+ Register

[HunchBacShrimp]

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.

[gr8player]

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!

[gr8player]

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...

[georgebac]

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!!!!

[HunchBacShrimp]

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?

[NoRegret]

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.

[Jimske]

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.

Flat 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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 (javascript) Select Expand

[code=xml][/code]

[HunchBacShrimp]

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.

[Rolex-Watch]

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

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.

[Jimske]

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

[Jimske]

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.   

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.

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.

Now we're splitting hairs.

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.

Yeah, probably, that's fine.

[Jimske]

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.

[HunchBacShrimp]

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.

[Jimske]

@ 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.

[Rashid]

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.