I've resigned myself to the fact that I'll never be able to capture better than 50% winner like the gr88888888888888one and the jimske, so I don't tinker with my bets selection. I do sometimes look at different mm/progression scheme and will now be switching from my 11 steps parlay to a 13 steps parlay. I'm doing so cuz I eyeballed my last 100 shoe and saw that I would have cut my progressions busts outs by 50 percents by by using the 13 step instead of the 11 step style I have been using. Everything is a trade off and there is less average profit to be had with the 13 step parlay but a bust is 100 unit, and with far fewer progression busts I can significantly increase my base units bet. So, I figure that my real cake average profit should increase by about 10-15 percents; and that should be plenty good enough to feed the bulldog, hey hey!
Can you give a clear example how you play the 13 step please ?
I got hammered from the start last night small. I could not buy a win hardly. But hung in the pocket and ripped back on a big table's long dragon progression capped with a high payout bet that I called in front of my whole side of the table. Everyone was on it as the shoe was screaming for it to come along, however it did hit at key break point of the progression.
The point of mentioning is use your bank roll to sustain rough going.
The most important part:
I got hammered from the start last night small.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZH8zcJUH1M
(https://betselection.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prohyptikon.com%2Fcovers%2F978-0-9812244-0-4_thumb.png&hash=b2b1dca7e9eeeee8f9d940ecd190f6cf49cbd471)
The baccarats is a serious thing, but most cats ain't serious, hey hey.
Quote from: soxfan on April 24, 2016, 01:22:45 AM
The baccarats is a serious thing, but most cats ain't serious, hey hey.
I have been trying to get many friends to go, but I don't think they like money. I still talk their ear off with my session reports. :))
One day...
(https://betselection.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi10.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa130%2Fbakkukid%2FIMG_0726.jpg&hash=20e37366b5e5c1d80d9e8271ebd0fc1d655f12b2)
There's probably less than 20 grand in that stack.
I've spent more on breakfast with friends.
I've spent more on pizza and bar tab with strangers.
Quote from: greenguy on April 24, 2016, 05:28:26 AM
There's probably less than 20 grand in that stack.
I've spent more on breakfast with friends.
I've spent more on pizza and bar tab with strangers.
Your point is you think you're rich?
I think the chips look pretty. YES PRETTY. AND I DON'T PLAY THAT BIG YET. SO WHAT? ONE LOSING DAY SINCE MARCH 11TH (ACTUALLY WELL BEFORE) AND I TAKE THAT TO THE BANK. COVERING RESIDENCE AND CAR NOTE PACE WHICH IS MORE THAN I WOULD SAY FOR MANY ON HERE.
Quote from: 21 Aces on April 24, 2016, 08:40:25 AM
Your point is you think you're rich?
No, my point is you think you're poor. O:-)
Cats were askin so am gonna post up the new progression style I will start using my first session of the coming week on Monday in the am morning, hey hey.
1-1-1-1-2-3-4-6-8-11-15-20-27 units bets
3-2-1-0-2-3-3-5-5-6-7-7-8 units profits
Quote from: greenguy on April 24, 2016, 09:31:09 AM
No, my point is you think you're poor. O:-)
Don't give up your day job and try to assess anything. Your posts on the game show you know very little or you think it's some special secret. I just see half cocked jackass comments on systems. You're short karma now so enjoy when it slams you to the ground.
Quote from: soxfan on April 24, 2016, 10:55:19 AM
Cats were askin so am gonna post up the new progression style I will start using my first session of the coming week on Monday in the am morning, hey hey.
1-1-1-1-2-3-4-6-8-11-15-20-27 units bets
3-2-1-0-2-3-3-5-5-6-7-7-8 units profits
Thank you. Very much appreciated.
One more question though. Your playing ppbbppbb.. or follow the current trend ?
Quote from: Denzie on April 24, 2016, 11:49:35 AM
Thank you. Very much appreciated.
One more question though. Your playing ppbbppbb.. or follow the current trend ?
My style is "trending" for lack of the better term, but I make some subjective plays depending on circumstances, hey hey.
