BetSelection.cc

Just wonderin' if any of you cats have ever used the Star System as written at the baccarats or dice table, hey hey?

Maybe Kimo Li might help with his numerology. After his global pie  he might find the stairways to the stars. .

In all the time I've spent on forum over the years I only came across two cats who actually used the star method. Both cats used it at the dice tables and have won well and regular for several years, hey hey.

The Star is good.

My favourite three are....

1)Mongoose
2)Johnson
3)Star

Quote from: horus on June 05, 2015, 05:45:44 PM
The Star is good.

My favourite three are....

1)Mongoose
2)Johnson
3)Star

What is this Johnson style? I never hear of it before, hey hey?

Quote from: soxfan on June 05, 2015, 08:42:19 PM
What is this Johnson style? I never hear of it before, hey hey?

Here you go Soxfan,

http://rouletteforum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=9.0


You can make a line anything you like with this....

0,0,0,1,1,1  etc..

Hey Soxfan,

What kind of proggression do you use that busts out at 175u.

I've got about 1200 or so of my personal Passes and Don't Passes recorded here at the house. I wrote them out and reversed engineered a 2 step parlay for the most recent 550 decisions. 15 step progression busts out with a 153u loss. 189u virtual profit with no busts over those decisions which consists of 96 successful coups. Nine times it went to stage ten or beyond and during two heavy losing streaks it went to stage 13 and then stage 14 back to back, shortly followed by stage 9 , 8, 9, 12, back to back to back to back. Makes me feel a bust out is warming itself up, plus at 189u profit with a 153u progression it should be 'due' to lose as math is supposed to dictate no betting progression wins ITLR.

Also, from experience calculating progressions, I've noticed they tend to see saw back in forth where if you are lucky enough to first win enough units to cover a Bust. It isn't long before you actually Bust. Never have I worked through a progression that didn't eventually lose it's way back to zero. Even the rare few that won enough to withstand 2 bust outs, every one of them ended up with two or more bust outs clumped together.

I even wrote out a 3 step parlay to cover my longest recorded drought between winning 3 Passes in a row. 40 lost attempts. That progression is 1051 units. Final bet is 132u. And even though it's workable on a 5 to 5000 dollar table, I don't see how anyone could see it through.

It was 56 lost attempts before winning 4 in a row. I'm not going to write that progression out. I am going to spend that time writing out the Star system against areas rich in losing streaks from my Pass/Don't pass recordings.

Smaller, shorter, less expensive progressions seem to be a wiser choice if one could label such a choice as wise. So I wonder what your is if you don't mind sharing. 175u is something I could handle without losing my nerve.

Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on June 07, 2015, 06:08:03 PM
Hey Soxfan,

What kind of proggression do you use that busts out at 175u.

The following is my 11 step parlay style. The good thing is the profit increases as you go up the progressions ladder so increase reward with more risk. My lifetime bankroll is 1800 unit and I usually bust a coupla times per week playin 30 shoes per week so it boils down to about 10 unit per shoe profits for me, hey hey.

2-2-2-6-8-10-15-20-25-35-50 units bets
6-4-2-12-12-10-15-15-10-15-25 units profits

Quote from: horus on June 05, 2015, 08:57:04 PM
Here you go Soxfan,

http://rouletteforum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=9.0


You can make a line anything you like with this....

0,0,0,1,1,1  etc..

Thanks, I used a labby style when I first started to play bacarats for a living. But, I found my profits increased by about 50 percents after I switched to the parlay style, hey hey.

Thanks Soxfan for posting your progression.

I like how it coups for more units the deeper it gets in the progression.

It's the one thing that bothers me the most is being driven deep into a progression and only coming up with 1u profit for the risk.

It's also encouraging to hear you have success with it.

Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on June 09, 2015, 03:44:00 PM
Thanks Soxfan for posting your progression.

I like how it coups for more units the deeper it gets in the progression.

It's the one thing that bothers me the most is being driven deep into a progression and only coming up with 1u profit for the risk.

It's also encouraging to hear you have success with it.

No single progression bust should clip you for too much of yer bankroll or eat up too much accumulated profits. From yer dice records it seems that you wouldn't have suffered any bustouts usin the surewin style, hey hey.

Thanks for sharing Soxfan. How do you choose your bets when you play bac, do you always bet B or P or do you use gut feel or etc? all systems mentioned in this tread looks good, though I haven't tried them. I usually play Greg Fletcher BAS, so far so good. Anyone of you having a longer experience with it?

Quote from: 777vic on June 10, 2015, 06:47:32 PM
Thanks for sharing Soxfan. How do you choose your bets when you play bac, do you always bet B or P or do you use gut feel or etc? all systems mentioned in this tread looks good, though I haven't tried them. I usually play Greg Fletcher BAS, so far so good. Anyone of you having a longer experience with it?

If the Fletcher style is workin for ya then keep with it. My bets selection style is somewhat subjective so hard to explain, but my strkes rate is over 49 percents but that's plenty for me to win well, and regular, hey hey.

It all "works for you", Soxster, because you've tailored your bet selection process around your need for any "double win".  I've got to believe that the "second win" comes with some sort of statistical probability for you.

For instance, you might go L L L L W W, where your strike rate is a paltry 33%, but you've effectively won with your "double win" progression.

While I might not endorse that style of play, if only for the reasoning that there could be times where those needed "second" wins can be rather elusive, I do applaud you for building your mode of play that's both comfortable with your playing style and effective as well.

Continued successes, my friend.

(Just as a side note, if one were intent on playing any up-as-you-lose (read: negative) progression, one might want to have a gander at my Gr8Player's Progression (google it if interested), that is alot more conservative IMHO, and you aren't hurt with the typical W L W L betting results.  To this day, it's always, in some way, shape, or form, a vital part of my arsenal, as it plays into my statistical variances rather well....in point of fact, that's how I originally developed it.)

Quote from: gr8player on June 11, 2015, 12:33:46 AMhave a gander at my Gr8Player's Progression (google it if interested), that is alot more conservative IMHO, and you aren't hurt with the typical W L W L betting results.  To this day, it's always, in some way, shape, or form, a vital part of my arsenal, as it plays into my statistical variances rather well....in point of fact, that's how I originally developed it.)

Yep it is so good, that Walter confessed he doesn't use it any-more, read = after leaving 1-ville, he pushed himself into mandatory situations of having to win more hands than he lost, couldn't achieve that, got badly burnt (probably in 4-ville), hence it was side-lined (dropped). 

Mr "hey hey" is another, can't explain a damn thing about his game, never has and never will.  And people wonder why it is preferable to run private forums than public ones.  Read - some serve no useful purpose.

But "hey hey", if it is posted on the web, then it's gotta be true. 

Next week I'll be at the MGM LV playing behind a rope, trying to make 100% of my buyin cake as per usual.

Geezz, I luv the internets hey hey.       

Quote from: Rolex-Watch on June 11, 2015, 07:08:33 AM
  Yep it is so good, that Walter confessed he doesn't use it any-more, read = after leaving 1-ville, he pushed himself into mandatory situations of having to win more hands than he lost, couldn't achieve that, got badly burnt (probably in 4-ville), hence it was side-lined (dropped). 

