BetSelection.cc

Can anyone figure out how many possible outcomes exist in a shoe of baccarat? 

You know, just the possibilities of what can happen in a bac shoe are in the multi billions, IMO. 

That is staggering if you really clear your head, sit down and think about it.

I could not even think of how to set up that math equation, maybe one of the math gurus here can??

8 decks of cards, remove the first 2 to 11 as the burn cards, cut off the last 15 or so.  416 cards minus, say 25 or so.  How many possibilities on a declining scale does a player actually face?  Huge amounts!  Especially when you are not looking to have optional draws like BJ, etc.

Yes, but a large part of the possible results are equivalent in terms of outcomes.

Of course the baccarat player wouldn't want to know what precisely happens for each hand, just the distribution of the results.

For example, the probability to get two shoes in a row not forming at least a couple of  P singles in a row is almost not existent. The same about not having a Banker streak of at least 3 and so on.

Each shoe is just a minuscule part of the entire picture. No one bj player would expect to get a possible mathematical advantage per every shoe played (such probability is just around 12-13%), why a baccarat player should expect or find favourable situations per every shoe played?

as.   


 

The answer I posted in another section is in the quadrillions. But that is why I raised the point, that anything anyone can come up with that systemic you're fighting against such a large field of possibilities, it's impossible to match up what the presentments are going to be, against what you are wagering for according to a mechanical systematic scheduled plan of wagering.

Quote from: alrelax on July 23, 2018, 03:39:28 PM
Can anyone figure out how many possible outcomes exist in a shoe of baccarat? 

For a 70 hand shoe, not including TIES

1,180,591,620,717,410,000,000

Gentlemen,
The ourcome is aka PERMUTATIONS,
Thus, say, next 70hands,
The best/worst  probability for Banker, = 70B in a row, or 70PLAYER in a row,
Which we will never see in our life time...

The 2nd best=a single lose somewhere in the streak.
3rd best=2 losses in the streak...
4th best=3losses...

.all the way, to...
Worst=70losses in a streak....

That trillions of permutations!
Thus they said, "ANYTHING could happen !"

Thus, a good way, is to ability to adapt to take advantage of every possible permutations.

Unfortunately, there no method that could adapt to every permutation....

Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on July 31, 2018, 02:51:08 AM
Gentlemen,
The ourcome is aka PERMUTATIONS,
Thus, say, next 70hands,
The best/worst  probability for Banker, = 70B in a row, or 70PLAYER in a row,
Which we will never see in our life time...

The 2nd best=a single lose somewhere in the streak.
3rd best=2 losses in the streak...
4th best=3losses...

.all the way, to...
Worst=70losses in a streak....

That trillions of permutations!
Thus they said, "ANYTHING could happen !"

Thus, a good way, is to ability to adapt to take advantage of every possible permutations.

Exactly.  Thanks, Glen

Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on July 31, 2018, 02:51:08 AM
Gentlemen,
The ourcome is aka PERMUTATIONS,


That trillions of permutations!
Thus they said, "ANYTHING could happen !"

Thus, a good way, is to ability to adapt to take advantage of every possible permutations.

You cannot adapt to SHEER Uncertainty.

You mentioned Trillions. That number my friend is as far apart, in the difference between quadrillions (true amount of permutations in 8 decks of Bac) and Trillions, as a Pound is from 1,000 Pound.  You may be able to lift the former, and even at times joggle with it, but the weight of the latter you cannot move an inch, however much you try.

I posted (https://betselection.cc/math-statistics/how-many-possibilities-in-a-baccarat-shoe-exist/msg64160/#msg64160) the actual numbers of any given Bac permutation earlier and it measures close to 60 Quadrillion.

Another way to give you a hint how much that is in terms of stars in a galaxy. Our own galaxy has 250 Billion (+/- 150 Billion stars).  60 Quadrillion stars would be close to 2.4 Million such Galaxies!  Can you honestly say you can fathom such a number of galaxies and even worse, the number of stars in them? I think not.

Do you get now why I mentioned the words "You cannot adapt to SHEER Uncertainty above?"

What can you do then? (Obs, rhetorical Q)

You can most certainly develop a way to measure your bet strategy/selection against the shoe by implementing a variance graph that shows the trend of your made bets, and use said graph to bet according to that trend, but then I suspect such an attempt would eventually make the whole thing, considering the poor payout, a zero-sum game.

Bac is not my game,  and I believe Glen might have his own well-tested strategies worth taking a look at, should you still feel brave enough to challenge such a volatile game of uncertainty.

"Bac is not my game,  and I believe Glen might have his own well-tested strategies worth taking a look at, should you still feel brave enough to challenge such a volatile game of uncertainty."  I appreciate that comment Magician.

"Unfortunately, there no method that could adapt to every permutation...."  By:  BEAT-THE-WHEEL.

Absolutely! 

Winning, losing and pushing.  That is the only 3 things a player can do at the casino table.  There are no other outcomes.

The results that you experience at the table will not and cannot follow any sort of governed or stable distribution of presentments or results from the shoe.  Because the possibilities as we already established are far too great to narrow down to a certain section of 80 hands or a cumulative total of 160 or 320 or 640 or 5,000 hands, and so on, that will produce what we all are seeking, winning hands.  So many people will combat just that with their defense of Martingale or their application of any one of the numerous theorems or systems that they read about or believe in. 

Seriously people, the only way to profit is to smack the casino real hard and outweigh your losses in the attempt to get to that point, each time or at least every 2, 3 or 4 times you attempt playing.  IMO, there is no other way.  Unlike paper, the computer, trials, running tests, etc., you have finite capital, period.  No two ways about it.  The casino does not. 

Let's look at that for just one paragraph here.  You have a certain amount of money to risk losing in order to win some.  Period.  So you have a very short period of time in order to accomplish that during each session.  No matter how much that figure is, it is limited.  The casino does not.  The casino has massive amounts of capital in chips and the cash within the premises by state law, ready to pay every chip displayed on the floor.  FYI, every chip on every table no matter if open or closed, the casino has the green cash within their vaults or the chips would not be on the tables.  So, you cannot out play them by repeated buy ins with additional money, thinking you will turn things around in your favor and turn their lights out.  As well, stamina, energy, focus, motivation, vision, and everything else along those lines are also working against you.  The casino rotates its dealers every 20 mins or so, not just to avoid collusion with players, but also for exactly the same reasons I just mentioned.  Sitting in either one or two spots for a period of several hours is hard both physically and mentality in so many ways, especially with the focusing and thought process.  Then when things go bad for a player, he believes taking a break is great, but his mind is convinced he will miss that section of presentments yet to come with his winning hands, etc.  That starts a mean cycle and a cycle that is not very good for the player, great for the casino thou. 

Then we have the fact what we have discussed in detail so many times.  A negative game with a negative expectation.  IMO and my proven experience, if you have the proper risk capital and mind-frame along with a governed buy in that is a partial amount of your bank roll, coupled with the knowledge and the experience to manage your winnings into numerous chances that benefit yourself rather than the casino, then you have a chance to play numerous sessions and win money. 

But, IMO you have to master a way to hold wins, perform positive progressions and parlays, yet be able to risk without emotion or distress while walking away losing your buy in which has to be a partial amount of your bank roll, without it effecting you to the point that you regret it and dwell upon the loss.

The myths and the fallacies that exist on the internet regarding baccarat as well as casino gambling are astronomical!  People become delusional to their own thoughts.  They provide themselves no advantage to make themselves a sequence of wagering selections which they really believe they have.  They actually afford themselves no advantage and they limit their options by doing just that.  That is the sad part, all that learning and researching only convinced themselves of numerous ways to beat the casino, when none actually exist.  Especially in mathematical and statistical adherence.  Period. 

At this point so many will still believe and attempt to count the cards, keep track of the banker, the player, ties and other events the shoe produces.  Simply, if it worked like that, the casino would not offer cards, pens and the newer electronic scoreboards.  It does not, at least for the extreme upper 90% of the time you are there, if you employ it as a protocol for wagering or not wagering.  Will there be sections where the equaling out, or certain events happen because there was a deficiency of them prior to that?  Sure.  However, just as important and what becomes devastating, are the times and the sections that those very things were supposed to, or yet believed would come out and did not.  And, that my friend will happen a greater amount of times in the casino's favor, rather than the players advantage.  That is the reason why and the only reason why the casino provides you the equipment and the permission to track, score, calculate and take notes all you desire at the baccarat table. 

So what is one to do?  You have to develop a unique boldness or an advantage in select wagering when the presentments of the shoe offer the chance to win hands that will allow yourself to outweigh your losses in the attempt to win money.  There is really a chance for the player, once you figure that out and forget about the wager for such and such, because so and so just happened, or did not happen, type of play.  And, your boldness or advantage has to work on well less than 50% of your wagers and most importantly, on those that win!  That is why to myself, flat betting and negative progressions are not going to do anything for you, it will require far too many for any kind of stability whatsoever.  Read that once more, your unique boldness and your advantage has to work for you with small sections of shoe presentments, that will only occur in less than 50% of your wagers.

No matter what creative or Holy Grail angle you think you found, you will not bring it to the baccarat table and repeatedly beat the casino at the game.  No matter how perfect your counting is, no matter how perfect your data analyzation and tracking methods become, no matter how perfect you can sense something, etc.  If you continue to wager on any one or several types of wagers because of your expectation, that the presentment will match any type of theorem or system schedule, you are dead wrong and will be on a continuous basis.  Simply because the numbers of possible outcomes have too many possibilities for anything stable or predictable to happen on a consistent basis, whether that is in one shoe or multiple shoes of baccarat.  That is, if you continue playing past your first time anyway. 

You don't have to change yourself.  Or stop believing, or stop gambling, or stop questioning or stop applying yourself.  The whole trick to what will help you, is being totally conscious and putting yourself into a neutral state of playing, a natural state of focus, vision and mind frame.  Not even in the belief that a certain 'betselection' process will prevail over another. 

It is about progressions, parlays and accumulating that amount each time or during a cumulative amount of times, that outweighs the variance, the house edge, your own default rate, etc., that you engage yourself in.  You have to figure out how each $100 you play with, will allow you to win after you lose a certain amount.  And IMO, experience and everything else combined, I found a certain way to be able to win at baccarat.  And that is to realize time, money, emotional, psychological and frame of mind all combined will determine how your decision making process allows you to accumulate and allocated your wins and how you manage the losses that will happen.  Those that think and believe everything I just mentioned does not apply to them, are just wasting their time being here anyway.

I'm d_u_m_b founded by some of the responses in this thread.

These in particular stand out for me;

Quote from: TheMagician on July 31, 2018, 07:37:04 AMYou cannot adapt to SHEER Uncertainty.

Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on July 31, 2018, 03:25:05 AMUnfortunately, there no method that could adapt to every permutation....

Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on July 31, 2018, 02:51:08 AMThat trillions of permutations!
Thus they said, "ANYTHING could happen !"

Quote from: alrelax on July 29, 2018, 02:17:29 AMBut that is why I raised the point, that anything anyone can come up with that systemic you're fighting against such a large field of possibilities, it's impossible to match up what the presentments are going to be

Quote from: alrelax on July 31, 2018, 03:35:08 PM
The results that you experience at the table will not and cannot follow any sort of governed or stable distribution of presentments or results from the shoe.  Because the possibilities as we already established are far too great to narrow down to a certain section of 80 hands or a cumulative total of 160 or 320 or 640 or 5,000 hands, and so on

You get the drift, naive, clueless on how to combat 1,180,591,620,717,410,000,000 different permutations.