Just to add, the 11 step parlay did well for me and I won about 90% of played shoe. But, this 13 step parlay style will mean far fewer progression busts, so I can win well and regular by averaging just 11-12 units profit where with the 11 step parlay style I need to capture about 30 units per winning shoe to stay ahead of things, hey hey.
soxfan,
The progression looks formidable. Wish you best of luck in your play.
Quote from: soxfan on April 23, 2016, 04:15:18 AM
I've resigned myself to the fact that I'll never be able to capture better than 50% winner like the gr88888888888888one and the jimske, so I don't tinker with my bets selection. I do sometimes look at different mm/progression scheme and will now be switching from my 11 steps parlay to a 13 steps parlay. I'm doing so cuz I eyeballed my last 100 shoe and saw that I would have cut my progressions busts outs by 50 percents by by using the 13 step instead of the 11 step style I have been using. Everything is a trade off and there is less average profit to be had with the 13 step parlay but a bust is 100 unit, and with far fewer progression busts I can significantly increase my base units bet. So, I figure that my real cake average profit should increase by about 10-15 percents; and that should be plenty good enough to feed the bulldog, hey hey!
I'm doubtful my 52% will change the ability to achieve more back to back than 50%. But Gr8's 54% or greater should have some real impact. Frankly I seriously doubt he achieving that rate over significant number of hands.
I do think the increased step might very well be worthwhile. Soxfan knows I've experimented with this style quite a bit. I don't have a hard number but my recollection is that majority or maybe even all the times I played this out I would have won the next step.
Quote from: soxfan on April 24, 2016, 11:58:29 AM
Just to add, the 11 step parlay did well for me and I won about 90% of played shoe. But, this 13 step parlay style will mean far fewer progression busts, so I can win well and regular by averaging just 11-12 units profit where with the 11 step parlay style I need to capture about 30 units per winning shoe to stay ahead of things, hey hey.
The 12 step parlay 1-1-1-1-2-3-4-6-8-11-15-20 is the one I used for experimenting. The 11 step 2-2-2 . . he referring to is more robust and wins more units per winning shoe. So with the added 27 unit bet going to reduce average win.
There is another way to reduce escalation which I have experimented with on paper and quite a bit live. I don't quite have the nerve to go full monty! This has turned out pretty well for me getting between 5 and 7 units a shoe. In a nutshell I don't always make the parlay bet. In fact the highest I ever went was the 11 bet but didn't bet the 22 units. I think I actually parlayed the 8 to the 16 just a couple times. On the lower scale I didn't always parlay them either.
So I just turned the whole thing into a grind play which is what I am comfortable with. Small bets, small wins. I just used the w/l unit in the shoe to dictate my risk. If I did well on one shoe I would then have more units to risk next shoe but was always careful to get out of a shoe somewhere in the second half of the shoe. Most of you guys get the picture.... freeze the bet at a lower level; flat bet the next size instead of parlay and restart, etc. All according to units won/lost in the current shoe.
Sure, most times I left a lot of units on the table because I would have actually won the prog somewhere if continued BUT . . . it saved me at least twice from losing 73 units.
J
Quote from: soxfan on April 24, 2016, 11:53:17 AM
My style is "trending" for lack of the better term, but I make some subjective plays depending on circumstances, hey hey.
I did a session just now. Ended +60 using your 13 step.
Thx
A parlay(WW) occurs 1 out of 4 double decisions.
Your progression(13 steps) is too weak and it can't face a big variance.
It has the same probability of W of a 6 terms standard martingale.
A dream....
Quote from: Denzie on April 24, 2016, 02:33:57 PM
I did a session just now. Ended +60 using your 13 step.
Thx
Wow. Surely not one shoe? How deep did you go - how many bets?
Quote from: roversi13 on April 24, 2016, 03:39:54 PM
A parlay(WW) occurs 1 out of 4 double decisions.
Your progression(13 steps) is too weak and it can't face a big variance.
It has the same probability of W of a 6 terms standard martingale.
A dream....
