+ Register

[Jimske]

I much prefer the "stop and wait" over the "change the placement", Jimske.  IMHO, changing placements negates the edge that one's variance can offer the stop and wait (read: consistent) player.

But that is strictly on opinion based upon my preferred style of play.  It by no means makes me right or anyone else wrong; it just means that my play is based almost in its entirety on my variance statistics, without which I would be like a ship sea with no rudder.

Take care.

There is no "verifiable edge" as you have stated more than once.  So how can any change in placement "negate the edge"? 

We all have the same variance in this random game.  There is no personal variance as you suggest above.  The fact that I win over 52% of all placed bets does not change that.  Even thousands of bets are a small subset. 

If you or anyone has a variance that is different than what occurs in random events you should be able to state what and where it is.  There must be some pattern, asymmetry, occurring group of decisions or specific placement that provide an advantage (read:  verifiable edge).

Stop when your placement doesn't match the outcomes if you want.  But having several placements that match multiple outcomes shouldn't negate anything.  It's a guessing and betting game.

[gr8player]

Stop when your placement doesn't match the outcomes if you want.  But having several placements that match multiple outcomes shouldn't negate anything.  It's a guessing and betting game.

"Betting" game, yes.  "Guessing" game, no.

That's exactly why I don't change placements; I've no faith in any guesswork, not mine, yours, or anyone's.

Consistent bet placements lead to reliable (or at least trackable) variance stats.

Look, guys, I couldn't say that on Thursday, when my bet placements turned to fairy dust right before my eyes.  (You can refer to my Trip Report thread to read more about it, but, for some reason or another, the thread has been locked.  Not sure why.)  So nothing is written in stone, and, in the end, we are all reliant on the whimsy of the turn-of-a-cards.

Still, that said, we need a valid reason to put our money onto the felt, and exactly where and how much of it to put up, and with that in mind I just happen to believe in consistent bet placements with a money management plan wrapped around the variance statistics of same. 

[Jimske]

"Betting" game, yes.  "Guessing" game, no.

That's exactly why I don't change placements; I've no faith in any guesswork, not mine, yours, or anyone's.

Consistent bet placements lead to reliable (or at least trackable) variance stats.

Look, guys, I couldn't say that on Thursday, when my bet placements turned to fairy dust right before my eyes.  (You can refer to my Trip Report thread to read more about it, but, for some reason or another, the thread has been locked.  Not sure why.)  So nothing is written in stone, and, in the end, we are all reliant on the whimsy of the turn-of-a-cards.

Still, that said, we need a valid reason to put our money onto the felt, and exactly where and how much of it to put up, and with that in mind I just happen to believe in consistent bet placements with a money management plan wrapped around the variance statistics of same.

For the record I'm not one that thinks you have any obligation to explain specifics about your play process.  I also am getting tired of this same old discussion.

By guessing I'm not saying "roll the dice."  Track what you will.  I track.  I use different bet placements because I play every hand (to a point depending on MM rules).  One placement won't do.  I don't have to track multiples.  I could track one thing and use one placement but then I would be betting less hands.  So I track several "variances" and use several placements.  But I'm still basically guessing that certain things will happen more often than not.  And when not I am guessing that my bigger bets will outnumber my smaller bets.  Otherwise I'd just flat bet.

But read what you wrote above.  "whimsy of the turn-of-a-card"   You can't have it both ways.  We either have a predictable advantage or not - a "verifiable edge" or not. 

If your "variance stats" show ANY significant distinction from the expected values then you have a "VERIFIABLE EDGE."  Said in another way you then have a predictable and measurable advantage.

I win over 52% of real live bets.  I have not verifiable edge.

[Jimske]

Thanks Jimske,

You asked, "Don't you still have to guess which + or -   pattern to bet?

Without going into great detail. The attempt in this example is to produce a more choppy shoe by using + and -  than playing p and b .
In this example one would want to bet for a choppy pattern.  This works only for certain kind of shoes those with isolated short runs of p or b  as shown.
Long runs of p b patterns will produce long runs of  +   or  -

Overall the percentages of 1's 2's 3's etc. will be similar to p and b  percentages  itlr   50% , 25% , 12.5%   etc.

ez

I don't think you'll find similar but exactly the same as P and B.  My point is it does not produce more choppy shoe.  One can look for a choppy shoe and bet that bias.  Nothing wrong with that.  Still guessing.  I can see it may be less confusing just looking at the + and -.

[Fred711]

I have been playing Dr.Tom with a bit of a twist but using his basic theme and I gotta say part of a successful run is you gotta know when to walk and end the session winning or losing that's the hardest thing to teach it has to come from deep within..... I have that down due to the fact I realize the alternative........ Driving for a living sucks that said my win goal is met I'm out of the shoe out of the door

[Fred711]

Do a search on YouTube

[Gerard711]

Or you can google Dr Tom Baccarat

[Gerard711]

I tend to disagree EZ