Firstly, you don't.  Break the game up into manageable segments, you are no longer trying to fight 1.1E23, rather something a tad more manageable such as; 64/1 or 128/1 or 256/1 (64/2, 128/2, 256/2).  Instead of trying to puzzle over a non-correlated game by predicting randomness (WTF), pre-decide what results in 3LIAR or 4LIAR or whatever.  Make the possibility of that occurring as slim (mathematical) as possible, so you can focus solely on the wagering aspect of your game.  It is the opposite of pattern capturing, it is defining the pattern that results in LAIRS and will keep you in any game longer than all the other silly second guessing nonsense that you witness at tables around the world, from the casino floors to VIP rooms, either that of just give the game up as a lost cause and hold on to your hard earned cash. 

 

That is right Lugi.  IMO, sections and turning points, playing in in reverse of what everyone classically thinks, etc.,  I went into a lot of it elsewhere.  Good little summation thou!  I just concentrate on what is happening with little thought to other presentments as a general rule.   Thanks.

Quote from: Lugi on August 03, 2018, 07:51:34 PM
I'm d_u_m_b founded by some of the responses in this thread.

Having read some of your posts, it is easy to assess you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer, so I can understand "dumbfounded" LOL

Quote from: LugiYou get the drift, naive, clueless on how to combat 1,180,591,620,717,410,000,000 different permutations.

Wrong! The correct figure is found on this post I made. https://betselection.cc/math-statistics/how-many-possibilities-in-a-baccarat-shoe-exist/msg64160/#msg64160     There is a vast difference between the quadrillions you see in my posted data and your Sextillions you got from holding a whiskey glass in one hand and drunk fingers hitting a number keyboard with the other. When did you stop learning math? Elementary school?

Quote from: LugiFirstly, you don't.  Break the game up into manageable segments, you are no longer trying to fight 1.1E23, rather something a tad more manageable such as; 64/1 or 128/1 or 256/1 (64/2, 128/2, 256/2).  Instead of trying to puzzle over a non-correlated game by predicting randomness (WTF), pre-decide what results in 3LIAR or 4LIAR or whatever.

Oh yeah, right...and hows that been working out for you so far? I mean if Bac were so simple you should be swimming in Casino profits so far and basically being barred from most Landbased Casinos. But then you are not, because, if its one thing Casinos love, it is self-deceiving dummies like yourself.

Quote from: TheMagician on August 04, 2018, 07:58:05 AM


Wrong! The correct figure is found on this post I made. https://betselection.cc/math-statistics/how-many-possibilities-in-a-baccarat-shoe-exist/msg64160/#msg64160     There is a vast difference between the quadrillions you see in my posted data and your Sextillions you got from holding a whiskey glass in one hand and drunk fingers hitting a number keyboard with the other. When did you stop learning math? Elementary school?

Oh yeah, right...and hows that been working out for you so far? I mean if Bac were so simple you should be swimming in Casino profits so far and basically being barred from most Landbased Casinos. But then you are not, because, if its one thing Casinos love, it is self-deceiving dummies like yourself.

First, we all are welcomed here and all might or might not have things of interest to others, some or all.  But since a message board is not a school or an intense only seminar class, etc., things said are sometimes spot-on and other times, depending on whom is reading it, off the mark by huge distance.  With that said............

Second, it is not always eye-to-eye or the same meaning and understanding level when something is written by one person and read by another.  But I did interpret the part about sections or narrowing down that Lugi said, as something useful and something that I have been focusing on "SOMEWHAT" over time now. 

It does to me and many others make 'some' sense, at least giving us a section, whether false or not, to get into the groove, sort of vision and concentration.  And it does not matter what that section does, that to myself, is why so many misunderstand what I say.
What is going to happen will happen.  But the extra key is, you have to know or follow what the shoe is presenting rather than basing your wagering on what you need, attempting to recoup and what you desire. 

I wrote about 'sections and turning points' and I can do better paying attention to and concentrating on sections rather than the whole shoe many times over.  It is a control and an emotional issue that gets almost all players from continually profiting at the game, as far as sitting there playing it governed by their buy-in and bank rolls that are finite.  They successfully do most everything else in their life's as sections with turning points, but most all refuse to apply that very same thing to baccarat. 

Quote from: TheMagician on August 04, 2018, 07:58:05 AM
Oh yeah, right...and hows that been working out for you so far? I mean if Bac were so simple you should be swimming in Casino profits so far and basically being barred from most Landbased Casinos.

Ever heard of players being barred from the Baccarat tables? Playing Baccarat has financed a few global trotting VIP trips for me, how about you?

QuoteThere is a vast difference between the quadrillions you see in my posted data and your Sextillions

Are you sure about that??  LOL

I didn't steal my figures from the Wizard's site, BTW it's elementary maths, a 70 hand  shoe = 2^70 (type =2^70 into Excel and see what figure is returned) Now what do you say?  Being smart is not the same as pretending to be smart!   

A 80 hand shoe = 1,208,925,819,614,630,000,000,000 or =2^80  (again type that into Excel to confirm the correct answer).

Maybe you think some Microsoft programmer had a glass of Whiskey in their hand when they programmed the formula?? 

Quote from: alrelax on August 03, 2018, 10:34:06 PM
IMO, sections and turning points, playing in in reverse of what everyone classically thinks, etc.,  I went into a lot of it elsewhere.  Good little summation thou!  I just concentrate on what is happening with little thought to other presentments as a general rule.   Thanks.

This is not what I am referring to in the slightest. All you are suggesting is taking sections of a shoe, forming some opinion to what you think / assume is occurring and basing your bet placement upon whatever you see and how you interpret it, which itself is subjective. 

This is pure gamblers fallacy, the fallacy is that prior results have some bearing on future hands in a game of non-correlated trials. Just because a shoe may be producing some perceived pattern, one side producing singles, streaks, chops, repeating streak lengths, one-side repeating, cards drawn, winning hand totals and all that other voodoo nonsense. You notice, you react (after the event).  It's gamblers fallacy, never worked before and still doesn't in the long term.

Having dabbled with all these "what is the shoe doing now" theories over the years, they do not work period.

 
Let me give you an small over-view on far superior ways to approach a games of chance were prior hands have no bearing on predicting future hands and studying the score board is as useful as a coin toss.

Expected Streak length distribution;  We I'm sure are already are familiar with these figures.  However just to prove I do not have a whisky glass in my hand, a quick recap.

Series 1 = 50% of the time (yes I know, anything can and will happen & results are not evenly distributed in the short term, so please spare me all that).  Streaks of 2 = 25%, streaks of 3 = 12.5%, streaks of 4's = 6.5%, streaks of 5 = 3.25% and so on.

Yes we are all aware of these figures, they have floated around on the GG site for over a decade. Because we can't predict, they don't really help us do they?    Well actually they can, while we can't predict any occurrence of any streak length, we certainly can appreciate we are going to see a hell of a lot more streaks of 1's, 2's, 3's, 4's than say 5's in the short term, the is no disputing that.


What if we combined the "expected" steak lengths v's one exact streak length?

Let's take a streak of 5 (BBBBB or PPPPP).

All other streak lengths would for argument sake give a combined expectation of 50%+25%+12.5%+6.5%+1.625% and so on.  Or an easier way to view it;  If a 5 streak has an expectation of occurrence 3.25% of the time, then all other streak lengths (includes singles) should occur 96.75% of the time.

Hold on to your chips, I haven't finished just yet, having played easily over 50,0000 shoes, we all know repeating 5 streaks can happen, a 5 by 5 by 5 or a five streak occurs several times in the same shoe, this is what games of random chance can throw at us.

So we need to be a little more smarter, let's make ourselves amour proof as much as we possibly can. How about making some of those occurrences of streaks of 5 work TO OUR FAVOUR?  HUH?

What if we won against all streaks lengths and 86% of streaks of 5 and lost against only 14% of streaks of 5?  Or to be more precisely, snared a winning bet against all streak lengths no matter what what length, except against streaks of 5 only 14% of the time! 

Could you assume to have a rock-solid approach to the game, or would it just be the Whiskey talking? Or would you like some maths to back things up?  Just to reiterate, Baccarat is like a coin flip, prior hands have no bearing on future hands, staring at the score board does you no favours whatsoever, your time is better spent tracking your bet amounts. 

Let us consider combination tables. For the example I have given, the nemesis is 14% of any 5 streak.  Any experienced player should by now deduced that this can be viewed as a very "rare event".  Which can happen, which can repeat, yet would not be expected to repeat with any great frequency to inflict undue stress on the players bankroll.

The exact mathematical nemesis is 1/64, on average we expect to get hit once in 64 trials.  Yet for any given 70 hand shoe there exist only 10 trials. So all things being equal (which they are not), we would expect to get hit once every 6 shoes.  Wow


Let me break this down for anybody having difficulty following this.

We are playing a game of chance and we fully appreciate prior hands have no bearing on future hands and we can't predict jack sh1t, so therefore don't even bother looking at the score board. Instead we choose to put into play maths that have an expectation of producing our pre-chosen nemesis pattern once every 64 trials, of which, there can only be 10 in a average Baccarat shoe.  The entire concept here is controlling the LIAR's (losses in a row), the frequency of our losing bets are short and manageable, nearly all of the time. 

Yes the naysayers may think, what is to stop you getting hit in the first shoe, or it happens more than once? Of course that can happen, yet when you are using a easily proven mathematically expectation of once per 64 trials, rest assured you will not encounter repeated disaster or shoes from hell often or generally more than once in any given session.


The top three aspects of successful Baccarat play IMO are:

1 - Money Management
2 - Patience & Discipline
3 - Bet Selection

In that precise order.  MM over-rides absolutely everything, we don't gamble for stats, or hit rates, rather to make tax-free cash.  So considering what I have outlined above, without some semblance of a staking plan, you might get lucky, but in the long term you simply will not survive.  So even though the strategy I have provided the bare bones for, without a suitable staking plan, you would struggle and yes you do have to be creative.

Patience and Discipline, the strategy above requires patience.   So you've been hit, no big deal, the more shoes you play, the less often you will be hit, think about that for a moment, it's simple maths!!  1/64 chance of being smacked, 10 trials per shoe, how many bet selections have you ever seen / read about can make such a bold statement and be true??

Finally Bet Selection, nope the strategy above will not give you more winning hands per shoe than losing hands (it might but that would depend on luck and we don't want to rely on luck whilst gambling).  It will however give you great confidence of controlling losses in a row and subsequently betting into the abyss, or IF that were to occur, confidence that it shouldn't really occur too often, because it will only happen 14% of the time against any streak of 5.


(Again before anybody mentions it, I am well aware that our true odds are reflective on the number of actual bets placed, no matter how or when we place decide to place them).

I used streaks of 5 for this example, I could have easily used streak of 4 (get hit more frequently), or streaks of 6 (even more bullet proof), however I must stress, the more robust you make your game the more difficult (but not impossible) staking plan becomes.


Here are some other mathematical possibilities;

Let's say we chose streaks of 6 as our nemesis, as opposed to streaks of 5.  Streaks of 6 occur 1.625% of the time, with a little manipulation we can narrow that to 12.5% of given 6 streak, meaning 87.5% of the time when a 6 streak occurs, we will snare a win. The odds of being hit are 1/128 trials, of which there are less than 9 trials per shoe, so IF things were equal, we should expect to get hit once per 16 shoes.