Mr "hey hey" is another, can't explain a damn thing about his game, never has and never will.  And people wonder why it is preferable to run private forums than public ones.  Read - some serve no useful purpose.

But "hey hey", if it is posted on the web, then it's gotta be true. 

Next week I'll be at the MGM LV playing behind a rope, trying to make 100% of my buyin cake as per usual.

Geezz, I luv the internets hey hey.     

Why don't you bring yer fat, senile wog-loving behind over to this side of the pond? You can finally settle up with yer arch enemy the rinzler. Or, maybe you've been reduced to playin for peanuts on the dublinbet? You are and always will be john-o the clown, hey hey.

Quote from: gr8player on June 11, 2015, 12:33:46 AM

(Just as a side note, if one were intent on playing any up-as-you-lose (read: negative) progression, one might want to have a gander at my Gr8Player's Progression (google it if interested), that is alot more conservative IMHO, and you aren't hurt with the typical W L W L betting results.  To this day, it's always, in some way, shape, or form, a vital part of my arsenal, as it plays into my statistical variances rather well....in point of fact, that's how I originally developed it.)

If you want to call it "your" progression that's fine.  True you are the only one I've seen discuss it on these forums.  That is if it is the 1111 22222 etc. thing which I believe we are talking about.  It's a pretty good stretched prog.  But it has been around for a long time.  Basically a cancellation prog.  You can do it with any odd number.

I agree that going to 5 may be optimum for most for the simple reason that we can expect to lose 5  or 6 IAR every 75 hands or so so using the 5 may help catching that losing streak in the middle somewhere where as 111 222, etc. can get stuck.  Of course it doesn't win mechanical.  As usual MM is important.

Hello again, Jimske.

For clarification purposes:

My Gr8Player's Progression is a 7-number string, not 5.  While it's true, it must be an odd number, I've discovered (and, believe me, this was after exhaustive testing) that 7 is the optimal amount of plays per level; not 3, not 5, not 9.  Seven.

So it's 1111111, 2222222, 3333333, 4444444, 5555555.  You are correct about the avg loss streaks.....that's one of the main reasons that the seven plays is the optimal way to go.

Just remember that you only move to the next level after at least a minus 3 at the prior; so if you only lose a level 3W to 4L, you must remain at that same level.  Only at 2W vs 5L or 1W vs 6L do you move the next higher level.

I've played this so much and so well that I needn't even write the strings down....I pretty much know when to adjust my bet sizes almost automatically.  I will also employ a parlay play when I find that I'm consistently hitting that second consecutive win.

Stay well.

If you change levels after only 3 net losses on each string, you will have 9 net losses ( and don't anyone say they won't have 9 net losses because you are delusional ) 

You will lose :

111
222
333

Total of 18 units lost - which gets kind of ugly. And now you have to start betting 4 units.

Maybe better if you wait till you have 7 net losses on each string before going to the next string.

Quote from: tdx on June 16, 2015, 12:28:14 PM
If you change levels after only 3 net losses on each string, you will have 9 net losses ( and don't anyone say they won't have 9 net losses because you are delusional ) 

You will lose :

111
222
333

Total of 18 units lost - which gets kind of ugly. And now you have to start betting 4 units.

Maybe better if you wait till you have 7 net losses on each string before going to the next string.

Maybe, that's why Gr8 insists 7 is optimum.  I won't argue that point.  Likely any real study will show it is irrelevant itlr.  Any time we do something to reduce escalation we also reduce our potential profit so stretching the prog is just postponing the inevitable.  Losing 9 IAR doesn't come up that often but does come up.  Lifetime for me probably lost 9 IAR or more maybe 5 times (lost 11 IAR once tomla says I mentioned).  7 IAR ?  Lost it too many times to count.

Repeating this gets tiresome but ultimately we either must win more hands than lose OR win more of the larger bets than small ones (cumulatively) to win .  I've already posted a win of over 52 % for 7,200 live bets - not strictly mechanical.  Mechanical I get 52.31% for 7,706 trials.  Gr8 has stated he gets 54%.  Frankly I don't believe it and I don't think he has kept the stats to document it since he has never done so.

Will one of you guys figure out what the flat bet win is for 52.31% and the SD risk of ruin business?  I can't do it - too ignorant.  Also 54%.  Seems to me 54% would deserve flat betting and be the holy grail.

J

52.31% out of 7706 placed bets means you won 4031 to achieve that percentage?


If that is the case that means your z-score would be 6.99 [smiley]aes/thinking.png[/smiley]

With a flat bet win of 3675 units before commission

don't take my math to be set in stone I might be wrong.

 I know it is possibal - some one coded the TRNG march (will not mention name) and it end up positive after 50.000 placed bets - flat betting
And the march can be played with variations during the game and still have the same End Play.

So i am pretty happy right now.

Jimske,

I'm not intending to be disagreeable but I find it difficult to believe a career of only five occurrences of 9LIAR. I would think that you had overlooked them somehow. Perhaps, closing a session with several losses and opening the next session with several more. Equaling 9 or more but broken up in a manner not easily recognized.

You state that you can expect 5 or 6 liar every 75 hands or so. I don't know the math, but you can continue on and expect to see 9 liar every (I don't know) 500 hands or so.

It should be no different then the chances to see B streak to 9 or more. Should be I say. You do claim a greater than 50% hit rate and achieving that could be a simple as reducing long losing streaks.

52.31% is great. But have you considered what portion of that is B? Flat betting B only would produce greater than a 50% win rate. The profit for which is eaten up by commission. Forgive me if you have posted this in the past already. I was just sitting here thinking that winning 52 bets out of 100 isn't exactly a 52% hit rate as B should win 51% anyway. So instead of winning 2% over the expected avg, you are only 1%. Or thereabouts I'm not calculating this to the decimal.

Still over half, nothing to dismiss. I see no reason why someone can't maintain a very slight increase over half any more than someone could win a slight decrease from half.

I have said it countless times, and it bears repeating here:

In the long run (read: over your long term play), one must utilize a bet selection process that will win more bets than lose IF they want to win over that long term.  In other words, one's bet selection process must prove as POSITIVE (read: above 50%) over the long term.

Lacking that, you'd either need the luck of a leprechaun or the bankroll of a casino.

Bottom line:  Gotta put your money into the correct circle more often than not.  And, even then, a money-management plan that is built around certain variance stats (i.e., avg drawdowns and avg win/loss streaks) is necessary as well.

That's it, folks.  Better learn to pick the winner in some form of a consistent and RELIABLE fashion, or you can choose to just be another ploppie that the casinos love.

Quote from: Sputnik on June 16, 2015, 03:13:55 PM
I know it is possibal - some one coded the TRNG march (will not mention name) and it end up positive after 50.000 placed bets - flat betting
And the march can be played with variations during the game and still have the same End Play.

So i am pretty happy right now.

Again with this TRNG thing. Something you are not willing to discuss.
Any claim that it ends up positive can only be considered as nothing but an outright lie without proof.
Do you have any idea just how outrageous a claim of being positive after 50,000 placed flat bets is?
Any idea whatsoever?

What do you want from us? HEY MAN GOOD JOB. YOU DA MAN BRO. YOU DA MAN.

