+ Register

[james]

I have modified my earlier Table. The corrected Table is given below:

B   
B   P    L     A1
B   P    L     A2
P   B    L     B1
P   B    L     B2
P   B    L     B3
B   P    L     A1
B   P    L     A2
P   B    L     B1
P   B    L     B2
P   B    L     B3
B   P    L     A1
and so on

[Sputnik]

Some one can use Another march with same probability.
As all patterns and combinations has the same odds.

How about 2 x wrangler march.

The Wrangler strategy or Wrangler march resembles a little of the avant - dernier, the bet on the next to the last spin. However the Wrangler march has a much higher effectivity because the hostile figure, the series of 2 is softened in its negative impact.

Using the Wrangler march you bet on the last come chance until two consecutive losses. Then you switch to betting on the opposite chance. There is one single exception: after two isolated consecutive series of 2 you bet up to three consecutive losses !

Long alternating series of 2 are neutralized by this procedure.

From the following example, the march should become clear:



Surely a good progression can be combined with this march. The inventor of this march made high profits in Monte Carlo in the nineteenthirties.

[Lung Yeh]

Intereting Sputnik. But what about the bet amount progression or regression?

[Sputnik]

I find the rules for the trigger bet and regression and recovery be fine, so i would not change them.
I am just saying that for example 9 players has the same probability as any other existing pattern.
So it does not matter what march you use - the odds will be the same.

[WorldBaccaratKing]

Some one can use Another march with same probability.
As all patterns and combinations has the same odds.

How about 2 x wrangler march.

The Wrangler strategy or Wrangler march resembles a little of the avant - dernier, the bet on the next to the last spin. However the Wrangler march has a much higher effectivity because the hostile figure, the series of 2 is softened in its negative impact.

Using the Wrangler march you bet on the last come chance until two consecutive losses. Then you switch to betting on the opposite chance. There is one single exception: after two isolated consecutive series of 2 you bet up to three consecutive losses !

Long alternating series of 2 are neutralized by this procedure.

From the following example, the march should become clear:



Surely a good progression can be combined with this march. The inventor of this march made high profits in Monte Carlo in the nineteenthirties.

i actually like this, thanks for posting!

[Sputnik]

I test the wrangler march to get the feel of it - looks pretty good.

Code Select Expand


1
2 L
1 W
1 W
2 L
2 L
1 W
1 W
2 L
2 L
1 W
2 L
1 W
2 L
2 L
2 W
1 L
1 L
2 W
2 W
1 L
1 L
2 W
2 W
2 W
2 W
1 L
1 L
1 W
2 L
1 W
1 W
1 W
2 L
1 W
1 W
2 L
2 L
1 W
2 L
2 L
2 L
1 W
2 L
1 W
1 W
1 W
2 L
1 W
1 W
1 W
1 W
2 L
2 L
1 W
2 L
2 L
1 W
2 L
2 L
1 W
1 W
2 L
2 L
2 L
1 W
1 W
2 L
1 W
1 W
1 W
2 L
1 W
1 W
1 W
1 W
2 L
2 L
2 W
2 W
2 W
1 L
1 L
2 W
1 L
2 W
2 W
1 L
1 L
1 L
2 W
2 W
2 W
1 L
1 L
2 W
1 L
1 L
2 W
2 W
2 W
1 L
1 L
2 W
2 W
2 W
2 W
2 W
2 W
2 W
1 L
2 W
1 L
1 L
1 W


[Tomla]

encourage people to test it with various progressions,, the bet selection is good and has won some shoes flat betting...The as written progression is pretty cool also but the amounts bet would discourage a lot of players... Overall Im glad I learned this one I might play it in a casino soon

[marvin]

So what eactly is this thread? BAT or WM ? 

[Tomla]

baccarat attack includes two things ,,, a bet selection and a progression ---this is a discussion about both.

[AsymBacGuy]

Hi Jimskie, gr8player perfectly answered for me.
I add some thoughts.

91.4% of the times we are playing pure coin flip successions, the rest is composed by hands where one side has a 15.86% advantage over the other one.

Hence over 9 times over 10 we are tossing a coin and in the history of gambling there aren't reports that a coin flip game could be beaten in the long run (at least practically speaking as, yes, an other than infinite martingale might have the best of it). Let alone continuosly trying to catch that 8.6% where B is hugely favorite without some statistical evidences.

The problem to try to "control" hand by hand a mostly coin flip game is that in the short run we cannot have any hint about the direction one shoe will take. That means we're expecting the most impact of the variance.

To confirm this, we can run thousands and thousands of shoes taking the P singles as our main target.

It's mathematically and statistically certain that itlr P singles will surpass the amount of P streaks, nevertheless an approach based on such sure finding will encounter the heat of the variance. No matter how good and sophisticated will be our progression.
And I'm talking about the most likely simple event any baccarat game in the world will show in the long run. 

