+ Register

[gr8player]

While we all concentrate our efforts on developing the very best bet selection process along with the very best money-management plan in order to enhance our chances for success, sometimes the very best place to start on our quest is in the recognition and realization of knowing what we cannot do:

1.)  Control the cards....can't do it.  The cards will fall as they may, and there's simply nothing we can do about it.  So, knowing that, why let yourself get emotionally involved in the outcomes?  I'd try to detach myself from the hands as best that I'm able to, and simply record the results on my scorecard.  Tough beat, bad beat....bottom line, you lost the bet, no sense stewing over it.  It's just a wasted emotion anyhow, because you have nothing to do with the dealing or the natural order of the cards,  Best to realize that from the outset; you can't control the cards.

2.)  Win every session...can't do it.  It can't be done, so why waste all of your good time and energy in trying to come up with an "infallible" method of play when "infallible" is simply "impossible"?  You must learn to "walk a loser".  I've spoken of this a million times; if you cannot learn how to lose you will never, ever learn how to win over the long term.  Trying to win every session will, at some point or another, leave you in a hole so deep that it will swallow your bankroll whole.  Much better to try to limit the severity of your losses rather searching in vain for some sort of total avoidance, and much cheaper too.  Losses are inevitable....so much so, that they are actually accounted for in my game.  That's where my "recoup mode" comes in.  But not in this particular session; no, recoup will simply have to wait.  But there'd be no recoup mode at all if I ever let any session loss become too large and too unrecoverable.  So you learn to walk a loss.  Best to realize that from the outset; you can't win every session.

Knowing what you cannot do is probably the best beginning to trying to hone in on the specialized play that you're trying to develop, so that you can concentrate on what you can accomplish as opposed to what you cannot.  There's something very empowering when you know and learn to accept your limitations, for only then can you develop your play around your strengths.

For instance, I prefer a tight mode of play within rather short sessions.  I do not like elongated sessions, and so I play a tight game with a relatively-small win goal.  But I'll do that 2 or 3 times a day.  Why do I prefer shorter sessions?  Because I play a "variance" game, where I can adjust my session unit sizes based upon the recent results of my latest sessions.  So, more sessions equals more input, more stats.  And "tighter" (read: more relevant) stats.  And so it goes for my style of play, my approach to this game.

I must be doing something right, for I'm quite certain I'm as close to a "flat-bettor" (read: level stakes) as most any player could be.  Especially in the midst of a session; I'm mostly flat-betting, only with occasional 2-unit or, dare I say, a 3-unit bet.  My play is probably the most boring thing you'd ever wish to witness.  Two units up, one unit down or three units up, two units down....flat-betting can take a toll on a player's patience.  But if your bet selection process and its accompanying variance is worth its weight at all....flat-betting with session-to-session "adjustments" (read: variance-based unit-size movements) is the be-all and the end-all; it's unbeatable.

And it all began with knowing what I cannot do, knowing what I couldn't control....only then could I develop a game that played to my strengths, all by learning to control that which I am able to.

As always, I wish it for all of you.

[james]

Know what you can't do, and you will know what you can do.

[gr8player]

Correct, James.

I know that I'd like to play for higher unit sizes, but, alas, I also know that I cannot do that without sacrificing a vital step in my pre-planned recoup/recovery modes(s).  And so I do not, and thusly accept my grinding style of play and the slow but sure profits over the long term. 

Greed can be our undoing, of that there can never be a doubt.  So we must learn to accept our limitations, especially as it pertains to our unique money managements requirements.  For me and my mode of play, in a sense, the lesser my unit sizes, the more actual profit, dollar-wise, I will make in the long run.  In this way, I effectively afford myself the maneuverability of my unit sizes, all based upon my most recent variance statistics.

Wins will always add up rather nicely, especially when there are no monster-sized (sorry, still in "Halloween-mode") losses to offset/negate them.

Stay well.

[ADulay]

  You must learn to "walk a loser".  I've spoken of this a million times; if you cannot learn how to lose you will never, ever learn how to win over the long term. 

Gr8,

  One of the hardest things to "learn" is how to lose.  Very few talk about it but it is very important aspect of one's overall game.

  Thanks for bringing it up.