Let's go a bit more extreme;

And make Streaks of 7's our nemesis; a streak of 7 only happens??  Well it's 0.8% of the time, again with a little bit of massaging, only 11% of streaks of 7 hurt us, meaning 89% of streaks of 7 will return a win. We should expect to lose an entire trial once every 33 shoes, once per week /fortnight maybe? 

Bet Selection~wise, a strategy that mathematically is expected to fail once every 33 shoes, one could say the game is practically beaten bet selection~wise.  While it is an extreme approach, it is also extremely difficult to design a betting strategy for such play, but not impossible if you used virtual losses to make it viable and referring to aspect #2 two (patience), you would require that by the bucket load. 

Anyway, I've waffled on more than I intended.  I just wanted to provide insight to alternative ways to consider games of chance and how the figure of 70^2 ( 1,180,591,620,717,410,000,000 ) is irrelevant and nothing to be concerned or fazed about.

Quote from: Lugi on August 04, 2018, 09:34:20 PM
Series 1 = 50% of the time (yes I know, anything can and will happen & results are not evenly distributed in the short term, so please spare me all that).  Streaks of 2 = 25%, streaks of 3 = 12.5%, streaks of 4's = 6.5%, streaks of 5 = 3.25% and so on.

Taking for grant that baccarat is a 50/50 game (and of course it isn't) , streaks of 4s have a 6.25% probability to appear and not 6.5%. The same about streaks of 5s.
Itlr a 0.25% difference means a lot. 

as.

Gentlemen,
Let say in next 75hands, there will be a streaks of 5.

Then simple way to bet...
Risk 75units
Bet every hand, say player, or 2person, each play opposite side.

Or ftl, that a 6streaks

Leave the winning on table, plus 1u,
Thus
1, 3, 7, 15, 31....= 62u versus 75risked

Or bet streaks of TWO....

That definitely must happen.

Wait for long pbpbpb....or bpbpbpbpbp till a virtual streaks of TWO,
then bet streaks od TWO.

Risk 1u for every hand, leave the winning on table plus 1.

The math =50% single series, ot ftl...that streaks of 3, ...=25% albeit HE.

For the real play. Ones and twos and threes happening in every shoe,  fours and fives, almost happen and it is not rare but at times they never come about. Sixes and sevens, the same thing, it's not rare. they can happen and they do happen. It's the 8 pluses that might not be all night and it might be in a few shoes, again it's not rare but it can be depending on what the shoes are are presenting and that's the problem.

If you play for it, you can get in trouble  if you play with it, it works out a lot better. But it can bite you and not let go, unless you do first and that's the key.

As far as the math of each one, from 1 through 8 and 8 plus, it's great on paper and the theories are probably correct.  But again, the shoes might not have the presentation the way your theory comes out on paper while you are at the table.

Imho, if we * play with it*,
Then ftl for 2win in row , safer bet, since streaks of 3 definitely must ... happen....

The only debacle, is sometime the losing, more than the winning!

If we can think out a method to have more than loser, then this be a cws.

Maybe waiting for virtual loser till a virtual win, or progression?

Any  great thinker here.?

I can give you actual examples of three out of four shoes from the other night and then you'll see what the problem is.

To me,  the hardest playing is when ones, twos and threes are coming out in sporadic fashion out of any extended section.

Meaning ones, twos and threes mixed not in an extended section.   Alternating meaning ones or doubles meaning twos or threes.  A mixed up section of ones-twos and threes, that is where I see everyone lose money and that happens quite often.

Man, Luggiquack, there are so many errors in your post I don�t even know where to begin, much less correct.

Just rubberstamping "Moron" over your post due to your attempt to prove to the members you are a Bac expert flying VIP around the globe is indeed an act much warranted. Correcting you math that really sucks, on the other hand, is just a waste of energy.

And I am not even a Bac expert, much less Bac lover.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on August 05, 2018, 12:59:00 AM
Taking for grant that baccarat is a 50/50 game (and of course it isn't) , streaks of 4s have a 6.25% probability to appear and not 6.5%. The same about streaks of 5s.
Itlr a 0.25% difference means a lot. 

as.

Thank you for spotting that typo, however it makes little to no difference.

Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on August 05, 2018, 02:22:13 AM
Let say in next 75hands, there will be a streaks of 5.

Then simple way to bet...
Risk 75units
Bet every hand, say player, or 2person, each play opposite side.

Or ftl, that a 6streaks

Leave the winning on table, plus 1u,
Thus
1, 3, 7, 15, 31....= 62u versus 75risked

Good luck with that.

I chose a streak of 5 purely as an example, I have encountered many shoes which have an abundance of 5 streaks, it would be just a matter of time before you are taken to the cleaners and the pit-boss is grinning at you as you leave the table with your head spinning.

I don't think you fully grasped exactly what I posted.

If I choose to battle streaks of 5 (as opposed streaks of 6's or 7's), I do no lose against ALL OCCURRENCES of streaks of 5, rather only 14% of them.  86% of the time, they are not a problem.  This means, IF I choose to battle streaks of 5, then a shoe that produces an abundance of 5 streaks may not necessarily be an issue.  Which I might say is a lot more powerful and robust that what you suggested, also Baccarat decisions do not follow the expected norm in the short term. 

Quote from: alrelax on August 05, 2018, 02:33:18 AM
For the real play. Ones and twos and threes happening in every shoe,  fours and fives, almost happen and it is not rare but at times they never come about. Sixes and sevens, the same thing, it's not rare. they can happen and they do happen. It's the 8 pluses that might not be all night and it might be in a few shoes, again it's not rare but it can be depending on what the shoes are are presenting and that's the problem.

If you play for it, you can get in trouble  if you play with it, it works out a lot better. But it can bite you and not let go, unless you do first and that's the key.

As far as the math of each one, from 1 through 8 and 8 plus, it's great on paper and the theories are probably correct.  But again, the shoes might not have the presentation the way your theory comes out on paper while you are at the table.

This is what defines us, either you have misunderstood what I posted or completely missed the point.

Nobody should play at a table and hope to not encounter a defined streak length, you would be like a sitting duck.

Of course all streak lengths happen, at any time. Using streaks of 5, they would only be an issue 14% of the time, 86% of the time, they would not be a problem, streaks of 6 are only an issue 12.5% of the time, and streaks of 7, 11% of the time.

You obviously are not alone when you saw me mention streaks of 5 and thought, oh I see them all the time, they are not rare.  I'll attempt to spell it out for the final time, so take your time, let it digest before responding.

If I choose streak of 5 to be my nemesis, I only lose to a PORTION of those.  That Portion is 14%, meaning in the vast majority of cases (86%), they don't present a problem.  I'll lay it out for you and others, so you can better comprehend.

Streaks of 1 = win
Streaks of 2 = win
Streaks of 3 = win
Streaks of 4 = win
Streaks of 5 = lose against 14% of them, win against 86% of them
Streaks of 6 or more = win

win = win a bet within a series of bets.

Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on August 05, 2018, 02:47:46 AM
Imho, if we * play with it*,
Then ftl for 2win in row , safer bet, since streaks of 3 definitely must ... happen....

The only debacle, is sometime the losing, more than the winning!

If we can think out a method to have more than loser, then this be a cws.

Maybe waiting for virtual loser till a virtual win, or progression?

Any  great thinker here.?

This is what separates the pro semi-pro players from the ploppies and 99% of the players you find at the tables around the world.   

You have misinterpreted what I state. I understand what you were saying about the mathematical odds of streaks. And I personally do not play for streaks.

My wagering including my positive progressions and parlays are based on win money and chance. At times they make a lot of money and other times, I lose my buy in. I survived the game and I have survived it for decades, because my wins crush my losses and they do that because of the way that I use the win money and convert it to progressions and parlays as I have detailed out.

I attempt to play what is coming out of the shoe and the way it's being presented, no matter if it's ones or twos or threes or anything else. I've made that clear. But you had misinterpreted and twisted around somewhat the things I and other people have said.

And once again for the record I understand what you were saying and yes it happens sometimes and yet at other times it will not.  A player is not at the table any consecutive time to match what mathematical and statistical theory say will happen and does happen. As well, a player might be at a table for the only the deficient amount or only the abundant amount of what those mathematical and statistical odds are, etc..

Quote from: alrelax on August 05, 2018, 02:58:49 AM
I can give you actual examples of three out of four shoes from the other night and then you'll see what the problem is.

To me,  the hardest playing is when ones, twos and threes are coming out in sporadic fashion out of any extended section.

Meaning ones, twos and threes mixed not in an extended section.   Alternating meaning ones or doubles meaning twos or threes.  A mixed up section of ones-twos and threes, that is where I see everyone lose money and that happens quite often.

No you can't do that because you haven't grasped, nor can define what the problem is.

If you the player make the problem (your nemesis) 14% of any streak of 5, then what is the issue with 1's, 2's, 3's and so on!!!  You would lap up and embrace those results.

Can you see the issue here?  You and other posters are making comments that have no relevance to what I posted and the reason for this, is because you and others do not understand what I have posted, it has gone straight over your head.

I'll refrain from resorting to the use of analogies at this time.

Okay, I have said my piece stated upon my experience. Keep it civil and keep it clean. Thank you.

Personally I will not engage in any further discussion.  Feel free on your end without any degradation or chastising. 

Quote from: alrelax on August 05, 2018, 07:58:14 AM
You have misinterpreted what I state. I understand what you were saying about the mathematical odds of streaks. And I personally do not play for streaks.

My wagering including my positive progressions and parlays are based on win money and chance. At times they make a lot of money and other times, I lose my buy in. I survived the game and I have survived it for decades, because my wins crush my losses and they do that because of the way that I use the win money and convert it to progressions and parlays as I have detailed out.

I attempt to play what is coming out of the shoe and the way it's being presented, no matter if it's ones or twos or threes or anything else. I've made that clear. But you had misinterpreted and twisted around somewhat the things I and other people have said.

And once again for the record I understand what you were saying and yes it happens sometimes and yet at other times it will not.  A player is not at the table any consecutive time to match what mathematical and statistical theory say will happen and does happen. As well, a player might be at a table for the only the deficient amount or only the abundant amount of what those mathematical and statistical odds are, etc..

That response clearly tells me you do not understand.  Nowhere did I state I play for streaks.

Your wagering and how you wager has no relevance on the topic at hand nor the thread title. 

Time at the table has no relevance, nobody is playing for expected statistical results to come true, gimme a break please.  We both know the game doesn't pan out according to the expected maths.

This thread was you asking for the number of combinations in a given shoe, which I provided the correct answer, then you stated, there are too many possible combinations, that no mechanical method could ever possibly work and so forth.

I have attempted to demonstrate to you and others that 1,180,591,620,717,410,000,000 has no relevance, it doesn't matter how many possible combinations exist.

Quote from: TheMagician on August 05, 2018, 07:24:29 AM
Man, Luggiquack, there are so many errors in your post I don�t even know where to begin, much less correct.

Just rubberstamping "Moron" over your post due to your attempt to prove to the members you are a Bac expert flying VIP around the globe is indeed an act much warranted. Correcting you math that really sucks, on the other hand, is just a waste of energy.

And I am not even a Bac expert, much less Bac lover.

