+ Register

[Tomla]

What does the average Distribution mean to most baccarat players? And can we gain betting power knowing the average distribution and its nemesis .....

[WorldBaccaratKing]

What does the average Distribution mean to most baccarat players? And can we gain betting power knowing the average distribution and its nemesis .....

in short, NOTHING.

Why? VARIANCE can appear at anytime and blow the average distribution out of the water. Obviously, it can also happen to any system as it always does, its just a matter of when.....

[soxfan]

The Frank Barstow mention distributions in connection with his theory of the diminishing probabilty. That dragon cat based a method on distibutions but the mickey mouse progression scheme don't feed the bulldog, hey hey.

[gr8player]

What does the average Distribution mean to most baccarat players? And can we gain betting power knowing the average distribution and its nemesis .....

Short answer:  Yes.

How?

By structuring one's play around its "nemesis" (read: what their preferred play "loses to").

Think about it for a minute.....One might not want to structure their preferred play where the "singles" are their nemesis, or what they would lose units on, simply because there are, statistically-speaking, more "singles" events one would encounter.

Now, on the other hand, if one were to incorporate into their play a way of taking advantage of those singles......

Well, as you guys know of me already, I am of the belief that if one has a way, a mode of playing, where they're harnessing the statistics of the first three lines in their horizontal scorecards (read: the 1's, 2's and 3's), then they're on the way to getting the better of this game.

My play sees me taking advantage of both the singles (1's) and the threes (3's).  That's where my preferred plays are concentrated most.  I look for small "gap allowances" (best, of course, singles) and runs to the "3-hole".  That's it.  Rinse and repeat.

Lose a shoe?  No prob.  I utilize a shoe progression, and, in those rare necessities, a session prog as well.

Those singles and threes will pop, just a matter of time.  Those that know of me know of my devotion to Patience and Discipline.....again, just a matter of time and sensible bet-sizing.

Lastly, why oh why, one might ask, why the singles and threes concentration?

TBL, my friends, TBL. Time Before Last, or Decision Before Last, if you prefer.  It's nemesis is most easily definable:  the twos (2's).  Yeah...those "terrible twos", as they're often referred to.

Not so "terrible" for me, however, as I do very well to "side-step" them.  How?  By utilization of my "no-bet" option....in other words, I sit out those times when the 2's are besting the 1's and/or the 3's.

So I know my nemesis, I recognize my nemesis, and I react to my nemesis by "standing down".

The remainder is mine.

Now, all of that said, are there difficult patches?  Heck, yes.  That 2-hole is popular enough that there has to be rough patches to deal with, constantly.  But that's what the rest of my game is there for....my P & D & calculated MM.

This total package all works well for me, and, as always, my friends, I wish it for all of you as well.

[Bayes]

Think about it for a minute.....One might not want to structure their preferred play where the "singles" are their nemesis, or what they would lose units on, simply because there are, statistically-speaking, more "singles" events one would encounter.

Actually, there are just as many streaks (> 1) as there are singles, so you could structure your selections around streaks and your results should be the same. 

[gr8player]

Actually, there are just as many streaks (> 1) as there are singles, so you could structure your selections around streaks and your results should be the same. 

Hello, Bayes, I trust all is well with you.

Of course, I am very well aware that there are as many "streaks" events as there are "singles" events.

But, my friend, the way I track and play for the "singles", that point becomes rather moot.

You see, I am a firm believer of the "ying" vs the "yang".  (And why wouldn't I be, as I am a "statistic" freak.)

Because the streaks vs singles are equal, I believe that the longer streaks beget more singles.  The ying vs yang theory, if you will.

I've become rather astute at spotting those times where, there at least APPEARS, a chance at more "singles" events than their "streak" counterparts.

Look, Bayes, if we were to debate the inherent qualities of playing an EC game, of making any EC bet, we'd only wind up wasting our collective time, as ALL events are, indeed, a 50/50 proposition (less house edge).  I get it, and I know that you do, too.

BUUUTTT, we must, as serious players, get our games BEYOND THAT, or, alas, we have NOTHING OF VALUE.

And make no mistake of it, my friends, the day that I find nothing of value to this game is the day that I will cease playing it.

Stay well.

[gr8player]

Oh dear. 

Fair to assume we can now put to bed the fantasy of a 54% hit rate.....

Oh, Johno, you surprise me, my friend....I would have expected you, of all people, to be familiar with their binary tables and the inherent imbalance between TBL vs OTBL.

Then, it's but a short hop, skip, and a jump to figure out the very best part, the filet mignon, if you will, of the TBL bet selection....singles and threes.

C'mon, Johno, I'm leading you to the gold mine....THINK.

[gr8player]

Yup.  This is the problem of being inconsistent and allowing - I say ALLOWING- the game to mess your head.  When it does, red flag - time to take a break! 