Assuming your math is correct. It would depend on bet selection. Progs of any kind don't win without subjective input.
Quote from: roversi13 on April 24, 2016, 03:39:54 PM
A parlay(WW) occurs 1 out of 4 double decisions.
Your progression(13 steps) is too weak and it can't face a big variance.
It has the same probability of W of a 6 terms standard martingale.
A dream....
Cats are gonna win close to 50% of placed bets so shouldn't be too hard to capture a single coup of back to back win regular within the 13 steps progression, hey hey.
Even with a good bet selection,that in IMHO doesn't exist,13 steps are not enough.
A very strong bet selection(???) can't face, with only 13 steps, a big negative variance that will occur for sure(good or bad bet selection!)
soxfan
...shouldn't be too hard.....:MATH IS MATH!
Stop dreaming
Quote from: Denzie on April 24, 2016, 02:33:57 PM
I did a session just now. Ended +60 using your 13 step.
Thx
Sixty units is a nice proposition, hey hey.
Quote from: Jimske on April 24, 2016, 03:42:22 PM
Wow. Surely not one shoe? How deep did you go - how many bets?
Just over 2 shoes. Online though. Highest bet was 11u which I parlayed. Happened once. On average I not going further than 1-3 units. How many bets I don't know. But I follow the trend. And today it was pretty easy. Long streaks.
Quote from: roversi13 on April 24, 2016, 03:52:41 PM
Even with a good bet selection,that in IMHO doesn't exist,
Not sure how to say it but...if you look what's going on at the moment then it shouldn't be to hard to get a WW. Of course it will bust too. But the wins should be more than the losses. So bet selection. ...that is different each session.
I really appreciate soxfan writings but at the same time I agree with roversi.
Even utilizing a very solid BS, strong negative progressions will come along the way no matter what.
We should remember that trying to win two hands in a row is just a different way to pose the question: "are we able to control the outcomes?"
The obvious answer is a loud "NO, we can't"
Nonetheless, the distribution of outcomes is limited in some way by three factors (card distribution limitation due to finiteness of parameters involved, asymmetricity, very slight propensity to get the opposite hand of the last result).
Imo, we could improve the precision of our strategy starting our given betting plan very far from a "zero" starting point.
It's not about WHAT we are utilizing to try to control the outcomes, it's all about WHEN we are trying to do that.
So even utilizing the strongest betting selection ever invented coupled with the most sophisticated MM ever set up, we know that we won't get the best of it betting this plan right from the start.
Betting after some strong deviations have appeared will definitely improve our results by a 99.99999% accuracy. Especially if we're betting the mathematically most expected side.
It's not asymbacguy who tell this but very very long tests.
One, two or even five or ten shoes is nothing compared to the long run.
Casinos can endure such "short" losing periods as they know they will win itlr.
And we all know that they will win by a well higher degree than what the 1.06/1.24 mathematical percentage dictates.
So something wrong is made by bac players (I'm discounting the high negative side bets ignored by the most part of very high stakes players creating the main portion of house earnings worldwide).
Main reason for that? I guess it's all about wanting to break even within too short intervals of time. For example.
Is it possible that anything will be possible anywhere and anyhow?
Only in the short run.
The like casinos will lose only in the short run.
We can't win mathematically, we might win only by statistical features maybe enforced by some MM features.
And, imo, they can work only itlr. Slowly but steadily.
as.
I hate to keep harping but what is this "long run" peoples speak of with such certainty? The baccarats is my fulltime gig and in a year's worth of fulltime play I only buck up against about 44 thousands decision. Cats talk about millions of shoe or decision being a long run but over several years of fulltimes play I AIN'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO ONE MILLION DECISION, hey hey.
Quote from: soxfan on April 24, 2016, 11:38:13 PM
I hate to keep harping but what is this "long run" peoples speak of with such certainty? The baccarats is my fulltime gig and in a year's worth of fulltime play I only buck up against about 44 thousands decision. Cats talk about millions of shoe or decision being a long run but over seve I AIN'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO ONE MILLION DECISION, hey hey.
