+ Register

[21 Aces]

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.

[greenguy]

...most players are seeking to become consistent all in winning players on a net basis.

Then you need not consider the long run.

[james]

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.

[21 Aces]

Beating Zumma 1600 Baccarat with a safe and innovative approach

[soxfan]

I beat both zumma book plus 400 of my own shoe before I start to play for real cake, hey hey.

[marinetech]

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....

[soxfan]

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.

[AsymBacGuy]

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. 

[roversi13]

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.....

[ppkkint]

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?

[soxfan]

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.

[gr8player]

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.

[soxfan]

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.

[gr8player]

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.

[audiokinesis]

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).