+ Register

[BEAT-THE-WHEEL]

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

[BEAT-THE-WHEEL]

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.

[alrelax]

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.

[BEAT-THE-WHEEL]

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.?

[alrelax]

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.

[TheMagician]

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.

[Johno-Egalite]

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.

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. 

[Johno-Egalite]

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.

[Johno-Egalite]

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.   

[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..

[Johno-Egalite]

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.

[alrelax]

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. 

[Johno-Egalite]

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.

[Johno-Egalite]

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.

[Johno-Egalite]

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.