What exactly do you expect our reaction to be from a baseless claim?

I'd rather you mention the name of the guy that did the coding, because the coding is real. And not mention the TRNG march, because it is non existent without PROOF.

Put up or

Quote from: gr8player on June 16, 2015, 10:14:53 AM
Hello again, Jimske.

For clarification purposes:

My Gr8Player's Progression is a 7-number string, not 5.  While it's true, it must be an odd number, I've discovered (and, believe me, this was after exhaustive testing) that 7 is the optimal amount of plays per level; not 3, not 5, not 9.  Seven.

So it's 1111111, 2222222, 3333333, 4444444, 5555555.  You are correct about the avg loss streaks.....that's one of the main reasons that the seven plays is the optimal way to go.

Just remember that you only move to the next level after at least a minus 3 at the prior; so if you only lose a level 3W to 4L, you must remain at that same level.  Only at 2W vs 5L or 1W vs 6L do you move the next higher level.

I've played this so much and so well that I needn't even write the strings down....I pretty much know when to adjust my bet sizes almost automatically.  I will also employ a parlay play when I find that I'm consistently hitting that second consecutive win.

Stay well.

Question.

If at the first level you win 3 but lose 4 for a net of -1 and you continue on at the first level, and twice more win 3 but lose 4 for now a total accumulated net loss of -3, do you now move to level two? Or are you waiting until you net 3 losses in a single series of 7 bets?

I know it sounds like a stupid question, but you are not precisely clear. And I'm the master of misunderstanding.

No problem, HBS, glad to be of assistance:

Whenever I lose any level with 3W vs 4L, I remain at that level.  However, should I lose it again at the very next series, even if only another 3W vs 4L, in that case I will move on up to the next number in my progression.  But I'll remain at that next level only until recoup of the prior loss.  For instance:

3W 4L = -1
3W 4L = -1
Now we go into "2-ville", and we get, say, -2 +2 +2, we end that series right there, as we've recouped our two lost units from our prior series' and so revert back to base ("1-ville").

One last thing about my progression, the numbers in the series needn't be set in stone.  You could choose:

1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25
3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Just so long as you do have 7 numbers (7 bets) for each level.

Truly a Gr8 prog; again, to this day, my fall-back position when necessary.  (I say "when necessary" because I do alot more "flat-betting" now that my bet selection process has become better and better; and let's be frank here:  flat-betting is always the best choice, assuming you can get by with it.  but for those times when I simply can't, my prog can do wonders for me.)

Take care.

Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on June 16, 2015, 08:26:41 PM
Jimske,

I'm not intending to be disagreeable but I find it difficult to believe a career of only five occurrences of 9LIAR. I would think that you had overlooked them somehow. Perhaps, closing a session with several losses and opening the next session with several more. Equaling 9 or more but broken up in a manner not easily recognized.

You state that you can expect 5 or 6 liar every 75 hands or so. I don't know the math, but you can continue on and expect to see 9 liar every (I don't know) 500 hands or so.

It should be no different then the chances to see B streak to 9 or more. Should be I say. You do claim a greater than 50% hit rate and achieving that could be a simple as reducing long losing streaks.

52.31% is great. But have you considered what portion of that is B? Flat betting B only would produce greater than a 50% win rate. The profit for which is eaten up by commission. Forgive me if you have posted this in the past already. I was just sitting here thinking that winning 52 bets out of 100 isn't exactly a 52% hit rate as B should win 51% anyway. So instead of winning 2% over the expected avg, you are only 1%. Or thereabouts I'm not calculating this to the decimal.

Still over half, nothing to dismiss. I see no reason why someone can't maintain a very slight increase over half any more than someone could win a slight decrease from half.

Yes, I'm with you.  If 5 LIAR ocurr ever 75 hands than 9 LIAR should ocurr about every 1200 hands.  So over 15,000 that's not a great feat but lifetime?  I still think I'm close but don't really know.

Could very well be that one session ended with 5 LIAR and another started with 5 LIAR.  Something I don't keep track of.  I do keep track of 5 LIAR in one shoe and am at half what I think the expected value would be (once in every 75 placed bets).  Again, I don't keep track of the stop and go.

The other thing is most play shoe to shoe and restart after every shoe.  So in that instance the cumulative LIAR from shoe to show have less significance.  Of course if you only bet once a shoe you can never lose more than 1 IAR. )))

My main concern is could I flat bet and win.  But the fact is I bet P frequently.  Ratio?  Dunno.  Assume that I bet B and P equal numbers or even close and then the % has more weight..  But it all makes me wonder.  Why not flat bet smallish, wait for x amount of LIAR or % loss and then begin a recoup as needed if needed.  Could I still maintain 3.86 units a shoe win rate and improve on ROI?

J

Quote from: gr8player on June 16, 2015, 08:46:19 PM
I have said it countless times, and it bears repeating here:

In the long run (read: over your long term play), one must utilize a bet selection process that will win more bets than lose IF they want to win over that long term.  In other words, one's bet selection process must prove as POSITIVE (read: above 50%) over the long term.

Lacking that, you'd either need the luck of a leprechaun or the bankroll of a casino.

Bottom line:  Gotta put your money into the correct circle more often than not.  And, even then, a money-management plan that is built around certain variance stats (i.e., avg drawdowns and avg win/loss streaks) is necessary as well.

That's it, folks.  Better learn to pick the winner in some form of a consistent and RELIABLE fashion, or you can choose to just be another ploppie that the casinos love.

Sorry Gr8 this just ain't so!  One must win more hands than lose (and overcome the vig) OR have larger winning bets than the cumulative losing bets (and overcome the vig).  So please stop saying that.  [Sidebar condescending remark  Come on, you're smarter than that.]

Quote from: Jimske on June 16, 2015, 10:30:31 PM
Yes, I'm with you.  If 5 LIAR ocurr ever 75 hands than 9 LIAR should ocurr about every 1200 hands.  So over 15,000 that's not a great feat but lifetime?  I still think I'm close but don't really know.

Could very well be that one session ended with 5 LIAR and another started with 5 LIAR.  Something I don't keep track of.  I do keep track of 5 LIAR in one shoe and am at half what I think the expected value would be (once in every 75 placed bets).  Again, I don't keep track of the stop and go.

The other thing is most play shoe to shoe and restart after every shoe.  So in that instance the cumulative LIAR from shoe to show have less significance.  Of course if you only bet once a shoe you can never lose more than 1 IAR. )))

My main concern is could I flat bet and win.  But the fact is I bet P frequently.  Ratio?  Dunno.  Assume that I bet B and P equal numbers or even close and then the % has more weight..  But it all makes me wonder.  Why not flat bet smallish, wait for x amount of LIAR or % loss and then begin a recoup as needed if needed.  Could I still maintain 3.86 units a shoe win rate and improve on ROI?

J

You are right, most people play shoe to shoe, and think from shoe to shoe, I too look at each shoe separately. But I never bought into trying to beat each shoe individually like most bac players do. I never tried to determine what type of shoe this was and bet accordingly. I play each shoe thinking it should be somewhat balanced. For instance if the first half of the shoe is all chops, I expect there to be some FLD wins on the way. Maybe not. It's just a guess.