  AD

[SSGTFON]

F' losing!

[AsymBacGuy]

Useful considerations, no doubt.

But without a verified edge, I'd add under the "what we can't do" category the "we can't control the negative variance" issue.

So if you are able to control the game in some way it must imply the concept that you can benefit of an edge.

Take care

as. 









   

[joeystyle]

My biggest downfall is that when I am in a losing situation, where I am down 7,9 or may be even 12 units, I don't just quit the shoe, no use  fighting it. So I don't limit my damage. I continue playing thinking this can't be happening to me, I'm frequently on the winning side, what the hell is going on type of mentality. So the 10 unit loss never quite goes back to break even, in fact it compounds into a 15 or 20 unit loss. In the same token, when I am up 6 or 7 units at best, I bail out of a shoe, especially if its early on in the proceedings. In a nutshell, I don't limit my losses when I should, and I don't extend winnings when I'm in a position to do so.

That being said, my personality is more in line with GR8, boring may be tedious, but one never goes broke when in profit. Using larger units and winning a few in a shoe is dynamic. It must realign my thinking. It's not how many units you win, it's the amount of of profit you make. Can't buy groceries with units.

Ciao
Joeu

[gr8player]

Useful considerations, no doubt.

But without a verified edge, I'd add under the "what we can't do" category the "we can't control the negative variance" issue.

So if you are able to control the game in some way it must imply the concept that you can benefit of an edge.

Take care

as.   

Hmmm...a "verified" edge?  I am quite certain that I haven't any verifiable edge, yet my "negative variance" is rather manageable.

I happen to believe, ABG, that the "edge" that I am "benefiting" from arises from the totality of my play, the entirety of my play, rather than any one singular, specific edge to my game.

Stay well, my friend.

[gr8player]

My biggest downfall is that when I am in a losing situation, where I am down 7,9 or may be even 12 units, I don't just quit the shoe, no use  fighting it. So I don't limit my damage. I continue playing thinking this can't be happening to me, I'm frequently on the winning side, what the hell is going on type of mentality. So the 10 unit loss never quite goes back to break even, in fact it compounds into a 15 or 20 unit loss. In the same token, when I am up 6 or 7 units at best, I bail out of a shoe, especially if its early on in the proceedings. In a nutshell, I don't limit my losses when I should, and I don't extend winnings when I'm in a position to do so.

That being said, my personality is more in line with GR8, boring may be tedious, but one never goes broke when in profit. Using larger units and winning a few in a shoe is dynamic. It must realign my thinking. It's not how many units you win, it's the amount of of profit you make. Can't buy groceries with units.

Ciao
Joeu

Hello, Joey.

Yes, you just happen to bring up, in your first paragraph, the dilemma of many a player....betting more and more into our losing jags while cutting back from our winning ones.  My friend, you are not alone in that regard; you see, we, as players, are "wired" that way.  We inherently don't believe that anything will last; and so we believe that our losing jags will soon end, and so we "chase" for an immediate upturn, and we don't believe our winning jags will last, and so we back off of them for the sake of preserving our win.

So what's the answer to this "pre-wired" dilemma?  A variance plan.  Exactly the way that I approach it.  You see, my friend, when you have it all pre-planned based upon your actual statistics, there is no "chasing" of losing jags and there is no "second-guessing" of cutting wins short.  There exists only LONG TERM RESULTS.  That is all I care about and that is all I play for.  And that is how my play is designed, so that I'm better prepared to back-off the current losing jags (read: pare my losses) and better-prepared to maximize the upturns (read: efficient recoup and/or profit).

Lastly, Joey, your "one never goes broke when in profit" is PURE GOLD.  If I were you, I'd write that at the very top of all your scorecards when you're playing, it'll keep you anchored and focused with a long term mind-set.

Look, Joey, knowing your shortcomings (as you enumerated in your first paragraph) is the first step towards eradicating them.  Do something about it.  Taper your game down with some specific rules/guidelines for yourself and you'll be on your way towards long term success.

As always, I wish it for all of you.  Stay well.