Have mercy on us. Please! You might summon him!!!!
The Dark Wizard and His Black Ridershttp://betselection.cc/off-topic/the-dark-wizard-and-his-black-riders/
Quote from: soxfan on April 24, 2016, 11:38:13 PM
I hate to keep harping but what is this "long run" peoples speak of with such certainty? The baccarats is my fulltime gig and in a year's worth of fulltime play I only buck up against about 44 thousands decision. Cats talk about millions of shoe or decision being a long run but over seve I AIN'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO ONE MILLION DECISION, hey hey.
I understand your point.
But we have to take into account that very negative situations can come up along the way anytime and anywhere.
For example, I can set up a multilayered betting plan working on cutting P streaks of 4s and 5s. I know that itlr I could get the best of it, meaning that itlr I'll have more P streaks of 4s and 5s than 5+ P streaks. Still I have no guarantees that a long run of P 5+ streaks will come out destroying my careful set up MM. The like I can't have guarantees to get two W in a row within a given range of played hands.
Again for example, I can set up a multilayered plan to get at least two P singles in a row (the most likely outcome the baccarat world will produce, since two B streaks in a row is a less slight occurence) but still I can get many unlikely consecutive shoes not forming such feature (or forming it at an insignificant degree).
I'm not necessarily saying that a long term winning plan must be good after millions of shoes, I'm just saying that sooner or later we'll have to endure a 16 or 20-25 no single winning hand session. Let's figure out about the likelihood to get TWO WIAR in those strong negative deviated situations.
If the overall amount of W/L sessions will be proportionally shifted on the left side, that's good. No matter what very long term trials tell us.
as.
You can never beat the 'long run' to the satisfaction of the mathboyz because they'll just keep moving the goal posts and making it longer.
You can as a player win or profit from the game for a life time. Anyone who accomplishes such a feat cannot be denied the term WINNER.
But just because you are a lifetime winner does not mean you have beaten the game. This is because the long run is unreachable in one's short lifetime.
Your success therefore will always be put down to or involve some luck.
This is why serious system testers run simulations over millions of spins. Not only to see if they can win money, but to see if they can beat the game. They are two different things.
If you run a losing simulation of 10 million spins, and then cherry pick some brief periods of upward bankroll movement, you can see how if you were lucky enough in live play, you could end up a winner despite the overall long run loss of the simulation.
This is why you will never satisfy the mathboyz.
If you want to prove you can beat the game, you need the long run. If you just want to play and win money, you don't need the long run.
Quote from: greenguy on April 25, 2016, 01:04:36 AM
You can never beat the 'long run' to the satisfaction...
+1,000,000 on this post because if this is the distinction (Money making, winning player vs. being able to crack the game as in solve it in some way), then most players are seeking to become consistent all in winning players on a net basis.
Quote from: 21 Aces on April 25, 2016, 01:32:31 AM
...most players are seeking to become consistent all in winning players on a net basis.
Then you need not consider the long run.
It is possible that some cats with great subjective bet selection ability are able to get a parlay win within 11 or 13 attempts and make profit. For most of us, it is impossible. You do not need long run to prove it.
You can not program IBM Watson to beat Zumma 1600 with any bet selection and a 11 step or 13 step parlay. Mathematically it is impossible.
Beating Zumma 1600 Baccarat with a safe and innovative approach
I beat both zumma book plus 400 of my own shoe before I start to play for real cake, hey hey.
Quote from: soxfan on April 25, 2016, 02:22:30 AM
I beat both zumma book plus 400 of my own shoe before I start to play for real cake, hey hey.
this is the internet and you can tell any story you want to. highly, highly unlikely you have a bet selection that is 100% mechanical that does what you said. no need to respond because #1, you won't post your method and #2, you have no reason to, this is the internet. I can say I win 100k a night. Now what? highly doubt anyone will lose sleep over it....But, a lot of smart people have programmed set methods and they fail. someone on a forum board claiming they win consistently.....to say im a skeptic is an understatement but my opinions mean very little........
discretion cannot be coded and you said you do play discretionary at times so hard to believe you beat zumma and 400 from casino....