Flat betting vs a progression. You will have to determine how you are achieving you greater than 50% win avg. Safest thing to do is flat bet if you don't have control over variance. If your wins are clustered 3 in a row, you could run a positive prog. If your losses are limited to 5 in a row you could run a negative prog. The real problem is how far you deviate from 0 wins and losses. It is not so very uncommon to lose 60 out of 100 bets and be 20 wins behind. This kind of occurrence can be more than what you BR can handle depending on the configuration of your W/L string.

If you do use a prog, you can expect much deeper draw downs than 20u. And you will have no choice to continue deeper into your prog to recover all of the excess units and the increased commissions.

From my perspective, you aren't gambling if you flat bet. You've beaten random. If you employ a negative or positive prog, you are now once again gambling with random. That's playing with fire.

Keep in mind even a small prog like GR8's series has you DOUBLING your draw down potential with the first step. Or increasing it by 50% if you can 1.5u bet. Either way, you get my drift. You will always be going backwards faster, since you will revert to a 1u bet when you get to even.

I've always thought anyone playing a 1 2 4 negative marty should always play a 1 2 4 positive prog simultaneously. Risking 7u to win 1, but never balancing that out with winning 7u with 1 seems, I don't know, unbalanced. I'm sure it all ends up the same either way, its just a matter of perspective.

Quote from: gr8player on June 16, 2015, 09:40:41 PM
No problem, HBS, glad to be of assistance:

Whenever I lose any level with 3W vs 4L, I remain at that level.  However, should I lose it again at the very next series, even if only another 3W vs 4L, in that case I will move on up to the next number in my progression.  But I'll remain at that next level only until recoup of the prior loss.  For instance:

3W 4L = -1
3W 4L = -1
Now we go into "2-ville", and we get, say, -2 +2 +2, we end that series right there, as we've recouped our two lost units from our prior series' and so revert back to base ("1-ville").

One last thing about my progression, the numbers in the series needn't be set in stone.  You could choose:

1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25
3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Just so long as you do have 7 numbers (7 bets) for each level.

Truly a Gr8 prog; again, to this day, my fall-back position when necessary.  (I say "when necessary" because I do alot more "flat-betting" now that my bet selection process has become better and better; and let's be frank here:  flat-betting is always the best choice, assuming you can get by with it.  but for those times when I simply can't, my prog can do wonders for me.)

Take care.




Ok I wasn't understanding it perfectly then. It's a fairly conservative progression. Relying on a hit rate above fifty percent for profit out of the gate, or a W/L ratio that doesn't stray too far from center so as not to be driven too deep into the progression. Allowing for a recovery and some profit back at the 1u level. Very good for a successful bet selection.

I agree, flat betting is the best choice. Safest choice. That's why I'll stall my lab around 4u bets and flat bet from there hoping my W/L ratio comes back closer to center.

I've lost 40 out of 60 bets before. You don't want to get caught in an aggressive MM that day.

Quote from: Jimske on June 16, 2015, 10:30:31 PM
But it all makes me wonder.  Why not flat bet smallish, wait for x amount of LIAR or % loss and then begin a recoup as needed if needed.  Could I still maintain 3.86 units a shoe win rate and improve on ROI?

Oooh, careful there, Jimske, you're getting dangerously close to the real Grail.  Seriously, great job!

That is the name of the game, my friend.  No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

In fact, that very notion was the basis for the birth of the "negative" (read: up-as-you-lose) progression.  To recover prior losses.  But their inherent problem was and always will be "digging much too deep a hole" that they only, eventually, wind up "burying themselves" in.  Hmmm....if only there were a way around that dilemma:

The GRAIL, my friends, belongs to the Patient and Disciplined players that can utilize VIRTUAL LOSSES ("paper" losses that don't even dent your bankroll) to their advantage.  Combine that with a statistically-sound bet selection process and a conservative money management process and PRESTO!....your very own personal grail.

Careful, Jimske, you just might become one of those players that are the "toughest out" in any casino.  Then, my friend, you're gonna have to face the pressure of actually being a long-term winner at this game.  Again....great job!

Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on June 17, 2015, 01:11:12 AM
The real problem is how far you deviate from 0 wins and losses. It is not so very uncommon to lose 60 out of 100 bets and be 20 wins behind. This kind of occurrence can be more than what you BR can handle depending on the configuration of your W/L string.

Variance.  It can be a "bitch" to the uninitiated.  The knowledgeable player, on the other hand, can "play it like a fiddle".

It is a fact that I could post a bet selection process that CANNOT lose 60 of 100 bets, if played exactly as I play it.  I will tell you that the process is concentrated onto only the first two lines of your horizontal Bac scorecard.  And I will tell you that to see your strike rate fall to 40% would be a virtual impossibility with this mode of play.  'nuff said 'bout that...

hello gr8player, i would like to know how much of bank roll do u use when u play baccarat. also can you please tell me the unit size u bet when playing bac. i know you were saying u started to play bac for a living now. i wish u lots of success. Please tell me your style of a play. do u like the 2nd holes or 3rd holes. Do you ever play the beginning of the shoe or you like the middle of the shoe. how much time you spend on 1 shoe.  what do u think of Resorts World Casino in Queens. Do you believe on the machines that they use. Please when you get a chance to answer my questions. Thank you and be well. Lots of Success for you!!!!

Quote from: gr8player on June 17, 2015, 11:59:58 AM
Variance.  It can be a "bitch" to the uninitiated.  The knowledgeable player, on the other hand, can "play it like a fiddle".

It is a fact that I could post a bet selection process that CANNOT lose 60 of 100 bets, if played exactly as I play it.  I will tell you that the process is concentrated onto only the first two lines of your horizontal Bac scorecard.  And I will tell you that to see your strike rate fall to 40% would be a virtual impossibility with this mode of play.  'nuff said 'bout that...

GR8,

"Variance. It can be a bitch." is all you had to say.
That's it.
Quoting me directly and ending that sentence with "to the uninitiated" is an insult. Passive? sure, subtle? not so much, clever? not at all. I find it offensive because it is offensive. If there could have been any doubt, it was dispelled with your follow up sentence of " The knowledgeable player on the other hand can 'play it like a fiddle'. Insinuating I have no knowledge of the game or variance.

Let me ask you this.

Were you "playing it like a fiddle" on your second weekend trip when you went home to the tune of -4u (read Negative $400)?

And no, it is not "'nuff said about that". You can't make a claim of a bet selection (played with your style) that cannot lose 60 out of 100 bets without posting the bet selection. Fact, it can only be considered a baseless boast.

95% of my play is the 1 and 2 hole. You can't tease me like that, its right up my alley, it is my bet selection.

"virtually impossible"? You know virtual means 'not real' so what your saying is "not really impossible". So it is possible, just not imaginable?

Was there any point to your post other than to put me down and prop yourself up?

This forum has really gone south.  Many want proof that a system works and it's just not going anywhere because some are not willing to meet.  Thought I provide a solution to settle this.  You can see SOME proof without meeting.  SOME because we really don't know what the long run is.  I think 10 session of 10 shoes per session is enough to see how a system will hold up.