Let the board know when you have entered into Excel =2^70 for the number of possible combinations for a 70 hand Baccarat shoe, of course I wouldn't expect you to highlight all the errors on my post (other than the 5 streak expectation which ASBAC  already did so).

Glad to see you are not a Bac lover, I really hate sharing tables with stupid players, so that would be one less that I have to contend with.

Quote from: alrelax on August 05, 2018, 08:04:39 AM
Okay, I have said my piece stated upon my experience. Keep it civil and keep it clean. Thank you.

Personally I will not engage in any further discussion.  Feel free on your end without any degradation or chastising.

Fine, but also note because I posted the correct the correct figure for an average Baccarat shoe and because what I posted went over peoples head, does that warrant tolerating being called a moron by some magic-guy?  I respond in kind.

Quote from: Lugi on August 05, 2018, 08:15:46 AM
Let the board know when you have entered into Excel =2^70 for the number of possible combinations for a 70 hand Baccarat shoe, of course I wouldn't expect you to highlight all the errors on my post (other than the 5 streak expectation which ASBAC  already did so).

Looking at your mathematically ridiculous answer, realizing that you still don�t get it why the Wizards chart of how many times each selected combination can show up in 8 Decks is correct and your elementary probability formula that is based on a completely wrong supposition tries to outmatch that,  is like watching an unintelligent fit a square peg into a round hole. You would fit nicely in a laboratory with apes, but then you would probably make them laugh LOL

Let's take an example with poker. How many possible hands of 5 cards can be dealt from a deck of 52 cards? The answer is 2,598,960 combinations. Now how did I calculate that simple combinatorics problem, can you show me that?

What I am saying is very simple;  for each calculated "hand" permutation related to the total availability of 8 decks, he does calculate correctly, moron, hence his correct chart that in total are in the quadrillions and not your ridiculous ignorant sextillion answer which is based on a completely wrong supposition.

The OP's question "Can anyone figure out how many possible outcomes (assuming an "outcome" is a permutation) exist in a shoe of baccarat?"  is quite clear, and Lugi answered it correctly. Magic man answered a different question to the one actually posed.

Thomas, if you're going to correct someone's calculation, be sure to actually understand the question before answering it, otherwise it makes YOU the moron, lol.

You really wanna start something with me again, Mike? The wizards chart was a perfect response and correct to the t. Luggiboys was not.

Hi Lugi,
With respect,
Since English not my 1st language,  and I try very hard what you try to teach.
You say, your only nemesis is streak5, and streak1, 2, 3, 4, 6= win,
How and why only streak5= loser? How you win with the others?

You may email me  weirdenglishwriter@gmail.com
Thanks in advance

?..............
Gentlemen,
In a shoe, next 70+ hand,
Say,
Bpbpbpbpbp also a streak,
bp=streak2
bpb=3
bpbp=4
bpbpb=5...
and so on

Thus streaks of, 12345...of same or chops, MUST HAPPEND,
and very obvious in every shoe..

Star System take advantage of streak2, the only debacle, as I see it, imho,
it bet every hand, thus succumb to the extreme variance,  and if it could outwait certain degree of long extreme, then it will hit better rate itlr.

Streak3 also must happen, we could take advantage by utilising ftl, or dbl, whether betting same or chops.
When streak3 hit, we win 2 in row, thus parlay the bet...
Say, in next shoe, of eg.75+ hand, we need 75units chip, If we, bet every hand, then if streak3 never hit, we lose all 75u,
If streak3 hit, then win1, parlay the winning plus 1=3, =6u minus2=4u ...


If we only bet, 1 side, say , only bet Player, risked 75units.
Any 2in row of p=6u, 75÷6=12.5

We may bet only 2in row, stop, wait for banker hit, the resume to bet p.
Or keep betting p, hoping for streak4, 6, 8, 10, 12   .......

Streak4=win twice,
Streak6=win thrice
Streak8=win 4.....
And so on.

Or betting both p and b, when they hit first,  hoping for streak 3+
Say, now bbb....wait for p to hit,
Now p hit, bet for it to streak3....

Any ideas?

Fact is reality. You are either predicting and guessing either the reality of the game or the mathematical and statistical side of the theories and numbers. Otherwise you're going to close your eyes flip a coin and pick a side according to heads or tails so that's the only two ways to play the game.   One is predicting with a form of guessing of some type no matter what it is like I said or blindly guessing, say flipping a coin or picking A or B out of your pocket and betting on that.

There's no other way to play it, none, zero.

Quote from: TheMagician on August 05, 2018, 11:41:55 AM
Looking at your mathematically ridiculous answer, realizing that you still don�t get it why the Wizards chart of how many times each selected combination can show up in 8 Decks is correct and your elementary probability formula that is based on a completely wrong supposition tries to outmatch that,  is like watching an unintelligent fit a square peg into a round hole. You would fit nicely in a laboratory with apes, but then you would probably make them laugh LOL

Let's take an example with poker. How many possible hands of 5 cards can be dealt from a deck of 52 cards? The answer is 2,598,960 combinations. Now how did I calculate that simple combinatorics problem, can you show me that?

What I am saying is very simple;  for each calculated "hand" permutation related to the total availability of 8 decks, he does calculate correctly, moron, hence his correct chart that in total are in the quadrillions and not your ridiculous ignorant sextillion answer which is based on a completely wrong supposition.

You really are the moron.  Who gives a damn about card values, but I see Mike has already addressed your idiocy.
Perhaps try to learn to read next time, BTW 1,180,591,620,717,410,000,000 is the correct answer.

The Michael's Wizard site from where you stole those figures from, doesn't even play the game and no attention should be paid to him concerning Baccarat, nor you.

Quote from: TheMagician on August 05, 2018, 01:05:25 PM
You really wanna start something with me again, Mike? The wizards chart was a perfect response and correct to the t. Luggiboys was not.

These are the cards you should stick to.

[attachimg=1]

Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on August 05, 2018, 01:18:35 PM
Hi Lugi,
With respect,
Since English not my 1st language,  and I try very hard what you try to teach.
You say, your only nemesis is streak5, and streak1, 2, 3, 4, 6= win,
How and why only streak5= loser? How you win with the others?

I never actually said that.

I said  my nemesis (you lose against) is 14% occurrence of any given 5 streak, 86% of the time you win against any given 5 streak, as well as winning against every other streak length (within a series of bets to be exact). 

You snare a win against the majority of any occurrence of a 5 streak. 


To answer your question, anti-streak would work, after any 5 streak switch to FLD.

When any streak stops at 5, you lose 100% of the time. I only lose to 14% ;-)

Quote from: alrelax on August 05, 2018, 01:35:50 PM
Fact is reality. You are either predicting and guessing either the reality of the game or the mathematical and statistical side of the theories and numbers. Otherwise you're going to close your eyes flip a coin and pick a side according to heads or tails so that's the only two ways to play the game.   One is predicting with a form of guessing of some type no matter what it is like I said or blindly guessing, say flipping a coin or picking A or B out of your pocket and betting on that.

There's no other way to play it, none, zero.

Afraid you are totally wrong.

It is difficult to determine exactly what you mean by the statement;

Quote"the reality of the game or the mathematical and statistical side of the theories and numbers". 

Yes I have mathematics on my side relating to the bet selection, as I've shown, in so far as much, I do not have to waste my energy wondering which side I will bet next, rather focusing my bet amounts. I do not bet every hand of the shoe by the way.

However your statement was preceded by the assumption I am either guessing or predicting?  Which I am doing neither.  To do so would be a utterly pointless exercise in any random game of chance.  I did already mention looking at the score board is a complete waste of time! 

Quote"There's no other way to play it, none, zero."

are you sure about that comment?

Just because after your many years of playing, something has never dawned on you, it can't possibly exist or be true, is that right?

Just like myself, yourself no doubt along with all the other newbie who first start playing this game, must have lost a fair packet. So we go home tail between our legs, racking our brains trying to out-smart the casino and the game of Baccarat. Yes we try everything under the sun all to no avail, inevitably we look at predicting hands, card values, patterns, expected statistics and so on.  Eventually we have to accept we can not, never will be able to predict jack.    I realized and accepted that reality  many years ago, I wish it wasn't the case, however it is fact of the reality.

Therefore if we can not predict jack, then why even bother trying, never been in a situation were 'think' this side is going to win, and watch it lose 9-8, 9-Baccarat, tie on 9 even?  So much for that theory. 

So we have to approach the game other angles, which in your mind "none, zero" exist?   Hate to say this to the board owner, just because you don't know, doesn't mean it can't possibly exist, you're very much wrong to make that assumption.  I play using certain approaches to the game, precisely for the very reason you mention, to remove all the pointless guesswork, emotional energy draining aspects out the game. Finally there is 'none / zero' blind betting involved, not 1 single hand.   

double post, please delete

Quote from: Lugi on August 05, 2018, 06:40:18 PM
These are the cards you should stick to.

[attachimg=1]

Emotional little monkey, aren�t you? I asked you a simple math question concerning poker and combinatorics and you failed to show me any shred of evidence that you have ever studied math, in any form, beyond elementary school (I doubt even that) LOL LOL

(https://betselection.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi63.tinypic.com%2Fk16z3a.jpg&hash=6941d0636dfb1161d82c7bae6c966da3ec5b23ab)

At least now I know what makes you tick, little monkey... >:D

May I ask almighty Alrelax about use of this revelation? We knew outcomes are kind of uncountable. Now what?

Why would I post Poker stats, I don't play the game.  Is this turning into a pissing against the wall contest because of the stats you pinched from Shackleford site were not relevant to the question posed in the thread? Is your ego really that fragile?

You sound like a sore loser, reduced to scamming snake oil in order to attempt to recoup years of gambling losses and I'm surprised the owner of the site allows you to pimp your gibberish nonsense here, trying to scam board members, because Alrelax knows to well along with every sane member, if anything actually worked, it wouldn't be for sale, plus he has posted in the past, all you sellers are scammers, period, no if's no buts.  Lowlife dregs of the internet gambling community, infesting boards wherever they appear.  Alas if the new board owner now wishes reverse his previous advice and give scammers free rein then so be it.

Quote from: Lugi on August 06, 2018, 05:15:55 PM
Why would I post Poker stats, I don't play the game.  Is this turning into a pissing against the wall contest because of the stats you pinched from Shackleford site were not relevant to the question posed in the thread? Is your ego really that fragile?

You sound like a sore loser, reduced to scamming snake oil in order to attempt to recoup years of gambling losses and I'm surprised the owner of the site allows you to pimp your gibberish nonsense here, trying to scam board members, because Alrelax knows to well along with every sane member, if anything actually worked, it wouldn't be for sale, plus he has posted in the past, all you sellers are scammers, period, no if's no buts.  Lowlife dregs of the internet gambling community, infesting boards wherever they appear.  Alas if the new board owner now wishes reverse his previous advice and give scammers free rein then so be it.

Nothing I have is for sale. It is freely available to the forums members in my own forum VRTech.  Some of them even come visiting here.

Now, concerning your gibberish and clearly rambling mental breakdown is a clear sign that you need to seek help. Maybe you have had a problem with your wife or GF or too many losses lately, or, as I suspect, your problems with booze where you 've might have tasted a bit too much of that whiskey before you wrote said monkey ranting  >:D

Can we just agree to disagree and not get personal?  Please?

Write what you both feel, defend what you write, comment and let it go. 