Quote from: marinetech on April 25, 2016, 03:42:58 AM
this is the internet and you can tell any story you want to. highly, highly unlikely you have a bet selection that is 100% mechanical that does what you said. no need to respond because #1, you won't post your method and #2, you have no reason to, this is the internet. I can say I win 100k a night. Now what? highly doubt anyone will lose sleep over it....But, a lot of smart people have programmed set methods and they fail. someone on a forum board claiming they win consistently.....to say im a skeptic is an understatement but my opinions mean very little........
discretion cannot be coded and you said you do play discretionary at times so hard to believe you beat zumma and 400 from casino....
With my style I can win well and regular winning less than 20% of my placed bet and over time I'm gonna win near to 50% of my placed bet so what's the big deal. Like my Hawaiian friends say, beating zumma ain't no big thing brudda, hey hey.
Quote from: greenguy on April 25, 2016, 01:04:36 AM
You can never beat the 'long run' to the satisfaction of the mathboyz because they'll just keep moving the goal posts and making it longer.
You can as a player win or profit from the game for a life time. Anyone who accomplishes such a feat cannot be denied the term WINNER.
But just because you are a lifetime winner does not mean you have beaten the game. This is because the long run is unreachable in one's short lifetime.
Your success therefore will always be put down to or involve some luck.
This is why serious system testers run simulations over millions of spins. Not only to see if they can win money, but to see if they can beat the game. They are two different things.
If you run a losing simulation of 10 million spins, and then cherry pick some brief periods of upward bankroll movement, you can see how if you were lucky enough in live play, you could end up a winner despite the overall long run loss of the simulation.
This is why you will never satisfy the mathboyz.
If you want to prove you can beat the game, you need the long run. If you just want to play and win money, you don't need the long run.
Good post.
as.
Greenguy's post is perfect.
He knows the BASICS of Baccarat very well,like almost all members.
If a system doesn't beat the game in the long run(all systems),it means that you could meet the "killer" permanence that make you lose, after 1 minute you start betting.
Our goal is "to win money" and in the short run it's possible at certain conditions:
- play only a few decisions per shoe
- determine a trigger more related to unbalance than to figures
-only play figure of 1(singles) in a given way,IMHO can be profitable for the player
-money management:if negative max bet 2 or 3 units,if positive Guetting,Patrick,Samonte are acceptable
-bet Banker only(-1,06%),but I know that some members are against this statement and may be they are right
In order to convince(difficult!) some members about the danger of some unbeatable(!!??) systems,here my experience:
Everyone ,I hope,knows "The very near infallible method" that I have played in the past with some modifications.
I considered useless to play for the rupture of 2's,3's,4's:in any case the result was the equilibrium less VIG.
So I cancelled this first part of the system.
I started with a fictive - 10 units to ricover,that represented my gain when ricovered.
I try to recover on singles in 2 times,i.e. dividing the balance by 2.
If I lose first attempt the sum to ricover became 15,if lose the second attempt the sum stayed stable at 10(1W,1L)
After BBBP I bet B in order to have a single P and so on....
For ricovering I needed 2 singles in a row:probability 1 out of 15 decisions.
I had 1 out 3115 probability of losing all my BKR(2000 units)
It happens after ten sessions:unbelievable!
This system beats Zumma very easily,but I met the killer permanence after one month.
So I gave up.....
This question is for Soxfan.
You have mentioned in PM ; This is your quote " I only start making and keep making real money wager if I win the majority of the last three decision real and/or virtual, hey hey."
My interpretation of your quote is that you must win majority of the last three decision VIRTUALLY FIRST before you making real money bet.And once you win the majority of the 3 real money bet , ONLY THEN you still keep on betting with real money . Is this right assumption?
I got off to the good start with my new parlay style. I got clipped for one progressions bust in 30 shoe but did get taken to the 12 step twice and the last step one time. From eyeballing my past result at random I figure I'm gonna get clipped for 5-7 progression bust per 100 shoe and I can live with that, hey hey.