Setup two computer for remote access and have the person play 10 sessions.  It's probably going to take two weeks to do this but it's probably going to be better than having the same thing going on in forums for decades.

Of course there's probably still going to be some excuses like having to have multiple tables for table selections or random is not really random on an online game.  Well, just a suggestion.

Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on June 17, 2015, 01:11:12 AM
You are right, most people play shoe to shoe, and think from shoe to shoe, I too look at each shoe separately. But I never bought into trying to beat each shoe individually like most bac players do. I never tried to determine what type of shoe this was and bet accordingly. I play each shoe thinking it should be somewhat balanced. For instance if the first half of the shoe is all chops, I expect there to be some FLD wins on the way. Maybe not. It's just a guess.

If a player uses balance and off balance to determine the shoe and then bets accordingly isn't that trying to determine what kind of shoe it is?  I think bias basically refers to average run lengths and their distribution.  Another way of saying playing the trend.  But you are playing the bias will end - that the shoe will balance, go back to average.  Yes, a guess, and it can be played either way.  Playing for the bias to "break" you might say.

QuoteFlat betting vs a progression. You will have to determine how you are achieving you greater than 50% win avg.

If we knew that we'd have the game knocked!

QuoteSafest thing to do is flat bet if you don't have control over variance. If your wins are clustered 3 in a row, you could run a positive prog. If your losses are limited to 5 in a row you could run a negative prog. The real problem is how far you deviate from 0 wins and losses. It is not so very uncommon to lose 60 out of 100 bets and be 20 wins behind. This kind of occurrence can be more than what you BR can handle depending on the configuration of your W/L string.

How do you control variance?  Money management.  Which basically means quit or pause when things get too deep or quit when things start to drop off after a nice positive variance.  Personally this is, IMO, a key to reducing losses.  Even my posted win rate I believe would likely fall back to the expected EV if run without money management.

Yes flat bet more conservative but consider that it is easier to play since you can choose single bet conditions.  It is easier to monitor which conditions are doing better than others.  With a prog it's more difficult to see since you may be wining different amounts at the same condition and the individual conditional results will get lost in the weeds unless you really pay attention.

QuoteIf you do use a prog, you can expect much deeper draw downs than 20u. And you will have no choice to continue deeper into your prog to recover all of the excess units and the increased commissions.

Yep.  At some point most are going to make a decision to reduce bet size.  When you hear people talk about variance they are really talking about w/l ratios.  Sure we can be in a deep negative variance for awhile but eventually the casino will "owe" us some wins as the variance goes back toward the EV.  That's why we cannot always restart at super small units.  We are not going to get back our big bets betting small because we won't win enough small bets to come back even at 51 or 52 or even 54%.  But at 54% one might consider simply flat betting because, as you say below - you've beaten the random.

So with a prog you must continue to escalate but you don't have to go through the roof.  You may cut back and make smaller progs or flat bet for awhile.  At some point the worm must turn and you got to basically guess when those winning clusters come.

QuoteFrom my perspective, you aren't gambling if you flat bet. You've beaten random. If you employ a negative or positive prog, you are now once again gambling with random. That's playing with fire.

Keep in mind even a small prog like GR8's series has you DOUBLING your draw down potential with the first step. Or increasing it by 50% if you can 1.5u bet. Either way, you get my drift. You will always be going backwards faster, since you will revert to a 1u bet when you get to even.

I've always thought anyone playing a 1 2 4 negative marty should always play a 1 2 4 positive prog simultaneously. Risking 7u to win 1, but never balancing that out with winning 7u with 1 seems, I don't know, unbalanced. I'm sure it all ends up the same either way, its just a matter of perspective.

It's the same thing with any stretched prog, string, labby, whatever.  At some point you're going to be going south and then at some point your going to have to take a stand.  These stretched progressions are attempting to break up the LIAR and it's a good idea to do so.[code=xml][/code]

Trending, to me means watching a shoe develop and then labeling it as a choppy or streaky shoe before the shoe has ended. Intentionally predicting its configuration.

I'm not using balance or unbalance to determine the bias of a shoe. I'm betting that every shoe is balanced. That there is not going to be any trend regardless of how it begins. And lets not call a lack of a trend, a trend in itself. That'll be just too confusing.

I consider bias, or variance to be any bet selection out performing its counterpart. I don't quite follow your meaning about bias being about average run lengths and their distribution.


You asked if you should flat bet or use a progression. Because your strike rate is above 50%. You've already got the game 'knocked'. I don't know how you are doing this. I would expect you to know. I offered two options, however I urged you to flat bet it. I am a bit confused with your response that you believe your strike rate would fall back to its expect value without MM. Winning over half of your bets has nothing to do with the size of your bets.

MM doesn't control variance, it tries to overcome variance. MM is all about manipulating the size of your bets.
Employing a stop loss is a function of your bet selection, using a trigger to start and stop isn't related to money management. It is however an attempt to control variance.

Yes, I agree most progs cause a wrench in the gears. Where you must reset and accept some heavy losses, only to be found betting small when the corresponding wins come in. Somehow you have to keep track of all of that, hope to build a reserve in time to catch another corresponding set of wins with those same size units you lost. And that's where the math guys will come in and say you will guess that right half the time and guess it wrong half the time. Equaling out to a net gain of zero - the house edge on all your action.

Leave it to a bunch of mathematicians to ruin gambling. They take the fun out of everything.

Stretching a prog out doesn't attempt to break up LIAR, it attempts to overcome them. LIAR being the representative of variance going against you.

It's one of the most attractive things about a lab. It can be resolved with (for instance) a 40% win rate. Which leaves you an extra 10% win rate owed to you. We are supposed to win a minimum of half our bets, at least eventually. According to the same math guys. This extra 10% can be utilized closing up more neg progs, or locking up units flat betting. Just so long as you didn't get an advance on your win percentage sometime in the past you weren't aware of.

Some of this may seem contrary. But its not my intention. I don't think we are quite seeing eye to eye, and some terminology is confusing with its redundancy.

Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on June 18, 2015, 03:25:29 AMI am a bit confused with your response that you believe your strike rate would fall back to its expect value without MM. Winning over half of your bets has nothing to do with the size of your bets.

Seconded

Quote
Yes, I agree most progs cause a wrench in the gears. Where you must reset and accept some heavy losses, only to be found betting small when the corresponding wins come in. Somehow you have to keep track of all of that, hope to build a reserve in time to catch another corresponding set of wins with those same size units you lost.

The key here is to attempt not to get in too deep when things aren't going your way.  One way to do this is to initially cap you max bet size, say 5u, should you lose that, then attempt to grind it back, after which attempt to grind back previous losses that occurred before you dropped the 5u. "the easiest way out of a hole, is to stop digging" - PerryB

To pull this off you need a to play a tight game, by that I mean a game which shouldn't lose 4LIAR  too often etc.  Only one way I know how to do that, as I never carry a crystal ball with me to the casino, is via mechanical pattern capturing modes of play. Or perhaps I need a further 15 years of being at the tables so I can't guess random outcomes, like the gifted souls you come across on gambling forums.

Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on Yesterday at 10:25:29 pm
I am a bit confused with your response that you believe your strike rate would fall back to its expect value without MM. Winning over half of your bets has nothing to do with the size of your bets.
Seconded

Quote
Yes, I agree most progs cause a wrench in the gears. Where you must reset and accept some heavy losses, only to be found betting small when the corresponding wins come in. Somehow you have to keep track of all of that, hope to build a reserve in time to catch another corresponding set of wins with those same size units you lost.
The key here is to attempt not to get in too deep when things aren't going your way.  One way to do this is to initially cap you max bet size, say 5u, should you lose that, then attempt to grind it back, after which attempt to grind back previous losses that occurred before you dropped the 5u. "the easiest way out of a hole, is to stop digging" - PerryB

To pull this off you need a to play a tight game, by that I mean a game which shouldn't lose 4LIAR  too often etc.  Only one way I know how to do that, as I never carry a crystal ball with me to the casino, is via mechanical pattern capturing modes of play. Or perhaps I need a further 15 years of being at the tables so I can't guess random outcomes, like the gifted souls you come across on gambling forums.

I think we are saying the same thing here.  The reason I am getting over 3 units net a shoe with a mechanical method of play is not, IMO, because the placement wins but because I play a tight game and have strict win/loss stops.  I call this money management.  But . . . who knows - maybe it is a winning mechanical placement.  I got no way of determining that.

J

Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on June 18, 2015, 03:25:29 AM
Trending, to me means watching a shoe develop and then labeling it as a choppy or streaky shoe before the shoe has ended. Intentionally predicting its configuration.

I'm not using balance or unbalance to determine the bias of a shoe. I'm betting that every shoe is balanced. That there is not going to be any trend regardless of how it begins. And lets not call a lack of a trend, a trend in itself. That'll be just too confusing.

I consider bias, or variance to be any bet selection out performing its counterpart. I don't quite follow your meaning about bias being about average run lengths and their distribution.


You asked if you should flat bet or use a progression. Because your strike rate is above 50%. You've already got the game 'knocked'. I don't know how you are doing this. I would expect you to know. I offered two options, however I urged you to flat bet it. I am a bit confused with your response that you believe your strike rate would fall back to its expect value without MM. Winning over half of your bets has nothing to do with the size of your bets.

That rate is a GROSS rate sin commission.  Still win I know but if one can win flat then one can win with a prog and do better if only because the average bet size increases.  I tried to answer below about the MM.  Right - there is no correlation between size of bets if you have a condition that can be identified and win.  With my placement the bets are fixed but NOT by pattern so it is difficult for me, not being a programmer, to figure out if one of the conditions has a positive EV.   

Quote
MM doesn't control variance, it tries to overcome variance. MM is all about manipulating the size of your bets.
Employing a stop loss is a function of your bet selection, using a trigger to start and stop isn't related to money management. It is however an attempt to control variance.

That's your definition of MM.  My bet amounts are fixed.  You see I believe that within a finite subset there is a point where the trued odds of gaining wins or reducing losses becomes worse.  I base this on guesstimates from a curve.  Wins and losses outside of the bulk are rare so stopping at a win after say, two losses and fail OR stopping after a loss after say, two more tries and fail it's time to quit.  So there is the MM.  Has nothing to do with the bet size which is already fixed in a progression.

QuoteYes, I agree most progs cause a wrench in the gears. Where you must reset and accept some heavy losses, only to be found betting small when the corresponding wins come in. Somehow you have to keep track of all of that, hope to build a reserve in time to catch another corresponding set of wins with those same size units you lost. And that's where the math guys will come in and say you will guess that right half the time and guess it wrong half the time. Equaling out to a net gain of zero - the house edge on all your action.

Leave it to a bunch of mathematicians to ruin gambling. They take the fun out of everything.

Stretching a prog out doesn't attempt to break up LIAR, it attempts to overcome them. LIAR being the representative of variance going against you.

Now we're splitting hairs.

QuoteIt's one of the most attractive things about a lab. It can be resolved with (for instance) a 40% win rate. Which leaves you an extra 10% win rate owed to you. We are supposed to win a minimum of half our bets, at least eventually. According to the same math guys. This extra 10% can be utilized closing up more neg progs, or locking up units flat betting. Just so long as you didn't get an advance on your win percentage sometime in the past you weren't aware of.

Some of this may seem contrary. But its not my intention. I don't think we are quite seeing eye to eye, and some terminology is confusing with its redundancy.

Yeah, probably, that's fine.

Quote from: Rolex-Watch on June 18, 2015, 05:36:29 AM
The key here is to attempt not to get in too deep when things aren't going your way.  One way to do this is to initially cap you max bet size, say 5u, should you lose that, then attempt to grind it back, after which attempt to grind back previous losses that occurred before you dropped the 5u. "the easiest way out of a hole, is to stop digging" - PerryB

To pull this off you need a to play a tight game, by that I mean a game which shouldn't lose 4LIAR  too often etc.  Only one way I know how to do that, as I never carry a crystal ball with me to the casino, is via mechanical pattern capturing modes of play. Or perhaps I need a further 15 years of being at the tables so I can't guess random outcomes, like the gifted souls you come across on gambling forums.

I agree.  Stop digging.  IMO an early attempt should be made to recoup small losses with relatively small bets.  When that fails you got to have a recoup mechanism but that should have a limitation.

Different ways to approach.

Jimske,

The commonly heard statement and widespread belief is that you cannot find a bet selection that wins more than it loses in the long run. And the opposite also being true that you cannot find a bet selection that loses more often than it wins.

The follow up statement and belief is that no money management scheme of manipulating bet sizes can overcome the house edge. MM schemes being up as you win, up as you lose, Lab, Fibo, reverse Lab, any kind of marty, positive progs. Also things like Star and Mongoose and other complicated systems that use a combination of parlays, flat bets, and neg progs.

It's not my personal definition of MM. It is what MM is.

Bet selection is self explanatory. Using triggers to bet and not to bet is part of the selection. Using a stop loss after two losses, and a stop win after 2 wins does indeed appear as if you are managing your money. And you are managing your money. But it is not the same as what is considered MM. It's a confusing bit of redundant terminology meaning two different things.

Quote
" The reason I am getting over 3 units net a shoe with a mechanical method of play is not, IMO, because the placement wins but because I play a tight game and have strict win/loss stops.  I call this money management.  But . . . who knows - maybe it is a winning mechanical placement.  I got no way of determining that"

It is indeed because of your placement. Your placement is winning. Employing a very smart and conservative stop loss and stop win is actually you managing your bet selection. Not your money. I'm not trying to split hairs here. I'm trying to get us on the same track. It is indeed a "winning mechanical placement". ( with a complicated set of rules difficult to program, which does not mean it isn't mechanical)

Quote
" You see I believe that within a finite subset there is a point where the trued odds of gaining wins or reducing losses becomes worse.  I base this on guesstimates from a curve.  Wins and losses outside of the bulk are rare so stopping at a win after say, two losses and fail OR stopping after a loss after say, two more tries and fail it's time to quit."

Not sure if I understand this completely. But it is the brilliant part of your bet selection. Sounds like after you experience successful wins you do not continue on betting blindly until you hit losses. But after X amount of wins you stop and quit betting waiting for those losses to occur. Because you know your bet selection isn't likely to keep on winning? And after X amount of losses you stop and wait for a win?  Because you know those losses can't keep on losing?

