+ Register

[gr8player]

There was a thread a while back that begged the question:  Bet Selection v. Money Management, and I had voted for Bet Selection as being the more important of the two.  I further explained why:  I said that, in the long run, there isn't enough money in the world for the player that can't seem to put their chips into the correct circle more often than not (read: better than 50/50).  I mean, think about it for a minute:  while we, as players, have our "buy-in" bankroll, the casino has theirs, as well.  And it goes without saying that the casino has it all over us in that regard; they beat our buy-in bankrolls by 10's (if not 100's) of multiples.  So they ALWAYS have much more money, much more "ammunition", then we ever will put onto the felt....so is it any wonder that they are the "favorite" to win this "coin flip" that we call a "session of play"?  Of course not.

So, money management aside, what might be our best chance, our best tool, to get the better of the casino in the long run?  Bet Selection is the answer.  So we can see the importance of improving our strike rates, and, just as importantly, the "footprint" of our strike rates (read: winning "clusters"), in order to maximize our profits when we are hitting our plays.

So now we might want to ask ourselves:  What might be the best way to both improve our strike rates and get the desired winning "footprint" that we're looking for?  While I can't speak for all, I can reveal my answer to the puzzle:  Domination Anticipation.

Alright, we all know what "Anticipation" means, so let's begin by defining "Domination".  Baccarat is an "even chance" game, simply put, banker v. player.  A never-ending choice between the two, banker or player.  But, know this of Baccarat, and, frankly, any "even chance" proposition:  There will be times of Domination.  There will be periods where one side has the better of the two and, therefore, is winning the bulk of the current decisions.  This, my friends, is domination.  And let us be very aware, domination can come in many different forms....streaks, chops, two's....and so forth.

What's that you say, gr8player, chops and two's can be forms of dominations as well?  YES, they most certainly can be.  After all, what is a straight chop (B P B P B P) if not a domination of OLD (read: opposite last decision).  And the two's (BB PP BB PP) are nothing more than a OTBL (read: opposite time before last) domination.  So doms are not necessarily confined to simply streaks of one side over the other; rather, they can come in various forms.

But, make no mistake of it, come they will.  If you track the B v P and the TBL v OTBL, you will come across doms.  So now, let's move on to the Anticipation portion of the program:

The better (read: sooner) you learn to anticipate doms, the more efficiently one becomes at "trapping" their immediate profits from same.  (In other words, the better you get at getting into them quicker, the LESS IMPORTANT it becomes for them to last "forever", as we all know they never do.  And here, my friends, is the key for "anticipation":

"Gap Allowance".  The player that is honing in on doms is always tracking for small "gap allowances", where the dominated side is hitting the very least (preferably one) times while the dominate side is getting their multiple wins.  So we seek the smallest "gap allowances" possible at the time; the "gap" being defined as the "intervals" (read: losses) between the multiple hits of the dominating side.  Again, preferably only one, but it can (and will, at times) go to two or even three, just so long as when it does revert back to the dom side, that dom side continues with multiple hits that are greater than the minor "gap allowance".

And then I look as well at the winning "footprints" of certain doms, such as:  Are they hitting "doubles" or "triples" or more?  Now there's where I'll utilize my money management, with positive play.  Furthermore, going back to the "gap allowances", based upon whether they are one's or two's, there's where I'll utilize my money management as well, this time with a bit of negative play.

But, for me at least, money management will never trump bet selection.  I need to be right more than I am wrong, especially when view play (as one should) over the long term.  I need to put my chips, however many they might be, into the correct circle more often than not, and, to me, there exist no better formula for that than my "Domination Anticipation" play.

As always, I wish all of you the very best of it.  Stay well.

[soxfan]

The gr888888888888one hits it outta the park again! You have to know  what you want yer bets selection to do for ya. For me I just need to capture a small part of any streak, a single coup of back to back win so I can clear with profit and reset my progression. I break it down into tryin to identify the primary trend and secondary trend and just bet iinto that. But, with my style I could win well and regular with a strikes rate of just 16.666666666666 percents. It ain't rocket science baby, hey hey!

[AsymBacGuy]

@gr8player: another excellent post from you!

BS>MM, as BS cannot be a constant whereas MM will always be.
Yes BS + MM is powerful...

as. 

[Jimske]

The gr888888888888one hits it outta the park again! You have to know  what you want yer bets selection to do for ya. For me I just need to capture a small part of any streak, a single coup of back to back win so I can clear with profit and reset my progression. I break it down into tryin to identify the primary trend and secondary trend and just bet iinto that. But, with my style I could win well and regular with a strikes rate of just 16.666666666666 percents. It ain't rocket science baby, hey hey!

Yes I actually read Gr8 whole post.  ADD prevent me from reading more than one paragraph here. 