Even at the bac tables in a B&M casino, when there is a 12 plus streak of either B's or P's and there is heavy wagering on the streak side and someone comes running over and starts playing for the 'cut', etc., if he is attacked---we attack his betting strategy out loud, we do not attack him personally or why he is doing such, as a general rule. 

By Alrelax:

You have misinterpreted what I state. I understand what you were saying about the mathematical odds of streaks. And I personally do not play for streaks.

My wagering including my positive progressions and parlays are based on win money and chance. At times they make a lot of money and other times, I lose my buy in. I survived the game and I have survived it for decades, because my wins crush my losses and they do that because of the way that I use the win money and convert it to progressions and parlays as I have detailed out.

I attempt to play what is coming out of the shoe and the way it's being presented, no matter if it's ones or twos or threes or anything else. I've made that clear. But you had misinterpreted and twisted around somewhat the things I and other people have said.

And once again for the record I understand what you were saying and yes it happens sometimes and yet at other times it will not.  A player is not at the table any consecutive time to match what mathematical and statistical theory say will happen and does happen. As well, a player might be at a table for the only the deficient amount or only the abundant amount of what those mathematical and statistical odds are, etc..

(I stand by what I said above and it is reality, hard for most to believe because it is contradictory to what they read and begin to believe.)


By Lugi:

That response clearly tells me you do not understand.  Nowhere did I state I play for streaks.

Your wagering and how you wager has no relevance on the topic at hand nor the thread title. 

Time at the table has no relevance, nobody is playing for expected statistical results to come true, gimme a break please.  We both know the game doesn't pan out according to the expected maths.

( #1) You do not understand what my response actually was citing.  You play for the math and the stats, does not matter if it is streaks or chop-chops, etc.  #2) My wagering and how I wager has relevance on this topic that I created.  Because, of the sheer number of possibilities, and those huge, almost incomprehensible numbers of possible presentments that could be made within a shoe, does stop those with any mathematical or statistical outcome to apply that very same thing.  #3)  Time at the table has relevance.  People do play for the math and the stats they believe in, true or not, proven or not.  And yes, we know the game normally does not pan out to the expected math and the few times it does, it just reinforces the fallacy those players have that wager that way.) 


By Alrelax:

Fact is reality. You are either predicting and guessing either the reality of the game or the mathematical and statistical side of the theories and numbers. Otherwise you're going to close your eyes flip a coin and pick a side according to heads or tails so that's the only two ways to play the game.   One is predicting with a form of guessing of some type no matter what it is like I said or blindly guessing, say flipping a coin or picking A or B out of your pocket and betting on that.


By Lugi in reference to the above:

Afraid you are totally wrong.

It is difficult to determine exactly what you mean by the statement;


(No, I am afraid I am not totally wrong.  What I meant by that statement was, either following the way I think and believe in to win or following math and stat results are really the same.  Some type of guessing in order to win.  It is how a player handles the win money along with his application of M.M., parlays, progressions, judgment of time and presentments, how he handles and governs himself emotionally, what his vision, goals, and experiences are and how he applies those to the way he is winning or losing with each session.  There are things and I have written about them.

But if we both sit down at the same table, we are both wagering with a certain amount of prediction and guessing with whatever it is, we are each believing in or following to make our bet selection.  Does not matter if that is math /statistical results you are applying or a blind guess each wager where you flip a coin marked with P and B and whichever side it lands on you wager, or if you follow everything I believe in.  Any of those three ways there will be a certain amount of unpredictability to each, which may excel for yourself or cause you deficit and you will not be able to define, decipher or overcome until you are able to armchair quarterback it, and then of course it is too late.) 

I wrote this a few weeks ago, and I do think it fits in here as well:

An Edge Without A Physical Bias" (??) 

My Thoughts, As Follows:

That is what wins the game for me, when I concentrate and truly adhere to all the things I spend time to detail and write about on the board.  Some will go into dialog about my posts are too wordy, too long, too hard to understand, etc.  But, I am very sorry, there is no other way for me to explain as there are just numerous variables I have found that play parts together to make up each session's outcome.  And yes, I do throw in analogies and a few other things as well, you can always skip my threads, no problem.  Thanks, Glen.

Physics?  You just cannot grasp anything to do with it?  Mathematical and statistical adherence to what the pros (the real ones [LOL] you know, they are the bonafide and certified ones) say the test results produced and yet you still lose?  Complete failure to understand anything to do with those?  Perhaps you understand it is sheer greed and if you can only control yourself with a tiny bit of profit you can multiply that by 30 and make a heck of a great living sipping drinks all day and lounging at the casino table without a boss, the way certain members of many gambling forums claim that they do, especially the ones that post repetitively the same short concise statements saying that they do.  You know you actually over-stay every session you play and yet, you still stay when losing no matter how much you already won and when winning, you can never leave---so you are totally convinced that you have it all figured out and will literally beat the casino but somehow you just can't pull it off.  Those are just a few of the scenarios that exist in everyday real life at the casino but there are so many more. 

I have spent decades gambling in Brick & Mortar casinos, never on-line.  I have numerous family members in all 3 of the largest gaming jurisdictions of the USA in some type of upper management positions, mostly in marketing or in table game operations.  I know about gaming and I know about players as well, I know about casinos.  IMO, it is no different than a retail store or a service business that has specialties they offer to the industry.  Marketing, salesmanship, industry press releases, perception, what the market will bear, and so on will set the prices, the need, the willingness to support one or more businesses of the same type, the poor quality business and the high quality class act ones as well. 

Stores selling merchandise at below inventory wholesale costs, to attract customers that will usually wind up spending far in excess of what the business would lose if people failure to act on impulse, desire, greed, desire, eye-candy and many other factors of the same nature.   Value has a lot to do with gambling and something few of us actually think about.  Basically, I say when you don't have it or never did, there really is not much value when you actually get it.  Meaning, you don't have the slightest clue what you have because you already have it.  Sounds contradictory, but I plead with you, that it is probably 99% spot on in most every case. It's just the way our desires, emotions, greed and everything else mixed up inside of us, works and governs each of us at the casino table!  Especially with money and hard assets.

An attempt to understand the casino system and what their largest ammunition really is, would be the understanding of the following: "People are under the illusion that they can outsmart the system".  That sentence holds true to the hundredth power in any casino, police/detective work, retail offering, and employment background screening investigation, liquor licensing applications and thousands of other things as well!  Once you really understand that sentence and how you look at things you learn, research, attempt to apply and will wager with, then you are starting your journey down the correct path. 

But it all boils down to the human brain, with desires, greed, lust and a host of other things along those very same lines.  Fortunately, for the casinos and unfortunately for the players, almost every single one of us has those things instilled in us from a very early age.  It all started with your mom and dad and their "rewards", for yourself when you were good and those same things taken away when you were bad.  Then you learned how to milk the system and then manipulation you taught yourself without even knowing it.  You found the sweetness of self-rewarding yourself with the "fruits of your desires", sort of saying.  Each of us has it and each of us deals with that in many different ways, some good and others not so good. 

'Gamblers have a stronger misperception of randomness and are so willingly to bet on it'.  Please understand the words, Misperception, Understanding, Interpretation, Inaccurate and Inadequate) they are specifically different and very relative to gamble, but in the attempt to keep this from being way too long, I am saying, Misperception. ("A wrong or incorrect understanding or interpretation"). I have termed it, probability matching, and that is a side effect all humans are subjected to at the gaming table.  Especially when they are winning large or losing large.  It was instilled in our pre-human ancestors when they were out hunting and searching for food.

Evolution has primed us to have a low threshold for detecting patterns.  That is the physiological bottom line.  You would learn that in Psych 101.  That is medical science, nothing I made up.  So that very same thing will affect your gambling decision making thought process.  And that is exactly my point in all this.  It is not reality sitting at that table and almost all of you think it is.  It is different, virtually the opposite and then once you have it all figured out, it reverts back the other way.  And those my friends are all the parts that throw the mathematical and statistical data right into the garbage can every time.   

The down sides and why there are actually down sides you can detect.  Because it is that we get a lot of false alarms.  In the casino, that equates to losses.  In almost everything else, we chalk them up to and use them as rejections, mistakes, learning, improving, necessary happenings, etc.  But in the casino, they equate to devastating losses and missed wins/profits.  That is the key element to the entanglement of your mind and its ability to continue to play, figure out and stick to whatever can win and get away from what cost you not to wager on correct presentments, etc. 

Generally, those false alarms are harmless to most, but that is not always the case.  In so many player's agendas, they will convince themselves what is correct to wager upon, as to what is coming out or what has not came out, or what is supposed to happen according to the numbers, etc.  That is the key triggers that so many, most all will fall prey to.  Gamblers place money on those, no matter if they admit or not that was their reasoning.  Some will wager large amounts of money and other will grind it slowly with smaller amounts.  And no matter the value of their wagers, it does not matter.  They will do it repetitively and consistently.  Then they win some or lose some and that does not even matter.  They will wager against whatever they were wagering on that won, then they continue to lose.  Or they lose when they actually convinced themselves, that they were supposed to have won, but they did not follow doctor or wizard, 'so and so' math and stats that proved rightfully correct.  So then they lose their intelligence per-se and they become controlled by their desires, their emotions, and other factors that cannot and will never be able to match with certainty, their wager with each upcoming presentment.  The more the play, the more they lose.  Even when they win, they only fueled themselves with false fuel to keep going. 

Then what happens?  Well I have observed, that right about the time the people will point to whatever allowed them to feel that they choose the right side by matter of intelligent choice, nothing really existed that will allow them to repeatedly use just that in upcoming presentments that will be a solid 51% or greater positive experience on a consistent basis from thereon out.  Please re-read that and understand that, because that right there is a major key in understanding yourself and the reason for control in the game of baccarat.  And there is a double whammy to this as well.  That is, the strongest patterns and trends are always the worst for most players these days.  Because they challenge the strongest parts and have either convinced themselves or had themselves convinced, that baccarat is a true 50-50 game, a game that always equals itself out and you can prevail if you only wager against anything that is repeating itself or dominants. 

Then the losses start, their impulsiveness starts as well.  Reducing or increasing pattern recognition becomes the key to success which will not ever come about the conventional way.  Meaning, by reading the books by the doctors, the wizards, the self-proclaimed professional gamblers, the X dealers and casino personnel, etc.  Buying systems guides or being exclusively mentored and tutored or joining a $50.00 a month elite club of wanna-be millionaire gamblers, etc.  It will not happen no matter how much you believe that it just might.  Sorry, but that is the cold hard truth of the day. 

And if you can even begin to really understand what I just said, then you might be one of the few, the very few that might survive the "Flip of the Switch".  We all seem to unknowingly inflict ourselves with false fuel, continued torture and just plain, guaranteed losing when we found ourselves with that last, "all in" wager, or the other one, "all or nothing", types of wagers.  Winning and losing without letting yourself get beat down, by using a buy in which is only a smaller percentage of a bank roll and a bank roll that is administered properly is the start.  The rest of it will depend on your ability to remove yourself from everything I mentioned, desires, emotions, the mindset that allows yourself to think you have an edge to beat the casino, etc.  We continually let ourselves literally lose our money, the casino does not take it, you give it to them with the decisions you made.  The blame only adds more false fuel and further bad intelligence to your game.  I promise you that.