If you are flat betting this and you say that your bet amount is fixed. Then it is your selection that is winning, which is fantastic. It has everything to do with your strict stop loss and stop win rules. Which, (I'm going to reiterate) is you managing your bet selection, not you employing an MM scheme.

As for progs attempting to break up LIAR, and my statement that Progs try to overcome LIAR. I am actually trying to say something entirely different. I take the meaning of breaking up LIAR meaning that 9liar now becomes 4 liar and 5 liar. Progressions don't do that, they are just bet size manipulations hoping to ride over those strings of losses and end up with a profit with the inevitable W at the end.

As for that whole thing I said about progs and wrenches in gears. I should have left all that out. I was in complete agreement with you. Was unnecessary to word it all up differently.

Again, I fear I may be coming off argumentative. But I'm on your side here. I'm rooting for you so to speak. What you claim to have done is success. I'm not doubting your claim, nor will I harass your for your bet selection. But I want to be absolutely clear. Your statement that since you can and you are winning it flat betting, netting 3u per shoe, that you should be able to utilize a progression for greater returns is absolutely false.

I have no clue who you are, but I still don't want to see you ruin yourself with a progression. Success with a progression is determined by the configuration of your win loss string. Most importantly the losses. If you do not know with absolute certainty the limits of your possible losses in relation to your wins then you will not be able to build the proper progression. Which is now a proper MM scheme. Any MM you choose to use without knowing exactly the limits of your W/L ratio over X amount of bets is a stab in the dark. A guess. And in the end a gamble.

Don't do it man. If what you say is true, you've got this beat. Just flat bet and win. Gradually build up your BR and then increase your unit sizes if you want a larger return.

@ HBS.

Lots of reading and I am lazy.  I did read it but too lazy to go point by point.

First.  MM is how one defines it in regard to gambling.  Let's not get lost in the weeds.  I hope you understand what I mean.  Sorry if I haven't been too articulate.

But let's be clear.  M 3.86 unit net win is NOT flat betting.  My 52. whatever I said for the 7200 and subsequent now 8000 some odd bets is.  IOW, I keep track of bets placed and bets won/lost NOT what the bet amount is. 

And no I won't divulge the bet placement.  Some have PM'd me.  Three reasons.  1.  Why should I?   2.  I don't have the time and inclination to teach it, deal with questions and possible criticisms.  3.  I really don't believe if it is used without some stop rules it will prove to be a winner.

Last.  IMO, progressions are relative to flat betting the average bet size so ITLR prog will win more dollars but NOT greater than flat betting the ABS.  Also, progs will have a greater shoe win rate than flat betting.  This has practical advantges.

Hope you don't mind Jimske, as you posted your bet selection over a BacLabs, so assume it was no secret even if that forum is no longer.

What you posted for those that may missed.



This may sound complicated to some but it is simple for me. My "Base Mode" is I wait 1 hand at start of shoe and then bet FLD until lose 2IAR then bet OLD until lose 2IAR then go back to FLD. My theory is since 2+ repeats and 1+ chops have the greatest occurrence I can win many shoes without doing a thing more. The only problem is those dern solo singles (1IAR; Alternate 2's, A2's). When that happens I lose 3 or more in a row. At the beginning of the shoe if I lose 2IAR I mostly will stop and see what the chops do and try to outguess them. There are shoes where a lot of A2's exist so I try to handle those differently.

So anyway I do that until some bias pops up and I instead bet the strength of the shoe. Strengths of the shoe could be side dominance (bet straight down one side), extreme chop (bet OLD), extreme streak (in which case just FLD), extreme 2's (bet OTBL). That way I will win EVERY shoe that has any kind of strong bias. If the shoe has an extreme bias I will win a lot of units. That's why I like the placement.

I have a couple other bets that I like that go along with this. I like the "Longest Gone" (LG) bet where I will not bet more than a run (chop or streak) has gone before. Lots of shoes never see more than a 4 or 5 IAR. Some never see more than a 3IAR. Whether I NB here or bet it to stop depends on MM. Another bet I like is "Longer Still" (LS). If I am not already in the Base Mode and a run goes longer than ever before I may bet for the run to continue and stay on it until I lose.

That's about it. I could go into more detail about certain bet choices. They may change from shoe to shoe depending on other "mitigating" dominating factors. Rarely takes me more than a second to place a bet. Normally I am the first on the table to bet. I can and do play alone and can get through a shoe pretty quick since I bet nearly every hand.

Hope that explains it pretty well.

Quote from: Rashid on June 19, 2015, 05:41:08 AM
Hope you don't mind Jimske, as you posted your bet selection over a BacLabs, so assume it was no secret even if that forum is no longer.

What you posted for those that may missed.



This may sound complicated to some but it is simple for me. My "Base Mode" is I wait 1 hand at start of shoe and then bet FLD until lose 2IAR then bet OLD until lose 2IAR then go back to FLD. My theory is since 2+ repeats and 1+ chops have the greatest occurrence I can win many shoes without doing a thing more. The only problem is those dern solo singles (1IAR; Alternate 2's, A2's). When that happens I lose 3 or more in a row. At the beginning of the shoe if I lose 2IAR I mostly will stop and see what the chops do and try to outguess them. There are shoes where a lot of A2's exist so I try to handle those differently.

So anyway I do that until some bias pops up and I instead bet the strength of the shoe. Strengths of the shoe could be side dominance (bet straight down one side), extreme chop (bet OLD), extreme streak (in which case just FLD), extreme 2's (bet OTBL). That way I will win EVERY shoe that has any kind of strong bias. If the shoe has an extreme bias I will win a lot of units. That's why I like the placement.

I have a couple other bets that I like that go along with this. I like the "Longest Gone" (LG) bet where I will not bet more than a run (chop or streak) has gone before. Lots of shoes never see more than a 4 or 5 IAR. Some never see more than a 3IAR. Whether I NB here or bet it to stop depends on MM. Another bet I like is "Longer Still" (LS). If I am not already in the Base Mode and a run goes longer than ever before I may bet for the run to continue and stay on it until I lose.

That's about it. I could go into more detail about certain bet choices. They may change from shoe to shoe depending on other "mitigating" dominating factors. Rarely takes me more than a second to place a bet. Normally I am the first on the table to bet. I can and do play alone and can get through a shoe pretty quick since I bet nearly every hand.

Hope that explains it pretty well.

Good.  Thanks for posting that.  Yeah that's my basic go to trend method which I refer to as my "Stupid Follow Method."  It is simple and has a lot of merit to follow the shoe.  I achieved a 52. something win rate over 7200 hands using that.  (Can't find the file this morning.  It's around here somewhere.)  Maybe some of you copied that and can post it.

So you see it's very subjective but IS based on the shoe bias to continue.  The betting is flat until I lose some then I try to get back to even or the previous high with a few 2 unit bets placed in "strong" areas - read stuff that seems to be happening a lot like a lot of 2's or maybe 1's not going far or whatever.  The rest is what I call MM even though apparently it's NOT MM according to some strict definition.