Quote from: soxfan on May 02, 2016, 03:02:13 AM
I got clipped for one progressions bust in 30 shoe but did get taken to the 12 step twice and the last step one time.
God Bless ya', Soxster.
Same thing happened when I tried my parlay progression; It wasn't the bust-outs that got me as much as it was getting to that last (or even next-to-last) step in my progression MUCH, MUCH too often. I just couldn't live with that sort of risk on that constant of a level.
But, that all said, we, as players just as as people, are all different. Soxster can live with the risk, and manages it well. I couldn't, and didn't.
Again, all I can say is: God Bless ya', Soxster. And keep up that winning fight. Stay well, my friend.
Quote from: gr8player on May 02, 2016, 01:23:38 PM
God Bless ya', Soxster.
Same thing happened when I tried my parlay progression; It wasn't the bust-outs that got me as much as it was getting to that last (or even next-to-last) step in my progression MUCH, MUCH too often. I just couldn't live with that sort of risk on that constant of a level.
But, that all said, we, as players just as as people, are all different. Soxster can live with the risk, and manages it well. I couldn't, and didn't.
Again, all I can say is: God Bless ya', Soxster. And keep up that winning fight. Stay well, my friend.
Ya gotta be able to handle the adversity if you wanna win well, and regular, hey hey.
Quote from: soxfan on May 03, 2016, 01:36:31 AM
Ya gotta be able to handle the adversity if you wanna win well, and regular, hey hey.
You're absolutely correct, Soxster.
Let's simply acknowledge that we, as players, have our own definition of adversity and our unique way(s) of handling it, as well.
Take care, and stay well, my friend.
Quote from: greenguy on April 25, 2016, 01:04:36 AM
You can never beat the 'long run' to the satisfaction of the mathboyz because they'll just keep moving the goal posts and making it longer.
You can as a player win or profit from the game for a life time. Anyone who accomplishes such a feat cannot be denied the term WINNER.
But just because you are a lifetime winner does not mean you have beaten the game. This is because the long run is unreachable in one's short lifetime.
Your success therefore will always be put down to or involve some luck.
This is why serious system testers run simulations over millions of spins. Not only to see if they can win money, but to see if they can beat the game. They are two different things.
If you run a losing simulation of 10 million spins, and then cherry pick some brief periods of upward bankroll movement, you can see how if you were lucky enough in live play, you could end up a winner despite the overall long run loss of the simulation.
This is why you will never satisfy the mathboyz.
If you want to prove you can beat the game, you need the long run. If you just want to play and win money, you don't need the long run.
So true! This must read and understand to all beginners (me too). No way out from the long run, with better words: very hard to find a way out from the "deep". Just simulate enough, and you will witness the "dark night riders" (particularly the inescapable and increasing back-to-back loser sessions).
"You don't need long run to be a lifetime winner"
So true, so good indeed. I only have my lifetime, not a long run. It is also true that the border of "itlr" keep getting further and further, where the mathboyz is alsi there.
Quote from: Garfield on May 22, 2016, 03:23:52 PM
"You don't need long run to be a lifetime winner"
So true, so good indeed. I only have my lifetime, not a long run. It is also true that the border of "itlr" keep getting further and further, where the mathboyz is alsi there.
In my experience (more than 2 billion random simulation), the long term is pure sum of our short runs, and in proportion to the time we can win fewer and fewer short runs, due to the math. So the earnability (money winning) depends only on time and luck (positive variance) backed a proper money management.
In my understanding, the (worthy) system playing has inherent limitations: time, luck, and money (management). The "lifetime winning" is difficult journey, in my view it just depends on how often do we play and/or how many days we can play.
Quote from: audiokinesis on May 22, 2016, 08:23:32 PM
In my experience (more than 2 billion random simulation), the long term is pure sum of our short runs, and in proportion to the time we can win fewer and fewer short runs, due to the math. So the earnability (money winning) depends only on time and luck (positive variance) backed a proper money management.
In my understanding, the (worthy) system playing has inherent limitations: time, luck, and money (management). The "lifetime winning" is difficult journey, in my view it just depends on how often do we play and/or how many days we can play.
