of play.  This is due to the outrageously large amount of ways that winning and losing hands can come about with so many different cards to form the point values as well as the reduction effects to form the 4, 5 or 6 card hand. 

The following are 2 examples:

(The cards for a ZERO point valued hand)

9+2+9=0
8+2+10=0
8+2+Face=0
7+3+10=0
7+3+Face=0
6+4+10=0
6+4+Face=0
5+5+10=0
5+5+Face=0
10+10+10=0
10+10+Face=0
10+Face+Face=0
Face+Face+Face=0
10+Face+10=0
Face+Face+10=0
8+3+9=0
7+4+9=0
6+5+9=0
10+A+9=0
Face+A+9=0
A+A+8=0
8+8+4=0
7+7+6=0
6+6+8=0
4+10+6=0
4+Face+6=0
3+3+4=0
2+2+6=0
4+A+5=0
2+A+7=0
4+2+4=0
2+10+8=0
2+Face+8=0
8+4+8=0
8+5+7=0
8+7+5=0
8+6+6=0
2+3+5=0
7+5+8=0
7+6+7=0

There are 40 ways I just posted to produce a zero point valued hand, which would be dependent upon the opposite side's hand point value with its 2nd and possible 3rd card drawn. 

(The cards for a SIX point valued hand)

10+6=6
10+6+10=6
10+6+Face=6
5+A+10=6
5+A+Face=6
3+3=6
3+3+10=6
3+3+Face=6
3+2+A=6
4+2=6
4+2+10=6
4+2+Face=6
Face+6=6
A+A+4=6
9+1+6=6
8+3+5=6
7+4+5=6
8+8=6
9+7=6
8+8+10=6
8+8+Face=6
9+7+10=6
9+7+Face=6
9+6+A=6
9+5+2=6
9+4+3=6
8+7+A=6
8+5+3=6
8+2+6=6
5+6+5=6
4+A+A=6
3+A+2=6
2+2+2=6
2+A+3=6
7+5+4=6
9+2+5=6
9+3+4=6

There are 37 ways I just posted to produce a SIX point valued hand, which would be dependent upon the opposite side's hand point value with its 2nd and possible 3rd card drawn.

I guess the reason I posted those above two examples are to squash the claims when a 'so and so' card comes out for the players 3rd card or the players side wins with a 'such and such' point value hand statistics prove it will cut to the bankers side next, etc., etc.  I say that because there are just an astonishingly high number of cards that can produce any point valuation, winning either side with a 1 over Zero to a Natural 9 over a Natural 8, etc. 

People claim that statistics can be applied to actual wagering at the tables.  I don't see how, with any real success rate on a consistent basis that is at all possible.  Enough said, it is such a misapplied bunch of fiction people claim, it is past comical!

And probably the NUMBER ONE REASON unpredictability and randomness will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS truly prevail, is there are just as many reasons something happens as there is that it didn't  happen when the cards are being dealt in the hand being wagered on.

Think about it.

And to myself and select others, the trick and advantage is turning a slight potential into a winning profit within several sections of a shoe or shoes.

[alrelax]

When each of us sit down at a baccarat table---we will each get a fair and impartial chance to make a profit.  Of course that drastically changes with our wagering.  The outcomes of our wagers will be reflected in our views, because we seldom admit and/or recognize the actual reasons we lose and as well, win.  You need to start to understand exactly why you lost and won, and it has more to do with then you placed your wager on something that was supposed to happen or the odds were in the favor of it happening, etc., etc.

Successful Bac wagering is nothing to do with systematic, scheduled or statistical wagering.  Nothing at all.

Shoe 1 from a few days ago.

[attachimg=1]

The above shoe had 0-1-2-3 ties in it. As I always say, zero to low ties causes clumping or a steady presentment of the same trend/pattern, etc.  I have written extensively about this, it is a fact.  Here is a shoe with 2 ties in it, look for yourself.  The remaining hands of the shoe was; a player then a banker, then 6 players which were all naturals, then 4 more bankers with a fortune 7, then 2 players and last hand a banker, which was player natural 8 and banker natural 9. Fortune 7s were hands: 2-8-20-38-54-75.  Total of 6 fortune 7s.


Shoe 2 from the same night, same table.

[attachimg=2]


Once again, low ties for half the shoe.  Again repeating the presentments.  Easy pickings!  Fortune 7 on the 4th hand.

[KungFuBac]

Thx alrelax for taking the time to post pics/commentary.

Toteboard #1 vs #2 : I would have likely won more on TB #1 because it presented with what Bacs' profile likes to show or at least within the games' general profile (i.e., 3s/4s and both sides presenting similar streaks, low ties,..etc to me is a little easier to interpret and most importantly interpret quicker).

re:tb#2--I would have probably collected more on tb#2 starting on column 4 and hitting the 3-1-2-1-3 with four or five wins by betting B twice, seeing a P, betting B twice,...etc, then what I would have collected on the 11iar B run.

#2 TB looks like a gravy-train at first glance and I would like to proclaim that on the 11iar B streak:

"I would have parlayed+ on the first 8 hits, then flowed into a 50% press , then after the 10th reduced everything down to 1.0Unit, then immediately trekked over to the cashiers cage and requested my six-figures win in BSOB(Banded Stacks of Benjamins) and be placed in my attache and oh yeah, I will need an escort out to my limo,....etc. " 

    HOWEVER, in actuality I probably wouldn't have read the board correctly(or significantly delayed in responding)  and not profited as much on that first B streak as I would have on the next two nice yet shorter B streaks. Then looked back and counted how much I shouldacouldawoulda  won. I guess maybe the other roads could have provided a little more insight that perhaps I may have interpreted a little quicker though I still don't think I would have collected near what one should.

On the 11 B streak(& without additional info)  I would have likely been on the first three wins and pressed on all three hits (because the presentment had shown a desire to go 3iar and turn), then reduced to 1.0U on the 4th win, and may have pulled down completely after the 7th win or started reducing that 1.0 unit by -$5,-10,-15 ...etc til the end. 

Bottomline: I would not have capitalized on that 11iar B streak. If we had observed lets say a 5/6iar or 4/4, 7-8 1iar,...etc, in  back to back columns in early part "maybe" I would have been in anticipatory mode and more inclined to get on it(11iar) earlier.

I would like to hear how others would have interpretated that 2nd shoe and if they too would have performed better on TB#1 vs tb#2.

Alrelax: What say you and can you share how you played it(as best you can recall) as I realize you play alot of shoes.

Thx in advance to all that care to comment or critique my thoughts, kfb