J

This is the bane, the downfall, of many a would-be trender.  And it is the very reason that you must have the following answers within your own style of play:

1.)  Bet

You're triggered into your preferred plays, and so you put your chips into the designated circle.  From there, there's simply no room for any second-guessing yourself or whining about the outcome; again, when triggered, you put your money into the designated circle.

2.)  No-bet, part one

You're facing your preferred method's nemesis, and so you're not triggered in, and so you sit patiently as you allow some (hopefully) "virtual losses" go by. 

3.)  No-bet, part two

You're triggered into your preferred plays, but, for the most part, your chips are winding up in the dealer's tray.  THIS is, obviously, the most difficult of the circumstances.  And it is, quite frankly, where THE TRUTH of you and your play will be unearthed.  For me, it boils down to:  1.) await at least a "virtual win" before recommencing real bets; and 2.)  awaiting next shoe, where my preferred plays (hopefully) should perform better (combined with a shoe prog...but remember, at recoup, it's back to base bet).

You simply cannot allow the game to "get into your head" at the tables, for that's not the place to decide with any real rationale.  Best to know your answers beforehand.

[Bayes]

Hi gr8player,

Actually, I agree with you. If nothing makes a difference and the way outcomes are distributed ultimately reduces to nothing but 50:50 then it's pointless choosing one bet over another. But that's  true only for individual outcomes. In order for bet selection to mean anything you have to take more of a birds-eye view. Regular patterns will not continue indefinitely; singles, doubles, etc will clump for a while and then disperse. A long sequence of B or P predominating will at some point give way to balance predominating, and so on. The art of bet selection, in my opinion, is just the exploitation of these natural ebbs and flows, which (again in my opinion) cannot be reduced to a mechanical system - it's more of an art than a science.

I find it a bit puzzling that John often gives the impression from his posts that everything is totally random (unpredictable). If this were really the case, to what does he attribute his success and status as a pro? Money management alone is not sufficient to consistently make profits, although it's  important, of course.

[gr8player]

Correct, Bayes.

The serious player has little concern over each individual outcome, preferring to focus their energy and mode of play around a series of outcomes that might run from a portion of a particular shoe or the entire shoe or even the next shoe or entire session.

In that way, their success and/or failure is measured as a whole, as an entirety, as opposed to any individual bet, and thereby releases any pressure or tension or anxiety over proceeding with their preferred plays/bets.   In short, a quiet confidence envelopes such a consistent, patient, disciplined and calculating player.

As to your "John" commentary, I, too, have my doubts regarding his veracity; I am rather certain that I needn't remind you that one should be rather suspect over exactly whom they put their trust into, most especially within the realm of the faceless and nameless world of internet gambling-related forums.  One needs to learn, IMHO, to "read between the lines" of any forum members posts and their "actions" or "verbiage"within those lines and/or posts, and utilize their common sense of perception before committing their faith unwittingly.

Stay well.

[Sputnik]

Well i belive in what John writes and think Gr8 has nothing to come with, just empty words and empty claims
At least John show what he talks about and give exampels when Gr8 talks in riddels

[Bayes]

I guess I am confused here.  Sounds like a contradiction.  Either bet selection has the advantage whereby MM is irrelevant or it doesn't.

It is a contradiction, but you don't have to make a flat-bet profit in order to benefit from bet selection, all you need to do is reduce the variance enough so that recovering losses through stake manipulation is relatively stress-free.

If all bet selections were really and truly equal, then why bother with trying to "present a very narrow window", and all the rest of it? all such is an attempt to at least reduce variance. If bet selection really is pointless, then why not just banker every hand  or flip a coin?

No need to fear the "math boyz". Some bet selections really are better than others.

[Tomla]

Im glad to hear that someone thinks some bet selections are better than others.....

[horus]

No need to fear the "math boyz".

Can you spill the beanz. [smiley]aes/eat.png[/smiley]

[WorldBaccaratKing]

WHAT

I could post stream and streams of your lying-a$$ contradictions you have spewed on internet sites over the years, betting $400 per hand, 54% hit rate, casino tales.  A decade later you are betting DBL, LMAO, keep going Walter, you will soon be handing over another QUARTER OF A MILLION BUCKS to the casinos while preaching how great a player you are. 

As for my own play - action, IT IS ALL LAID OUT on my exclusive board.  Fully explained is how I bet, the bet selection(s), how they work, the rationale behind them, I even post images of the shoes played, so you can see those bet selections in action and even the amounts bet, oops you can't, I don't want any Walter Mitty's on my board. 
Bayes himself was a member, but due to time constraints and a nonchalance for gambling trench talk felt he couldn't participate on many boards at once.  Many members of this site been granted access (some are still current). 

What's really wrong greatplaya?  The waitresses no longer watches you play during her down time, or complement you any-more?   Or maybe you are no longer "rated to win" in the casinos computer system?  If you're confessing to using DBL, then it doesn't take a tree surgeon to guess you left your a part of your backside in AC "again".    Too bad so sad.

i was a member for a weekend then you took away access, why I have no idea. whatever..