We give them our money because of our blatantly wrong information, data and beliefs we choose to believe.  Almost all gamblers will do the proper research, engage in training, obtain the proper information for almost all their non-gambling activities such as, seeding and fertilize their lawns, sports, hobbies, crafts, etc.  But when it comes to gambling, once again, almost everyone believes in that, "I can outsmart the system" type of intelligence that will only repeatedly hurt them until they are broke. 

What is the, "Flip of the Switch"?

"Flip of the Switch", is complicated, but for sake of keeping it to a couple of sentences, it is the player's thought process that will govern him with the recognition of patterns, trends, and whatever else he is convinced will be the next presentment from the shoe.  His wagering on that without regards to reality and then being sucked into gambling fallacy, LOCK, STOCK & BARREL.  The gambler has no idea that he actually wagered on his impulse and not on a tangible pattern, trend, or other defined presentment as he was really thinking he was doing.

Hence, "Flip of the Switch".  In other words, the lights were turned out on the player.  He lost once again.  Simple.  As well, once the action starts, say 4 Bankers appear, half the gamblers next to him just know and say out loud, how it has to cut back to the Players side and begin to wager for such.  The other of the people there, just know it has to continue and streak with the Banker.  So a switch gets flipped in the person's brain somewhere, changing the way we each define the game. 

And when you don't have the experience, the knowledge, the insight and much more, the compelling biases are truly overwhelming, "Flipping of your Switch", when you're in the game playing, actual play with actual money.  And if you lose and are losing more than you are winning, it is not the auto shuffler, it is not the unlucky dealer, it is not you lost count of the VIN/SAP Counts, it is no the failure of the Banker to continually excel the way it is supposed to, it is not the failure of the shoe to produce an exact replication of those 1,000,000 shoes broken down to the 3 or 5 or 10 you sat down to gamble at, etc., etc., and so on.  It was the fault of your wagering in direct conflict with what legitimately came out of the shoe, no matter if you wagered or not. You were just convinced to wager on the losing side because of the numerous factors I wrote about earlier and those factors turn very quickly into strong compelling biases that almost everyone has no idea what they are or how to figure them out.

And therefore, with yourself deep into biases, you play and play and play and believe compelling biases that cannot and will not hold up on a regular and a consistent basis totaling the majority of your play. Unless and only unless, you can twist, turn and manipulate the same system that legally, with precision and a well-planned entire scenario, relies on human nature to wager with their desires coupled with greed, that governs the player based on their beliefs that wreak havoc on their emotional and financial life.

Our minds make our decisions as to what and how to wager.

Those that say and stick to the statement, "Yeah I know,  but that is why I follow such and such and never deviate from such", etc., etc., and so on.  Yeah right.  It is still each of our minds making that final decision as to what to do, how to do it, how long to play, when to cash out, when to re enter, when to call it a day or night, when to return, what the wagering units will be, what the bank roll will be, what the buy in will be, where to go, what table to play at, when break time is, and so on. 

The list is long and more complicated than most all realize.  But it all boils down to one thing and one thing first, our minds making decisions. 

You have to do that first before all the emotions, psych and whatever goals, rules and schedules you follow, believe in or wager against, etc., get a chance to add profit or take away from your buy in and bank rolls. 

 

Quote from: alrelax on August 06, 2018, 10:16:33 PM
By Alrelax:

And once again for the record I understand what you were saying and yes it happens sometimes and yet at other times it will not.  A player is not at the table any consecutive time to match what mathematical and statistical theory say will happen and does happen. As well, a player might be at a table for the only the deficient amount or only the abundant amount of what those mathematical and statistical odds are, etc..

(I stand by what I said above and it is reality, hard for most to believe because it is contradictory to what they read and begin to believe.)


( #1) You do not understand what my response actually was citing.  You play for the math and the stats, does not matter if it is streaks or chop-chops, etc.  #2) My wagering and how I wager has relevance on this topic that I created.  Because, of the sheer number of possibilities, and those huge, almost incomprehensible numbers of possible presentments that could be made within a shoe, does stop those with any mathematical or statistical outcome to apply that very same thing.  #3)  Time at the table has relevance.  People do play for the math and the stats they believe in, true or not, proven or not.  And yes, we know the game normally does not pan out to the expected math and the few times it does, it just reinforces the fallacy those players have that wager that way.) 


By Alrelax:

Fact is reality. You are either predicting and guessing either the reality of the game or the mathematical and statistical side of the theories and numbers. Otherwise you're going to close your eyes flip a coin and pick a side according to heads or tails so that's the only two ways to play the game.   One is predicting with a form of guessing of some type no matter what it is like I said or blindly guessing, say flipping a coin or picking A or B out of your pocket and betting on that.


By Lugi in reference to the above:

Afraid you are totally wrong.

It is difficult to determine exactly what you mean by the statement;


(No, I am afraid I am not totally wrong.  What I meant by that statement was, either following the way I think and believe in to win or following math and stat results are really the same.  Some type of guessing in order to win.  It is how a player handles the win money along with his application of M.M., parlays, progressions, judgment of time and presentments, how he handles and governs himself emotionally, what his vision, goals, and experiences are and how he applies those to the way he is winning or losing with each session.  There are things and I have written about them.

But if we both sit down at the same table, we are both wagering with a certain amount of prediction and guessing with whatever it is, we are each believing in or following to make our bet selection.  Does not matter if that is math /statistical results you are applying or a blind guess each wager where you flip a coin marked with P and B and whichever side it lands on you wager, or if you follow everything I believe in.  Any of those three ways there will be a certain amount of unpredictability to each, which may excel for yourself or cause you deficit and you will not be able to define, decipher or overcome until you are able to armchair quarterback it, and then of course it is too late.) 

Without proper quotes it is difficult to respond, am I responding to myself, repeating myself?  Your response and the post that followed has now manifested the thread to another direction. There was no need to tell me about casino's or emotional control, I am well aware of all the player physiological and casino kidology when it comes to gambling.

I did realize you were aware of expected statistical distribution for streaks, not that knowledge of these kind of stats will do the player any good, I threw them in as a kind of recap. For the sake of repeating myself, it does not involve playing for mathematical stats to happen (kick in occur), hence time at the table has no relevance, it is baffling you make that statement without actually knowing what the strategy is, but there you go. 

It does not involve predicting or guessing, because of the nature of the game, as I've already stated, would be a useless exercise, every bet placed is 100% mechanical (pre-set pre-determined, not every hand is played.   

Again the correct figure of 1,180,591,620,717,410,000,000 possible combinations is merely a red herring, it is simply not relevant. if one breaks down a shoe, it is very easy to define all possible combinations that can occur in any given subset of hands. Therefore (I'll repeat what I already stated), if a series has a mathematical expectation of occurring say once in 128 trials and there can only be say seven possible trials in a seventy hand Baccarat shoe, well it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the expectation despite the fact anything can happen in a game of non-correlated independent outcomes.  However certain scenarios are extremely unlikely, in fact considering streak distribution expectations of Baccarat, plus only losing to 14% of a given streak length, it is more or less a bullet proof bet selection.

It is something I've used for a long period, I know how it performs both good and bad, one could literally play 50~60 shoes weekly and count on one hand the number of losing trials for such a sample.   A suitable wagering approach is a separate ball-game.

Anyway I rarely visit this board, there is nothing to be gained by me continuing in this thread.  You posed a question, I responded as well as dismissing the "too many variables" myth.   I'm letting you know unequivocally that despite your many decades of experience, there exists methods which to approach the game that you obviously have never witnessed, never considered and have no conception of, which is perfectly fine, most other players I mingle with all fall into the same bracket.   You'll just have to take my word for it or not, either way it doesn't bother me in the slightest, your belief has no influence or impact on what I do at table.   I didn't participate in this thread to "win people over", suffice to say keep considering the realities of a game of random outcome were prior hands \ patterns have no bearing on future outcomes.

Quote from: Lugi on August 08, 2018, 04:16:32 PM


It is something I've used for a long period, I know how it performs both good and bad, one could literally play 50~60 shoes weekly and count on one hand the number of losing trials for such a sample.   A suitable wagering approach is a separate ball-game.

Anyway I rarely visit this board, there is nothing to be gained by me continuing in this thread. 

1)  Then you have it all figured out, you have a system/trigger/schedule, etc., you should be very wealthy and you have certainly found what 99.99% plus of all players have sought and failed.  You should be admired;

2)  You will be missed, good luck;

3)  Your questions and statements were answered to the best of my ability, because you sounded sincere.  If I did not answer them, then I would be challenged as to why I did not.  When I did, you pressed on and I do believe you interpreted them for your positioning;

4)  Unfortunately, I am a gambler and have been prior to being Admin/Owner of this board and most other websites the owner/Admin is not.  Here, it is to my disadvantage because members can easily co-mingle my gambling with the Admin end of it and vice versa.   

I have no problem with you staying or leaving. 

And I still stand by those what I was referring to with those large possibilities of combinations, they cannot be ignored when attempting to factor in, what might or might not happen.  Because, you cannot be able to determine what those 74-84 hands will be configured as.  The possibility does not whittle down to what it actually is, a possible 74-84 combinations.  It remains in the quad-trillion possibilities.  If you knew everything that was eliminated after the shuffle, then you are down to what it actually contains. 

Once again, true---the frequency of streaks or chop/chops or doubles or any other trend or pattern and the possibility of it continuing or coming about or reoccurring, etc.  But without infinite bank roll and buy ins, virtually 99% plus of gamblers cannot afford to attempt to be redundant as you cited because something appears to have a 14% or a 86% pro or con appearance rate, etc.

As far as the elimination of anything and the testing that proved only 14% or whatever came about, even with 100 or 10,000 shoes that produced that, the next shoe is not constrained or scheduled to reproduce that same thing once again. 

Anyone can armchair quarterback anything once it occurred.  As well, IMO, with testing results, the ones or any number of ones that just so happened to conflict with the winning ones, somehow get miraculously 'uncounted' in most all cases.  It is not fun to have the system produce a greater amount of losing results than winning ones.

As well, sorry, the gambler talking in me and having the exposure to the casinos and casino management, the game would not be there, or the rules changed,  if there was a 86% player favorably possibility. 

Anyone would loan you $100,000.00 USD, to profit $86,000.00.  A simple one run a day, would be $2,580,000.00 a month and $30,960,000.00 a year profit. 

Fair enough you have enticed me back to respond to some of your comments.

Quote from: alrelax on August 08, 2018, 06:32:34 PM
And I still stand by those what I was referring to with those large possibilities of combinations, they cannot be ignored when attempting to factor in, what might or might not happen.  Because, you cannot be able to determine what those 74-84 hands will be configured as.  The possibility does not whittle down to what it actually is, a possible 74-84 combinations.  It remains in the quad-trillion possibilities.  If you knew everything that was eliminated after the shuffle, then you are down to what it actually contains. 

Ever heard the expression;    How do you eat an elephant?







Answer "small chunks at a time"





So let's apply the same rationale to a 70 hand shoe which can produce 1,180,591,620,717,410,000,000 combinations. 

Firstly this extremely large figure applies to the entire shoe, even the trend guessers, those that bet according to what the shoe is doing in the here and now, do not look at an entire shoe.  Rather they may look at the previous 5 ~ 10 hands, a previous pattern consisting of 5 ~ 10 hands, who knows.   I can't recall many players that would even look beyond 10 hands in order to decide which side to bet next.  I do appreciate what you are eluding to is the vast number of different patterns / sequences that can occur in the entire shoe.    Actually everything that can possible occur can be very easily defined.  Therefore we can safely assume the figure of 70^2, or 84^2 are simply not relevant.