However - sorry to inform but I have actually stopped playing live in pursuit of a totally mechanical method and have tweaked that method.  (I don't play much in summer anyway - got more fun things to do.)  Why do I change?  Because I hate guessing - makes me nervous!   So yeah what I recently referred to was another 8,770 hands played from over 200 shoes gathered from various sources around the globe and have achieved a similar 52.47%.  It wins betting a prog also but am still working on what kind of betting style suits me.
*************************
Look all.  I'm happy to help when I can but . . . After being flat betted at BJ and before I ever made 1 bet on Bacc I studied Bacc about 4 hours a night EVERY night for about two years.  Since then I have played thousands of live shoes and have spent countless hours considering this or that.  So I don't feel in any way obligated to go over every nuance of my "work."  Besides.  I think most players would just as soon go their own way anyway.

The above is a good start for those who want to study the game, make changes, and play the trend game and I do hope it helps.

Jim

P.S.  It's a guessing game!

Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on June 17, 2015, 06:17:58 PM
GR8,

"Variance. It can be a bitch." is all you had to say.
That's it.
Quoting me directly and ending that sentence with "to the uninitiated" is an insult. Passive? sure, subtle? not so much, clever? not at all. I find it offensive because it is offensive. If there could have been any doubt, it was dispelled with your follow up sentence of " The knowledgeable player on the other hand can 'play it like a fiddle'. Insinuating I have no knowledge of the game or variance.

Let me ask you this.

Were you "playing it like a fiddle" on your second weekend trip when you went home to the tune of -4u (read Negative $400)?

And no, it is not "'nuff said about that". You can't make a claim of a bet selection (played with your style) that cannot lose 60 out of 100 bets without posting the bet selection. Fact, it can only be considered a baseless boast.

95% of my play is the 1 and 2 hole. You can't tease me like that, its right up my alley, it is my bet selection.

Hello, HBS.

Please forgive the tardy response, but I was in AC the past three days.

Please know that my response to your quote was not a shot at you in any way; a response, nothing more, nothing less.  I wouldn't want you to take it as personally as you obviously had, but I do apologize if you had.  Sorry.

Regarding your "95% of my play is the 1 and 2 hole" comment.....great job!  IMHO, the player that hasn't a valid "answer" for the 1, 2 and 3 holes on their scorecards is the player that will be left in the dark.

In due time I will further expound on my personal opinions regarding some valid points that might assist the player that wishes to improve on their approach to those first three lines.  My approach, in fact, my play, often involves alot of "stopping and starting", awaiting certain traits/trends to appear, and, of course, getting onto them at the earliest opportunity for maximum profitability.

Stay well.

Quote from: Jimske on June 18, 2015, 09:10:03 PM
And no I won't divulge the bet placement.  Some have PM'd me.  Three reasons.  1.  Why should I?   2.  I don't have the time and inclination to teach it, deal with questions and possible criticisms.  3.  I really don't believe if it is used without some stop rules it will prove to be a winner.

Hello, Jimske.

Valid reasons, all.  Our personal bet selections processes are rather "near and dear" to us all and, well, "personal".

But your #3 is the most valid of all, no doubt of it....."without some stop rules it mightn't prove a winner".  Correct.  It's already been proven time and time again that there exists no mechanical bet placement that'll overcome the house edge; so it then becomes mandatory for the actual player, himself, the "tweak" their preferred bet placement strategy into profitability, via both "start and stop" (read: bet or no-bet) rules and unit-size manipulation.

Stay well.

Quote from: gr8player on June 20, 2015, 01:55:51 PM
Hello, Jimske.

Valid reasons, all.  Our personal bet selections processes are rather "near and dear" to us all and, well, "personal".

But your #3 is the most valid of all, no doubt of it....."without some stop rules it mightn't prove a winner".  Correct.  It's already been proven time and time again that there exists no mechanical bet placement that'll overcome the house edge; so it then becomes mandatory for the actual player, himself, the "tweak" their preferred bet placement strategy into profitability, via both "start and stop" (read: bet or no-bet) rules and unit-size manipulation.

Stay well.

Yeah, but I am still working on my mechanical  placement and as mentioned above have 8,770 bets with a 52.46% win rate.  That's pretty good.  I wonder what the Z factor and risk of ruin is for that number.

Oh, today, a funny thing.  I happened to be going by MoSun this AM and decided to just play one shoe live with this mechanical placement.  Stupid luck someone must love me after all.  +17 units flat  - 40 bets!  I keep all tested shoes in "scorecard format" and keep a ledger of each win which I then graph.  How many times have I got close to that in  a shoe for 8,770 bets?  Zilch, nada, zero!   ;D

Your default placement is FTL, isn't it?  Must've caught a few runs, I suppose.

Great job, nice win.

We needn't apologize for the easy ones, as Goodness knows, there's plenty of difficult ones to offset them.

Take care.

Quote from: gr8player on June 20, 2015, 01:44:13 PM
Hello, HBS.

Please forgive the tardy response, but I was in AC the past three days.

Please know that my response to your quote was not a shot at you in any way; a response, nothing more, nothing less.  I wouldn't want you to take it as personally as you obviously had, but I do apologize if you had.  Sorry.

Regarding your "95% of my play is the 1 and 2 hole" comment.....great job!  IMHO, the player that hasn't a valid "answer" for the 1, 2 and 3 holes on their scorecards is the player that will be left in the dark.

In due time I will further expound on my personal opinions regarding some valid points that might assist the player that wishes to improve on their approach to those first three lines.  My approach, in fact, my play, often involves alot of "stopping and starting", awaiting certain traits/trends to appear, and, of course, getting onto them at the earliest opportunity for maximum profitability.

Stay well.

GR8,

I hope your trip to AC went well. This is number 4 I think.

Yeah, I can be a little thin skinned at times, and perhaps react a bit strongly. Sorry for that little bite.

Plenty of action in the 1 and 2 hole in my opinion. I look forward to what you may have to offer regarding those bet selections. It may clean up my play a bit.

I'm really leery of betting against a streak. Even a small one. Pitboss is a popular method, but I usually will only make just one bet for a streak of two to stay a two and I'm done 'till the next double. As for getting on the streak. Call me crazy, but I wait for a streak of 7 and then make a multiple unit bet that it goes to 8, back off a unit or two and then ride the rest of it knowing one day it will be the MONSTER streak.

Not often I see a streak of 7. So I don't make the bet often. I'm not drowning in lost units to an over abundance of 7 streaks. 

Quote from: gr8player on June 21, 2015, 09:22:53 PM
Your default placement is FTL, isn't it?  Must've caught a few runs, I suppose.

No, FTL not a default. A default implies more than one bet placement.  I using a strict mechanical placement.  The statistic I quoted comes from that.  So I don't have a default as such.

By runs you mean repeats of P and B?  I won 5 IAR 3 times and 4 IAR 1 time in that shoe which doesn't happen often.  Only one was on a longer repeat.  I don't need a long repeat or chop to win a bunch in a row.
**********************************

Anyhow consider that a 12 IAR is no different than 6 2's IAR or 4 3's IAR, etc.  They all ocurr at the same frequency.  So to chase a long run or chop won't give better results than chasing a pattern of say 3 to go 4 times IAR or a 3-1 pattern to go 3 Times IAR. etc.