[joeystyle]

Thank you gr8 for your practical sound advice. Casinos love emotional players.  I'm sure they have done extensive studies on tapping into a player's emotions to have a major advantage over them because of it. Afterall, we are gamblers in their eyes ( are we honest it ,ourselves?). So, I will tamp down my emotions, and climb slower and continue to progress as a successful Baccarat Player. And, yes I will write in bold letters my motto!

Blessed day everyone!

Ciao
Joey

[AsymBacGuy]

I happen to believe, ABG, that the "edge" that I am "benefiting" from arises from the totality of my play, the entirety of my play, rather than any one singular, specific edge to my game.

Stay well, my friend.

That's really a good answer.
Period.


as.

[Jimske]

Quote from: gr8player on November 02, 2015, 02:14:47 pm

[quote Gr8]I happen to believe, ABG, that the "edge" that I am "benefiting" from arises from the totality of my play, the entirety of my play, rather than any one singular, specific edge to my game.[/quote]

[quote as]That's really a good answer.
Period.[/quote]

Make up your mind as.  There is either a verifiable edge or not.  Gr8 says not while you have been touting the opposite for months.  BTW, still waiting for the book you promise here and on other websites.

[AsymBacGuy]

Hi Jimskie!

Wait, I sayed that gr8player answer was the best he/she could provide as he/she cannot identify a verified edge.
I strongly believe that without a verified edge we are in big trouble to make a living at this game. At the same time, gr8player got my respect because he (for simplicity I assume is a man) illustrated many useful general approaches to get the best of it at baccarat.

Gr8player ideas of diluting the betting, properly considering the w/l ratios not in term of shoes or single sessions played but wholly assessed are, imo, viable options to get the best of it no matter what. After all, casinos aren't worried about a couple of losing sessions, we players do and this thing tend to worsen our game.
Moreover, he spoke about a "recovering plan". For what I know, the most brilliant gambling systems not including a mathematical edge have considered such important tool. I don't know the details of his recovering strategy, but again the idea is well placed.
In a word and imo, gr8player's posts are valuable in a sense or another.

Nonetheless I prefer to rely onto an edge. A verified edge, that is a statistical (or mathematical) very long term proof that my bets will win more often than not by a mechanical bet selection strategy.

There are many systems capable to get a mathematical edge over the house, all focused on the side bets. Few players utilize them and this is a pity as almost all high stakes rooms offer huge maximum side bets limits.
Of course a mathematical edge means counting cards and carefully registering them, a thing many high stakes players aren't willing to do.
Unfortunately and even though many casinos continue to offer very deep shoe penetrations (excellent for card counting procedures) there's a possible countermeasure. Yes, burning cards or cutting away from the play a substantial final portion of the 8-deck shoe). This being the case, we're done.

About BP bets nothing emerged in the literature, so the BP bets are considered unbeatable worldwide.
Yes, mathematically speaking they are (or better sayed they are insignificantly beatable by a card counting method).

After years of studying I've found that this is not the case.
My conclusion came from very long pc and real observations, maybe gr8player got the same conclusion by another perspective.
Both conclusions are scientifically unaccepted as fully denied by mathematics.

Good for us.
Once it was the sun to circle around the Earth, isn't it?

My book will be released soon, I don't know if it will be widely spread or restricted to few.
The reason to restrict its diffusion is because I don't 100% trust live automatic shuffler machines after possibly having instructed by humans what to do.

We never know.

as. 










 


   



 



 
     

[Jimske]

Hi Jimskie!

Wait, I sayed that gr8player answer was the best he/she could provide as he/she cannot identify a verified edge.

If you don't have a verified edge then we are basically playing a guessing and betting game.  Gr8 variance no different than mine or yours.

[gr8player]

Gr8 variance no different than mine or yours.

That may very well be true.  The differences are apparent, however, by the tracking and subsequent utilization of our variance(s).

Take this week's trip, for instance:

I struggled last week, as I expanded upon in my trip report, and picked up only a total of 4 units for the entirety.  And so, this week's trip, I will be upping my basic unit size (just slightly, but noticeably), all in anticipation of a "strike-rate correction" in the upward direction.  If I am correct (and you'll be able to read of it right here in this forum at trip's conclusion), I will maximize my profits just following an "off" week; again, all variance-based play, all the time.

Stay well.