Here is an example of applying the "eating of an elephant" analogy above.

Say we divided 1,180,591,620,717,410,000,000 possible combinations for an entire shoe into 4 hand outcomes?

We would have 16 possible combinations, in real terms those 'possible 16 pattern combinations' can be reduced to 8 if we teat outcomes simply as patterns, because BPBP is the same as PBPB. = 4 chops.

In other words for any 4 hand sequence, we have a total of 8 possible outcome.

These can be easily shown (X = can represent Bank or Player) Ties are ignored.

XXXX, XXXO, XXOX, XXOO, XOXX, XOXO, XOOX, XOOO

What this shows is a very simplistic way to manage that the rather daunting figure of '1,180,591,620,717,410,000,000' all possible combinations.   Therefore your comment "large possibilities of combinations, they cannot be ignored ", yes they certainly can.  If we break down 70^2 into 4 hand sequences, we only have to deal with 8 possible patterns.

If we break down 70^2 to a 5 hand sequence, we have to deal with 16 possible combinations, break down the shoe into 6 hands we only have to deal with 32 possible combinations and so on.

Quote from: alrelax on August 08, 2018, 06:32:34 PM
Once again, true---the frequency of streaks or chop/chops or doubles or any other trend or pattern and the possibility of it continuing or coming about or reoccurring, etc.  But without infinite bank roll and buy ins, virtually 99% plus of gamblers cannot afford to attempt to be redundant as you cited because something appears to have a 14% or a 86% pro or con appearance rate, etc.

I did not mention anything having a pro or con 14% or 86% expectation / appearance.   As I mentioned above, my approach is 100% mechanical (it might as well be, because guessing is exactly that, a guess).  Therefore if something is 100% mechanical, then the nemesis pattern should ought to be able to be defined, the player knows in advance what breaks their strategy, as opposed to simply choosing the wrong side for those players that prefer to trend the game via the score board!

This is no different, what breaks this strategy, is 14% of any streak of 5, nothing else. Chops, doubles, 3 streaks, 4's and 5 streaks 86% of the time won't result in a losing trial, a trial consists of a series of bets.  There is no pro or con 14% / 86% expectation of anything.

However there does exists an expectation, the expectation is that a once per 64 event won't occur too often, certainly given that an average shoe only produces 10 events. Alas in this game anything can happen, if did occur, you would be confident it should be smooth sailing for the remainder of any session.

When you sit down to play, the expectation is not to lose complete series of bets in any shoe, because in the back of your mind it would be like the casino hitting a 1 in 64 shot within 10 attempts.

Streaks of 5 should occur once every 80 hands (32 possible 5 hand combinations /2 ), or 3.125% of the time, but as we know, the game does not conform nor follow any mathematical expectation for any given session.  For a single shoe, you may see 4 or 5, streaks of 5.  Only 14% of which result in a complete series of bets failure.     

Quote from: alrelax on August 08, 2018, 06:32:34 PM
As well, IMO, with testing results, the ones or any number of ones that just so happened to conflict with the winning ones, somehow get miraculously 'uncounted' in most all cases.  It is not fun to have the system produce a greater amount of losing results than winning ones.

An intelligent observation, which I'll address shortly.

Quote from: alrelax on August 08, 2018, 06:32:34 PM
As well, sorry, the gambler talking in me and having the exposure to the casinos and casino management, the game would not be there, or the rules changed,  if there was a 86% player favorably possibility.

No 86% player advantage, I was merely using a percentage figure to express what is and what isn't the nemesis pattern is for a given bet selection strategy.

Quote from: alrelax on August 08, 2018, 05:44:04 PM
1)  Then you have it all figured out, you have a system/trigger/schedule, etc., you should be very wealthy and you have certainly found what 99.99% plus of all players have sought and failed.

I'm afraid it is not so simplistic. I think it is safe to assume you have never reviewed, considered, studied combination tables.
If you have, then you would be aware, there is no possible advantage to had, none whatsoever, it is mathematically impossible for it to be otherwise.  Makes no difference if you 'trend' the game, tossed a coin, card tracked, pattern tracked, bet mechanically, applied the Zumma stats, what has been invented in the past, what will be invented up in the future. 

No mathematical advantage can possibly exist period. So literally anybody who has ever stated, "I have a great system", tried to sell any system, ditto applies to some members of this board, they are talking out of their backside, no super secret my bet is better than your bull, which we come across from time to time.   

However l must expand on this statement "No mathematical advantage can possibly exist", the opposite is also true.  No system has a disadvantage over any other system.  Everything is equal, combination tables over any given number of hands easily proves this to be true, there is no escaping the maths, those that can't accept or dismiss these facts always talk in circles, if you get my drift!

So no doubt you're wondering, does this apply to me, where is my edge? 

Of course it applies to me, there is no edge, never claimed there was one, rather only stated what the nemesis pattern is, because as with any style of play it's nemesis can be defined.

Example
If you're betting FLD you lose against chops, chops consist of 50% of all hands.
If you're betting DBL you lose all 2nd line hands, a portion of top-line results, repeating 2's etc (approx 37% of all hands).
If you bet Zig-zag you lose to chops 50% of the time.
If you look at the score board and bet the Trend, you lose due to simply guessing wrong a 50-50 outcome.
If you switch this way then that way after X amount of losing bets, you still lose to the more frequently occurring streak lengths (singles, doubles, 3 streaks combos).
If you bet the cut, you lose against frequent long streaks.
I lose not to all 5 streaks, but only 14% of them, a streak of 5 should occur 3.25% of the time.

You should be able to see from the crude examples above an despite having no mathematical advantage , I should lose a series of bets less often than a lot of other styles of play, there lies my advantage, it is controlling the LIAR's by hopefully keeping them manageable, along with eliminating the utter frustration of experiencing the highs and lows by guessing right and wrong when choosing which side to bet each and every hand.  For every adrenaline fueled high, there exists the flip side of an even deeper depressing low.   

As always MM is absolutely paramount, even more so when the price you are paying is risking many bets in order to secure a winning bet.

Nicely stated Luigi. I sincerely enjoyed your post and respect your approach.

Very welk stated, thanks

Quote from: Lugi on August 09, 2018, 11:27:00 PM

If we break down 70^2 into 4 hand sequences, we only have to deal with 8 possible patterns. [/u]

If we break down 70^2 to a 5 hand sequence, we have to deal with 16 possible combinations, break down the shoe into 6 hands we only have to deal with 32 possible combinations and so on.

70^2 = 70x70 = 4,900. Only a math-illiterate cannot see the difference between 2^70   and 70^2. Mathematical Illiteracy and its consequence when not kept in check is like Ebola, it spreads fast and is deadly to the accurate reasoning based on these assumed "facts" by its victims.

Basically, it is a vile sickness called Innumeracy. The best way to describe it would be to believe a color-blind describing the colors of the rainbow to his fellow man and the latter not questioning the inevitable errors from said descriptions.

I rest my case. >:D

Quote from: Lugi on August 09, 2018, 11:27:00 PM


No mathematical advantage can possibly exist period. So literally anybody who has ever stated, "I have a great system", tried to sell any system, ditto applies to some members of this board, they are talking out of their backside, no super secret my bet is better than your bull, which we come across from time to time.   

However l must expand on this statement "No mathematical advantage can possibly exist", the opposite is also true.  No system has a disadvantage over any other system. 

You have proven this HOW?  Please submit the valid formulae, or mathematical theorem, that proves your claim.

To save you time, considering your astounding home-brewed, childish quasi-math that has nothing to do with actual mathematical reality;

An event is ONLY impossible when its probability is zero.  If the probability is greater than zero then it might occur. (if you have difficulty understanding this, re-read).

If you claim such an event to be zero, you have to provide mathematical proof of how you have reached the said conclusion based on your acclaimed mathematical knowledge which unfortunately I deem close to zero.

Conclusion. This ongoing sickness of your blatant innumeracy and the very lack of proper mathematical conceptuality and terminology put into problems of the aforementioned character seems to permeate you from top to toe.

It would be ill-adviced by any professional gambler, or player,  on this forum to even remotely listen to any of your ideas and conclusions based on your homemade quasi-math, except the few stories you might provide as entertainment of your casino visits.

Permutations with repetition (n=2, r=4)
Using Items: X,o

List has 16 entries.
{X,X,X,X} {X,X,X,o} {X,X,o,X} {X,X,o,o} {X,o,X,X} {X,o,X,o} {X,o,o,X} {X,o,o,o} {o,X,X,X} {o,X,X,o} {o,X,o,X} {o,X,o,o} {o,o,X,X} {o,o,X,o} {o,o,o,X} {o,o,o,o}

Permutations with repetition (n=2, r=5)
Using Items: X,o

List has 32 entries.
{X,X,X,X,X} {X,X,X,X,o} {X,X,X,o,X} {X,X,X,o,o} {X,X,o,X,X} {X,X,o,X,o} {X,X,o,o,X} {X,X,o,o,o} {X,o,X,X,X} {X,o,X,X,o} {X,o,X,o,X} {X,o,X,o,o} {X,o,o,X,X} {X,o,o,X,o} {X,o,o,o,X} {X,o,o,o,o} {o,X,X,X,X} {o,X,X,X,o} {o,X,X,o,X} {o,X,X,o,o} {o,X,o,X,X} {o,X,o,X,o} {o,X,o,o,X} {o,X,o,o,o} {o,o,X,X,X} {o,o,X,X,o} {o,o,X,o,X} {o,o,X,o,o} {o,o,o,X,X} {o,o,o,X,o} {o,o,o,o,X} {o,o,o,o,o}

Permutations with repetition (n=2, r=6)
Using Items: X,o

List has 64 entries.
{X,X,X,X,X,X} {X,X,X,X,X,o} {X,X,X,X,o,X} {X,X,X,X,o,o} {X,X,X,o,X,X} {X,X,X,o,X,o} {X,X,X,o,o,X} {X,X,X,o,o,o} {X,X,o,X,X,X} {X,X,o,X,X,o} {X,X,o,X,o,X} {X,X,o,X,o,o} {X,X,o,o,X,X} {X,X,o,o,X,o} {X,X,o,o,o,X} {X,X,o,o,o,o} {X,o,X,X,X,X} {X,o,X,X,X,o} {X,o,X,X,o,X} {X,o,X,X,o,o} {X,o,X,o,X,X} {X,o,X,o,X,o} {X,o,X,o,o,X} {X,o,X,o,o,o} {X,o,o,X,X,X} {X,o,o,X,X,o} {X,o,o,X,o,X} {X,o,o,X,o,o} {X,o,o,o,X,X} {X,o,o,o,X,o} {X,o,o,o,o,X} {X,o,o,o,o,o} {o,X,X,X,X,X} {o,X,X,X,X,o} {o,X,X,X,o,X} {o,X,X,X,o,o} {o,X,X,o,X,X} {o,X,X,o,X,o} {o,X,X,o,o,X} {o,X,X,o,o,o} {o,X,o,X,X,X} {o,X,o,X,X,o} {o,X,o,X,o,X} {o,X,o,X,o,o} {o,X,o,o,X,X} {o,X,o,o,X,o} {o,X,o,o,o,X} {o,X,o,o,o,o} {o,o,X,X,X,X} {o,o,X,X,X,o} {o,o,X,X,o,X} {o,o,X,X,o,o} {o,o,X,o,X,X} {o,o,X,o,X,o} {o,o,X,o,o,X} {o,o,X,o,o,o} {o,o,o,X,X,X} {o,o,o,X,X,o} {o,o,o,X,o,X} {o,o,o,X,o,o} {o,o,o,o,X,X} {o,o,o,o,X,o} {o,o,o,o,o,X} {o,o,o,o,o,o}

Thus, for example, if we choose to bet, f2ndlast, for only 6 permutation, hand,
the loser will be,
XXOOXX, AND OOXXOO

two probability out of ....64, without consideration for 6pay half, or commissions.
Any ideas for mm?