This is a very poignant, insightful post, Audiokinesis; great job.
Yes, the "long run" consists, for each of us as individual players, as the total of our personal "short run" (for lack of a better term) sessions. And, just as true, our "earnability" (as you put it) is mostly dependent on our session time (read: win/loss goals & quitting points), our session money-management, and, yes, our variance (or, as you put it, luck).
Let's not discount luck, for it is very vital to our session successes (or, for that matter, our session failures, as well). After all, I am a firm believer that part of our play includes a certain "feel"; a sense of recognizing when the cards are falling our way, and (probably even more importantly) when they are not. Though it's really variance at work, there's no doubt that it's much more universally recognized as luck. Either way, our reactions to same are paramount and vital to our "living" (both long- and short-term) at this game.
Look, we all, each and every one of us, begin "behind the 8-ball". We have the worst of it, right from the time our money hits the felt. We don't have the odds in our favor (let's not forget the house edge), nor do we have the time in our favor (the cards are continuously dealt...commonly called "continuum"), and, last but certainly not least, we don't have nearly the bankroll that the house carries.
And so the savvy player takes all of this "negativity" (again, for lack of a better term) into mind when they set out to devise a mode of play that might, just MIGHT, overcome those difficult odds.
And that, my friends, is the real BIRTH of session play. Why? Because that's all we've got. We can't control much, but we can control our session play. Our buy-in, our money-management, our biases and/or trends that we are both comfortable and knowledgeable with, our strict quitting points (read: both win and loss goals), all wrapped together with the very necessary Patience and Discipline to make it all WORK FOR US.
Then when you need to total up those sessions to account for your long term results (remember what Audiokinesis stated just above..."the long term is the sum or our short runs"), you just might get to a positive number.
So, yes, in my humble opinion, even given those negative odds facing us over our long term play, we can advance our own odds of success by carefully constructing a mode of short term (read: session) play where we give ourselves the very best chance to leave the table while ahead. (Sidenote: In difficult sessions, where we are experiencing negative variance (or tough luck, if you will), quitting at an opportune time, either even or as close to it as you can get...I call that "loss avoidance"...will suffice to fend off some of those daunted house edges I mentioned earlier. Why? Because our easier, winning sessions then become mostly retained profit.)
There are those that say that "quitting while ahead" is nonsense, rendered meaningless over the long term. Me? I say that those are the same people that either don't even play the game OR they don't have the wherewithall to know when to effectively end a session. Those that do know, those that have this sort of efficiency built into their session play, those are the players that know all too well how correct I am about this. And they probably share my passion for the game, and, even more importantly, trying to get the best of it.
And, as always, I wish it for all of you. Take care, and stay well.
Quote from: gr8player on May 22, 2016, 10:25:14 PM
This is a very poignant, insightful post, Audiokinesis; great job.
Yes, the "long run" consists, for each of us as individual players, as the total of our personal "short run" (for lack of a better term) sessions. And, just as true, our "earnability" (as you put it) is mostly dependent on our session time (read: win/loss goals & quitting points), our session money-management, and, yes, our variance (or, as you put it, luck).
Let's not discount luck, for it is very vital to our session successes (or, for that matter, our session failures, as well). After all, I am a firm believer that part of our play includes a certain "feel"; a sense of recognizing when the cards are falling our way, and (probably even more importantly) when they are not. Though it's really variance at work, there's no doubt that it's much more universally recognized as luck. Either way, our reactions to same are paramount and vital to our "living" (both long- and short-term) at this game.
Look, we all, each and every one of us, begin "behind the 8-ball". We have the worst of it, right from the time our money hits the felt. We don't have the odds in our favor (let's not forget the house edge), nor do we have the time in our favor (the cards are continuously dealt...commonly called "continuum"), and, last but certainly not least, we don't have nearly the bankroll that the house carries.
And so the savvy player takes all of this "negativity" (again, for lack of a better term) into mind when they set out to devise a mode of play that might, just MIGHT, overcome those difficult odds.