Must win more hands than lose to be overall winner?  No.  Wrong gr8. For most of they're relying on winning more hands  than lose per shoe they're going to really struggle trying to be consistent winners waiting for those good shoes.

Searching for doms within the shoe as opposed to mechanical selection?   Absolutely.  But there are numerous doms.   Some are easier than others allowing for betting every hand while others are scattered allowing for less betting opportunities.   Probably best to keep them simple for novice trenders but with experience one can isolate and exploit more "complicated " dom trends.

[gr8player]

Must win more hands than lose to be overall winner?  No.  Wrong gr8. For most of they're relying on winning more hands  than lose per shoe they're going to really struggle trying to be consistent winners waiting for those good shoes.

I don't think that I am wrong at all, Jimske.  Nor it is a matter of "trying to be consistent waiting for those good shoes"; rather, I seek those "dominating trend" PORTIONS of each shoe, for that will suffice given the way that I attack (read: bet) each dom.  And I happen to believe that the patient and disciplined astute dom/trend player WILL, in fact, put themselves in that all-enviable position of winning more hands than they will lose.

Doms happen.  That's not just me blowing smoke, that's a fact.  It is inherent into the very nature of any even-chance betting proposition that, at some point or another, one side will dominate the current results.  Now, that "one side" needn't be limited to just B v P, it could be OTBL v TBL, or, frankly, any number of even-chance props, depending upon exactly how one chooses to track for them.  But make no mistake of it, doms will happen.

And when they happen, assuming the player knows when to attack (read: bet) and, just as importantly, when to back off (read: no-bet), that player SHOULD find themselves winning more hands than they are losing, over the long term of their play.

Now, even given all of that, yes, money management will, inevitably, come into the forefront of their play.  At some point or another, based upon the current results of their bets (not of the decisions, rather of their actual BETS), the astute player may feel the need to "adjust the size" (read: money management) of their bets.  We all face that dilemma at some point or another, regardless of our over-all strike rates, for that is the "fix" that we apply pertaining to our most recent (read: current) results.

But it should be the exception, and should be used sparingly.  And, when used, it should be conservative in nature.  If I'm not mistaken, Jimske, I've read in one of your posts that you rarely go beyond a 3-unit bet, and possibly 4 units at most.  (Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken about that.)  That's good.  That's exactly what I'm referring to when I speak of conservative play, conservative money management.

So, again, I reiterate:  we simply must find a way to improve our strike rates dramatically over the long term, lest we'll need a boat-load of money in order to combat the casino's never-ending chip tray.  Me?  I opt for higher strike rates.  By doing so, it takes so much pressure off of the money management portion of my game.  And I find that "dom" play is best for filling that need.  Sure, it takes patience, and it takes discipline, and it takes time, but, in the end, I, like most Bac players, are lousy at picking between Banker or Player, so I need an easier way to determine which circle to put my chips into.  And, for me, that "easier" way is to ride with a "dom". 

And, as always, I wish all of you the very best and longest of rides.  Stay well.

[Jimske]

Quote from: Jimske on February 04, 2016, 04:56:27 am
Must win more hands than lose to be overall winner?  No.  Wrong gr8. For most of they're relying on winning more hands  than lose per shoe they're going to really struggle trying to be consistent winners waiting for those good shoes.

[quote from Gr8]I don't think that I am wrong at all, Jimske.[/quote]

I know you don't and I'm not going to get into a pissing match about it. 

How many players here can actually say they win more hands than lose over a significant number of trials?  Me at 52.45% at this writing; you at 54%  over who knows how many shoes.  Has that number you spouted a looong time ago changed?  Who knows?  How many people actually keep track?  Apparently nobody but it appears that most here don't expect to win more than half their placed bets itlr.

And then you got variance.  Unless you flat bet it is a REAL possibility that a small win % will find a player losing more of the big bets than small bets just by chance and still be a loser!

For me I expect to win a shoe even if I lose more hands than win and I do.  So winning more hands than lose is just gravy to me.  Most shoes or sets of 75 bets placed will have us north or south no more than 4-5 bets.  It's nice to be able to win those that go south a few bets and not have to rely on +50/50.

J

[Garfield]

I'm still trying to win more than lose. IMO nothing wrong with that. Or at least reduce my LIAR.

[gr8player]

It's nice to be able to win those that go south a few bets and not have to rely on +50/50.

Oh, it's alot more than "nice", Jimske; rather, it's a necessity.  Let's face it, even with strikes rates in positive territory over the long run, we all know that, in the short term, losing jags will happen, and some are a heck-of-alot worse than others.