Quote from: owenslv on August 10, 2018, 01:45:08 AM
Nicely stated Luigi. I sincerely enjoyed your post and respect your approach.

Thank you.

Quote from: alrelax on August 10, 2018, 01:52:33 AM
Very welk stated, thanks

I know you have decades of table experience and are not stupid, if I tried to kid you or lie, you would spot it a mile away.

Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on August 10, 2018, 10:58:58 AM
Permutations with repetition (n=2, r=4)
Using Items: X,o

List has 16 entries.
{X,X,X,X} {X,X,X,o} {X,X,o,X} {X,X,o,o} {X,o,X,X} {X,o,X,o} {X,o,o,X} {X,o,o,o} {o,X,X,X} {o,X,X,o} {o,X,o,X} {o,X,o,o} {o,o,X,X} {o,o,X,o} {o,o,o,X} {o,o,o,o}

Yes you are correct, however "pattern~wise, there is no difference between XXXX and OOOO, or XOXO and OXOX, or XOOX and OXXO and XOOO and OXXX and so on.

So you only have to contend with 8 patterns, not 16.  Same applies to your other posts. 

On a side note:

I need to visit the town where my grandmother and great grandparents were born and raised there in Bay of Naples region, something about the racks of pasta they used to set outside because of the salt air from the bay, made it the best or something.  I have to get to Italy, I want to show my little boy his ancestry. 

Quote from: TheBSMagician on August 10, 2018, 09:33:47 AM

You have proven this HOW?  Please submit the valid formulae, or mathematical theorem, that proves your claim.

Yes you were correct 2^70 is not the same as 70^2.   I do hold up my hand, I should have checked Excel for the exact syntax of the formula, I didn't expect to come under such banal scrutiny over the format, next time, I'll make allowances for the habitual casino nit-picker losers that live with chips on their shoulders.

You can apply any bet selection you desire, any methodology, one-side only, betting or not betting every hand, trending, coin tossing any other form of tossing if feel the urge.  You can apply any form of bamboozlement, include any sales pitch mumbo-jumbo, heck you don't even have to apply it to any 4 hand sequence, however I choose 4 hands for simplicity. 

1   B   B   B   B
2   B   B   B   P
3   B   B   P   B
4   B   B   P   P
5   B   P   B   B
6   B   P   B   P
7   B   P   P   B
8   B   P   P   P
9   P   B   B   B
10   P   B   B   P
11   P   B   P   B
12   P   B   P   P
13   P   P   B   B
14   P   P   B   P
15   P   P   P   B
16   P   P   P   P


Winning v's Losing bets will always resolve to a 50-50 state, period, no matter what.  No other possible exception exists (even worst for roulette EC bets, as there is a zero to contend with). Doesn't matter how many hands you use as your sample, 5, 6, 10, 12, 20!!   Even if you apply mathematical based bet options such as Imbalance v's Equilibrium, Birthday Paradox, Bet Banker only, WD, everything and anything without exception resolves to a 50-50 state, PERIOD

Which is why testing is in reality a complete waste of time, because if your test sample is big enough, it will always resolve to a 50-50 state.  System sellers and other attention seeking posters (pay for view forums?), will skirt around, ignoring  difficult and probing questions, avoiding the undeniable, resorting to ridicule, abuse to mask the obvious.


However in my opinion there exists small sliver lining and certain aspects you can control. 

Firstly money management.  You can control all aspects of this, whether you decide to bet positive or negative, as well as controlling the amount you bet.

Secondly, you can control what sequence \ pattern will result in you losing consecutive hands, therefore applying some expected frequency against whatever your decision is.  Or you could simply decided to bet according to what you see on the score board, if you lose too many hands, then I guess you didn't choose correctly, which can become mentally draining very quickly.


Let me present an example using the 4 hand combination table above.

Take the sequence XOXO or OXOX v's XXXX or OOOO (basically 4 chops v's streak of 4).

Despite the maths of winning v's losing bets resolving to a 50/50 state as well as the odds of losing 4 bets in a row being the exact same.  If you had to make a choice of which sequence was to be your nemesis pattern, I personally would choose a streak of 4 over 4 chops, based purely on chops consist of 50% of all results, a 4 streak should occur 6.25% of the time.  My decision takes nothing away from the fact the odds of losing 4 bets in a row is 0.5^4 = 1/16  (I'm treating B and P bets equally, before anybody nit-picks).   

Quote from: alrelax on August 10, 2018, 02:10:08 PM
On a side note:

I need to visit the town where my grandmother and great grandparents were born and raised there in Bay of Naples region, something about the racks of pasta they used to set outside because of the salt air from the bay, made it the best or something.  I have to get to Italy, I want to show my little boy his ancestry.

Children, teenagers, young adults don't appreciate ancestry or heritage until much much later in life, late 30's, 40's if your lucky.   

Hello Lugi  . . .

"everything and anything without exception resolves to a 50-50 state, PERIOD"

Yes, this is true when you are playing the Casino's game of each single spin/hand.  They are indeed independent.

But if you play your own game of playing every 3 Spins/hands rather than each one, then you can change the 50% to 42%.

Spin # 1:  NO BET
Spin # 2:  FTL (Follow The Last)
Spin # 3:  FTL
End of Game

Spin # 4:  NO BET
Spin # 5:  FTL
Spin # 6:  FTL
End of Game
Etc.

Both Lisa Goldberg, PHD UC  Berkeley and Joshua Miller and Adam Sanjurjo in their dissertation  "Surprised by the Gambler's and Hot Hand Fallacies? A Truth in the Law of Small Numbers"  have concluded

"We prove that in a finite sequence of data that is generated by repeated realizations of a binary i.i.d. random variable, the expected proportion of successes, on those realizations that immediately follow a streak of successes, is strictly less than the underlying probability of success."

I concur ancestry and heritage not appreciated until later in life.  I am off next week to appreciate my grandsons in Colorado.

Ciao

Nick

Quote from: Nickmsi on August 10, 2018, 05:55:55 PM


I concur ancestry and heritage not appreciated until later in life.  I am off next week to appreciate my grandsons in Colorado.

Ciao

Nick
[/cequote]

No argument.  I was the same, could not give a rat's behind about who was who when i was growing up or even in my 20's.  Probably first thought and questions had to be in my 30's.

However, I have an extremely small family, as both my parents past away and I have a bother far away from where my son is and he sees him once every couple years.  His half sister from my first marriage is now in Vegas so he might see her once in awhile.  But he is around his mom and his half brother/sister and her extended huge family all the time.  Hence, everyone teases him that he is 'the white boy' of the family.  He has actually recently asked me about my side of the family and I am serious about the trip to Italy within another year or so.  I won't be around when he is in his 40's. 

Quote from: Nickmsi on August 10, 2018, 05:55:55 PM
Yes, this is true when you are playing the Casino�s game of each single spin/hand.  They are indeed independent.

But if you play your own game of playing every 3 Spins/hands rather than each one, then you can change the 50% to 42%.

Spin # 1:  NO BET
Spin # 2:  FTL (Follow The Last)
Spin # 3:  FTL
End of Game

Spin # 4:  NO BET
Spin # 5:  FTL
Spin # 6:  FTL
End of Game
Etc.

Hi Nick, I did mention the player can stop and start whenever they wish, for example, once a win is achieved, stop and wait for the commencement of the next round of betting.  FYI I never view or bet independently, every bet I place , I view as a series of bets, even if I win my first placed bet, then I will no-bet until the start of the next sequence.  Those that like to read the score-board, trend the shoe, IMO are playing a single hand type of game, which personally I loathe.

I'm trying to figure out how to apply the example you have shown, i'm assuming using columns of 3's and betting FTL for two bets?

Please feel free to correct me if i'm wrong, but this is how I see it.

XXX = NB WW
XXO = NB WL
XOX = NB LL
XOO = NB LW

(a reverse of the above)
OOO = NB WW
OOX = NB WL
OXO = NB LL
OXX = NB LW

8W's and 8L's, if the player stopped after hitting their first win, the result would be 6W's v's 6L's

Quote from: Nickmsi on August 10, 2018, 05:55:55 PM
Both Lisa Goldberg, PHD UC  Berkeley and Joshua Miller and Adam Sanjurjo in their dissertation  �Surprised by the Gambler's and Hot Hand Fallacies? A Truth in the Law of Small Numbers�  have concluded

�We prove that in a finite sequence of data that is generated by repeated realizations of a binary i.i.d. random variable, the expected proportion of successes, on those realizations that immediately follow a streak of successes, is strictly less than the underlying probability of success.�

I have just found the paper you refer to http://www.thebigquestions.com/hothand2.pdf
I'll have a read of it, to be frank already I'm not convinced, this seems very similar to the "Penny-ante Nontransitive paradox" which I did test when it first came up on at Gamblers Glen over 10 years ago. It could not be applied to the game of Baccarat.   

If they are suggesting an uneven distribution to favour FTL (heads), then I'm definitely a skeptic, because as you can see from above, the worst possible sequence is two chops following the No Bet hand (LL).  The most frequent sequence in Baccarat are chops!!

Label me a skeptic, personally I would much prefer to encounter 'LL' against the pattern XXX and OOO than XOX and OXO, much prefer to have my nemesis to be a streak of 3 than 3 chops, that is just the way I judge the game, the Zumma stats will run true.

 

Exactly what I do with sections and turning points. It identifies as what has happened and what has not happened in a better system than the scoreboard presents.

Nothing continues however nothing is assured to come out either.

It allows my expectations to be much more realistic and more in tune with most shoes especially for the shorter and stronger or weaker and of course the neutral shorter sections of them.  Rather than a continuance of more than four to seven hands at least the majority of times, which almost everyone expects to happen or wants to happen that plays the game.

And that's a lot of what I have been preaching.

Gentlemen,
The best we can , is to devise a method that always hit math expectation within HE, which the mathboys can't dispute,
But then, again, they will say, in short run, we might hit long expected Extreme Varinace....

Thus imho,
Have a selection that very STABLE, (in medium run), say, 100 to 200 placed bet, or 100+ group of sequence attack,
Expect the occurance of long variance, avoid the long variance,  and mild progression, and cut loss strategy..

An EDGE is possible, but need 10000 placed bet, which just impossible in BM...

If and when we have confidence and faith, that our selection very stable, albeit with long sequence of variance, then its not difficult to win.

In fact, long variance in stable selection, is a blessing,  when we simply outwait them, ....

Hi Lugi, rather than interfere with this thread I posted a response at:

https://betselection.cc/roulette-forum/use-mathstatistics-to-beat-roulettebaccarat-part-2/

Thanks

Nick