Hence, imo, we must restrict our field of operations, let that 8.6% will properly be working.
We must bear the least variance weight even if our method cannot win by flat betting.
And that means to wait favourable opportunities, to let some hands go, many times to let some shoes go.

If the P single occurence is the more likely event to happen, it means that clusters of 2+ P singles are greater than P isolated singles. Sure as hell. Same stuff applies on superior clustered events.

When?

We don't know.

But we do know that the expected ratio will be a given number. And more importantly we do know that differently to "any P single" searched, the clustered P singles searched opposed to isolated P singles will bear a NOT proportionally weight of the variance. Now this has a quite less impact.

Is this sufficient to set up a winning play?
Nope, but it helps.

To reduce variance.

I'm not going to stubbornly looking for P singles when the actual shoe is producing many P streaks.

Nevertheless, the vast majority of shoes will form a lot of P singles and not a lot of P streaks.
In the long run.

Curiously, long run works for casinos and short runs for players. We have to invert this assumption, as they want us to play every f single hand any shoe will produce.


as.



 



 


 

[super6]

Hi Jimskie, gr8player perfectly answered for me.
I add some thoughts.

91.4% of the times we are playing pure coin flip successions, the rest is composed by hands where one side has a 15.86% advantage over the other one.

Hence over 9 times over 10 we are tossing a coin and in the history of gambling there aren't reports that a coin flip game could be beaten in the long run (at least practically speaking as, yes, an other than infinite martingale might have the best of it). Let alone continuosly trying to catch that 8.6% where B is hugely favorite without some statistical evidences.

The problem to try to "control" hand by hand a mostly coin flip game is that in the short run we cannot have any hint about the direction one shoe will take. That means we're expecting the most impact of the variance.

To confirm this, we can run thousands and thousands of shoes taking the P singles as our main target.

It's mathematically and statistically certain that itlr P singles will surpass the amount of P streaks, nevertheless an approach based on such sure finding will encounter the heat of the variance. No matter how good and sophisticated will be our progression.
And I'm talking about the most likely simple event any baccarat game in the world will show in the long run. 

Hence, imo, we must restrict our field of operations, let that 8.6% will properly be working.
We must bear the least variance weight even if our method cannot win by flat betting.
And that means to wait favourable opportunities, to let some hands go, many times to let some shoes go.

If the P single occurence is the more likely event to happen, it means that clusters of 2+ P singles are greater than P isolated singles. Sure as hell. Same stuff applies on superior clustered events.

When?

We don't know.

But we do know that the expected ratio will be a given number. And more importantly we do know that differently to "any P single" searched, the clustered P singles searched opposed to isolated P singles will bear a NOT proportionally weight of the variance. Now this has a quite less impact.

Is this sufficient to set up a winning play?
Nope, but it helps.

To reduce variance.

I'm not going to stubbornly looking for P singles when the actual shoe is producing many P streaks.

Nevertheless, the vast majority of shoes will form a lot of P singles and not a lot of P streaks.
In the long run.

Curiously, long run works for casinos and short runs for players. We have to invert this assumption, as they want us to play every f single hand any shoe will produce.


as.

And your point is?

 



 

[Lung Yeh]

So in the BAT, it is said that we should only bet around 20-25 rounds per game . Each shoe is normally @70-75 round. Can we rest awhile after each game and start a new game within each shoe so that in a shoe we can actually play 2-3 games?
Or are we supposed to have the shoe reshuffled or move on to another table....doesn't make sense to me

[AsymBacGuy]

My point, super6, is to wait some favourable circumstances where any progression could work as it is statistically player's shifted.
Not meaning that such progression can invert the negative edge by itself, instead it will work because we know that certain expected events cannot be delayed for long periods. They are due.
The like the house edge will be due in the long period.

as. 

[super6]

My point, super6, is to wait some favourable circumstances where any progression could work as it is statistically player's shifted.
Not meaning that such progression can invert the negative edge by itself, instead it will work because we know that certain expected events cannot be delayed for long periods. They are due.
The like the house edge will be due in the long period.

as.

Tks ASG. As you mentioned earlier that 91.4% of the times we're playing pure coin flips successions, so why do we have to wait for favorable circumstances. Sorry my understanding of English is not too good as to fully understand your post coz English is not my mother tongue. Are you able to guess when is the favourable condition when  we are betting with a coin flip decision. So in theory, you can bet everyhand as it is a coin flip, but hopefully the money management progression/regression will take care of the rest.

I think this thread is about the merits of the BAT. The system is just to make 10 times your base bet as the profit target in a shoe that one plays in. You can play 1 shoe, 3 shoes or 10 shoes a day, but the target is still the same. I am sharing my experience with my live plays and tests of this systems, and I can share that there is tremendous success thus far, if you follow the system to the dot. Trying to chop it down, analyse and tweak may not work to achieve the purpose imho

[Lung Yeh]

Super6, friend. So do you do 2-3 games per shoe since each shoe can support 70-75 hands and the BAT suggests to bet only 20-25 rounds per game?