There's where our money management kicks in.  We'll adjust our bets based upon this current negative variance and seek an effective recoup.  Sometimes we're right, sometimes we're wrong.  Sometimes, money management calls for us to abort a losing session after we've pared that current loss down...might not have gotten back to positive territory, might not have even gotten a full recoup...but, sometimes, the best money management is the one that has us simply accepting as short a loss as possible at the time.

That's what I am speaking of when I speak in terms of a "long run" view of this game.  When you look at your results over the long term, the pressure is removed from your "short run" results.  Again, losing jags happen, they happen even to the very best of us; and so the question that needs to be answered within all of us is:  How do we react to those losing jags?  Within that answer is the very separation between those that can get the better of this game, and those that simply cannot.

Stay well.

EDITED TO ADD:

You asked about my current strike rates, Jimske.  Answering as honestly as possible:  I'm simply not sure.  You see, I used to keep a journal...a rather large journal, at that...with all of my results and all of my stats.  I ceased doing that long ago.  I found it much too time consuming, and, frankly, simply unnecessary. 

You see, given my vast playing experience, by now I've got it all in my head.  I know exactly what my variances look like, I know what my "nemesis" looks like, and I know what a winning (or, frankly, a losing) session looks like.  They needn't be repeated onto paper anymore, I've got it all rather down pat in my head, so that, effectively, I'm "carrying" my stats with me each and every time I sit down to play.  Much better (and less tedious) than journal-keeping...

Anyhow, stay well, all.

[Jimske]

You asked about my current strike rates, Jimske.  Answering as honestly as possible:  I'm simply not sure.  You see, I used to keep a journal...a rather large journal, at that...with all of my results and all of my stats.  I ceased doing that long ago.  I found it much too time consuming, and, frankly, simply unnecessary. 

You see, given my vast playing experience, by now I've got it all in my head.  I know exactly what my variances look like, I know what my "nemesis" looks like, and I know what a winning (or, frankly, a losing) session looks like.  They needn't be repeated onto paper anymore, I've got it all rather down pat in my head, so that, effectively, I'm "carrying" my stats with me each and every time I sit down to play.  Much better (and less tedious) than journal-keeping...

Anyhow, stay well, all.

I think it is real necessary to keep an accounting of all play.  If we don't we forget and human nature has a tendency to sugar coat stuff, make excuses, rationalize losses, etc.  I don't keep a journal but I do keep an accounting sheet.  How hard is it?

At the end of each shoe I write down the $ won/lost on the card.  I also bring all cards home.  It's a simple matter then of counting up the W/L in each shoe.  After that I just transfer the results to my master spread sheet.  All this work takes about 5 minutes.  I also keep most shoes that are complete or nearly complete.  For that I just tap "1" for P and "2" for B inside a spreadsheet to collect the shoes.  It looks like this.  I keep a spreadsheet for each casino.  So I know where, when, how many I played there.  (I don't keep partial shoes which are many.)  So I also have a program that will transpose the spreadsheet numbers into an automated playable spreadsheet form which I could then replay or examine any of the shoes for study without having to write them all out.

Hey, this is a business really.

MoSun   2.17.16            JFM   803      2211122121212122212112221121111221111221221111121211211212222121
MoSun   2.17.16            JFM   804      122212211212221112111221211211221121212221112112122122122112221122
MoSun   2.19.16            JFM   805      12112112111211121222221211112221222221222212122122112112211221222111
MoSun   2.19.16            JFM   806      1222111221111112222211222221122221211122222222211121
MoSun   2.19.16            JFM   807      1211222212211211111122222112112111221221221122222112111111121222222

This kind of record keeping also goes a long way to help maintain focus and discipline.

[21 Aces]

With a $100 base bet, how are you going to bet the long Bank Dragon shown in this shoe?  BE REALISTIC (Not all in, all in, all in, all in with a magic stop)




Looks like and ideal start would be $100 Bank after the 5-7 as you are positioning for another streak of Bank after one Player.  It would turn out to be very favorable as the Natural 8 win would be less likely to throw off those who look at Natural's continuing or jumping.  Prior to that in the shoe all three Natural 8 Bank's jumped to Player...

Bank 7 --> Bet $100
Bank 8 --> Bet $100  - Total Win $100
Bank 6 --> Bet $200  - Total Win $200  - Very difficult bet because so far 4 in a row max on the shoe
Bank 2 --> Bet $300  - Total Win $400
TIE 7 --> Bet $300  - Total Win $400 - Difficult because TIE's are 1 continue and 1 jump.
Bank 9 --> Bet $300  - Total Win $700
Bank 8 --> Bet $300  - Total Win $1,000
Bank 7 --> Bet $300  - Total Win $1,300
Bank 6 --> Bet $300  - Total Win $1,600

Bank 6 bet loses making the Total Win $1,300.  This was a somewhat conservative increase in position size to 3x the $100 base bet.  How many players do you see do this?   How many players do you see increase more aggressively?