And that, my friends, is the real BIRTH of session play. Why? Because that's all we've got. We can't control much, but we can control our session play. Our buy-in, our money-management, our biases and/or trends that we are both comfortable and knowledgeable with, our strict quitting points (read: both win and loss goals), all wrapped together with the very necessary Patience and Discipline to make it all WORK FOR US.
Then when you need to total up those sessions to account for your long term results (remember what Audiokinesis stated just above..."the long term is the sum or our short runs"), you just might get to a positive number.
So, yes, in my humble opinion, even given those negative odds facing us over our long term play, we can advance our own odds of success by carefully constructing a mode of short term (read: session) play where we give ourselves the very best chance to leave the table while ahead. (Sidenote: In difficult sessions, where we are experiencing negative variance (or tough luck, if you will), quitting at an opportune time, either even or as close to it as you can get...I call that "loss avoidance"...will suffice to fend off some of those daunted house edges I mentioned earlier. Why? Because our easier, winning sessions then become mostly retained profit.)
There are those that say that "quitting while ahead" is nonsense, rendered meaningless over the long term. Me? I say that those are the same people that either don't even play the game OR they don't have the wherewithall to know when to effectively end a session. Those that do know, those that have this sort of efficiency built into their session play, those are the players that know all too well how correct I am about this. And they probably share my passion for the game, and, even more importantly, trying to get the best of it.
And, as always, I wish it for all of you. Take care, and stay well.
Thanks for your detailed answer, I appreciate it. English is not my native language, so I need some time to interpret all of the words. At first, I see my main problem: I did not find yet the optimal quittings from my sessions...particularly when I am in the lead. I've tried many variable stop loss and win target theory and setup, but I could not "cheat" the math. Sooner or later the negative variance (and the HE) "eat me". Sure, in long term, with our short sessions, one wrong chosen quitting point can be more dangerous, and one more cleaver quitting point can be more profitable - in proportion of time, but in the end, the results are almost same; 1+1=2. And personally I did not find any superior mechanical betselection, without any empirical guessing, divination, "almost there" terms., etc. Note: I am just talking about my own experience in terms of problematic coded flows in matemathical base, so I need to know, I must to know the exact rules for the chartflow. Without rules, I can not coding properly, and the result will be not properly, and in that point we can step into the nowhere, the guessing land. It is bad? I do not know, because I am not an experienced person in the emprical hypothesis. And in given situations the pure guessing is valid? I do not know too. (Sure, it is my weakness, and it is my fault.) And evidently, without superior betselection, the flat betting is not working; only on relatively short term and only in lucky moments (positive variance).
One good chart speaks better than words; it shows us the positive and negative sides regarding to the bankroll movements. With any one of the table ECs, with continous betting plan, with strict money management rules, like hybrid progression and resets, it can survive almost 100 million spins sometime, but with some surely problematic DDs (mainly from the 43 million and 64,5 million points on y-axis), due to the mentioned and inevitable random phenomen, the back-to-back loser sessions. Does not help anything against them, except 1.) the complete off game (no game) and 2.) the unbeatable progression within table limits, which unfortunately does not exist (yet). No, it could not reach the table limit, or any exclusion, just needs heavy bankroll and proper money management. Sometime. And in other time? You can see the 2nd graph. The 2nd graph technically a continuation of the previous day graph.
I think, most people, who not can simulate enough spins/bets, never can realize the most critical part of the random flow - in terms of gambling (I mean system playing). The timing. If we can step into the random flow with good trends (or with luck, or with positve variance, the appellation is meaningless) we can survive, or mostly we can win - yes, it can be cumulative positive, so it can be the mentioned "lifetime winning" situation. But if we step into the random flow with (strong) negative variance, according to our money management reistance, we can lose forever (or in favorable event break-even). Please see my chart at near 72,5 million no zero placed bets; what would be our feeling, if we step into the game at tomorrow morning with this negative variance junction, and till almost 15 million continous betting we can suffer with this long and heavy "downroads" (DDs)? :stress: Fatal.
(Based on my own experience.) Regards