[andrebac]

GR8,
you spoke about "ANTICIPATION" of the doom, have you some triggers?
tx

[alrelax]

Quote from OP:

Alright, we all know what "Anticipation" means, so let's begin by defining "Domination".  Baccarat is an "even chance" game, simply put, banker v. player.  A never-ending choice between the two, banker or player.  But, know this of Baccarat, and, frankly, any "even chance" proposition:  There will be times of Domination.  There will be periods where one side has the better of the two and, therefore, is winning the bulk of the current decisions.  This, my friends, is domination.  And let us be very aware, domination can come in many different forms....streaks, chops, two's....and so forth.
____________________________________________________________________________________

Exactly, and that is what so many miss, can not see.  The game of bac can be anything and everything combined.  But there are many 'strong' patterns or trends to follow for a few hits, continual--here and there.

Weak, strong, whatever.  They are there.  Just so many, and the highest majority of the players are so blind-sided until each one is well over.  Then the rut-the mess up, those same players tend to compare what happened to what is in their mind supposed to come out.

Play the shoe and STOP trying to change the shoe!

[Qswaggerstupid18]

YEP .... TAKE WHAT IT GIVES YOU!!!..... #Tru

[alrelax]

With a $100 base bet, how are you going to bet the long Bank Dragon shown in this shoe?  BE REALISTIC (Not all in, all in, all in, all in with a magic stop)




Looks like and ideal start would be $100 Bank after the 5-7 as you are positioning for another streak of Bank after one Player.  It would turn out to be very favorable as the Natural 8 win would be less likely to throw off those who look at Natural's continuing or jumping.  Prior to that in the shoe all three Natural 8 Bank's jumped to Player...

Bank 7 --> Bet $100
Bank 8 --> Bet $100  - Total Win $100
Bank 6 --> Bet $200  - Total Win $200  - Very difficult bet because so far 4 in a row max on the shoe
Bank 2 --> Bet $300  - Total Win $400
TIE 7 --> Bet $300  - Total Win $400 - Difficult because TIE's are 1 continue and 1 jump.
Bank 9 --> Bet $300  - Total Win $700
Bank 8 --> Bet $300  - Total Win $1,000
Bank 7 --> Bet $300  - Total Win $1,300
Bank 6 --> Bet $300  - Total Win $1,600

Bank 6 bet loses making the Total Win $1,300.  This was a somewhat conservative increase in position size to 3x the $100 base bet.  How many players do you see do this?   How many players do you see increase more aggressively?

People talk on here about Domination, then they talk about Jay Silvo's thing a m-jig, then they talk about 14 lucky guesses that are skill, etc., etc.  Anyone can take almost any chart or board and make a winning system out of it.  Regarding domination, among a few key triggers I have, I do love the 2nd line wager.  If it is making it---of course.  I have done well with that trigger over the long run.  On the example that 21Aces posted above, I would have made a quick $600.00 wagering $200.00 a time if I started the second line wager since the beginning of the shoe.  I would have lost $1,800.00 and I would have made $2,400.00 if I wagered on to the point that is shown.

There are numerous key triggers to profit but as well---those same key triggers could easily go the opposite way at any time.   

[21 Aces]

The other night I caught 3 straight jumps on different tables that had long dragons of more than 5 in a row going.   Best to see a tight shoe, expect it to break loose for a long run, and get in 2, 3, 4...  Very difficult to catch consecutive jumps in the face like that actually.

RE: With a $100 base bet, how are you going to bet the long Bank Dragon shown in this shoe?  BE REALISTIC (Not all in, all in, all in, all in with a magic stop)

I posted this because very few players press like marquee players do.  The best I have seen will explode with a positive progression.  In the example, one can see I leveled the bet to $300 very quickly whereas some will double up every hand and then make a very decisive adjustment if they can get to that point.


Bank 7 --> Bet $1,000
Bank 8 --> Bet $2,000  - Total Win $1,000
Bank 6 --> Bet $4,000  - Total Win $3,000  - Very difficult bet because so far 4 in a row max on the shoe
Bank 2 --> Bet $8,000  - Total Win $7,000
TIE 7 --> Bet $16,000  - Total Win $15,000 - Difficult because TIE's are 1 continue and 1 jump.
Bank 9 --> Bet $16,000  - Total Win $31,000
Bank 8 --> Bet $32,000  - Total Win $63,000
Bank 7 --> Bet $64,000  - Total Win $127,000

STOP OR RESET TO MUCH LOWER BET AND WORK UP AGAIN

Total Win MINUS high payout bets on both examples which would most likely be included.

I have seen players do this or close to it with success AND failure many times.