+ Register

[alrelax]

Knowing everything about Baccarat with certainty.  Possible?

Impossible.  Utterly impossible.  Sorry, for those of you that come across, "I know everything about the game of Baccarat and then some--I can show you and you certainly can profit from it".  I would run so far, so fast, the opposite way--you would do a double take at how fast I actually accomplished getting out of there!

Let us take a look at knowing something with absolute certainty, especially in a game like baccarat where difference and opposites prevail without reasoning and of course, within the exact same set of rules and protocols. 

#1)  It is certainly possible to be absolutely certain ... and absolutely wrong. Correct operations upon mistaken premises do not generate useful results. 1+1=2 only if we agree on definitions of those symbols and their interpretation which make that a true statement; if we do, then it is true by definition within that system. We know that math is self-consistent, and we know it produces results which make useful predictions about the real world, and we find ways to refine it when if falls short (such as complex numbers)... that's as much truth as science ever offers.

#2) Yes it is through a process called "Deductive reasoning". Deductive reasoning implies that if all of the premises are true and if the inferences are valid, it follows that the conclusion must be true. Here's an example.

I have a bag full of black marbles. I will pull out a marble and record what color it is until the bag is empty. It follows that I will only have recorded that there are black balls in the bag.

Let's break this argument down:
1.   I have a bag full of black marbles.
2.   I will pull out a marble and record what color it is until the bag is empty.
3.   I will only have recorded that there are black balls in the bag.

Given that premise (1) and (2) are true, it follows that the conclusion (3) must be true.
To answer the question that is asked the most, in the event of an argument that uses deductive reasoning, it is possible for something to be known in absolute certainty. This works in theory, however in practice it is harder to say that all given premises are true.  And that my friends is the same as baccarat wagering, exactly!  And, most all of the wagering mistakes will originate right there, exactly with that.  The player will see it, argue it and conclude it to be true or at least what should happen. 

#3)  Conclusion: A general criterion of truth is self-contradictory (and all criteria of truth about empirical things are therefore arbitrary).
Since above we have called the content of a cognition its matter, one must therefore say that no general sign of the truth of the matter of cognition can be demanded, because it is self-contradictory. Wagering the way most of us do it or apply it, is actually a demand for the shoe to follow our thoughts and criterion instead of the opposite way around.  Think about it, think about it hard.

So if we speak of any criterion for the truth of the matter of cognition (i.e. anything that is given by sensibility in the form of (empirical) intuition, the answer has to be that there cannot be certainty, as truth value will always be contingent, depending on empirical habits and findings.

#4) I have a bag full of black marbles.

How do we know that we have this bag? We rely explicitly upon a world of phenomena, limited to our own perception, and uncertain of the extension of that perception to any sense of universality. There is an implicit ontology of "having", related ultimately to the "being" of these black marbles. There is a Cartesian instability to that existence, but we cannot rely on God's willing hand to move things back into place like Descartes did. Rather, we must move to the assumption that the bag does exist, but keep in mind that this assumption works not in any universal sense but rather in our own "life-world" (this is from Husserl's Crisis of the European Sciences). We cannot know that these black marbles exist in any universal sense, but we can observe that in our world, that they do exist.

This is not relativism - this is bracketing universality not to the world, but to all experiences of the world. Thus, that we draw only black marbles does not serve as a universal truth (because can we know with certainty of the a prior world outside of our experience?), but rather, as a norm. This is kind of leading all up to Habermasian communicative rationality, but I'll leave you to research the topic (though I don't recommend it particularly as a model for political-moral norms, it works perfectly well as a model for scientific rationality).

If you assume a human makes errors in logical deduction 5% of the time, then it seems to follow that it is impossible for a human to know anything (e.g. how to know 1+1=2). In which case it seems that the answer to my question is unknown. This is confusing to me, any thoughts?

Why does the human make these errors in logical deduction? Is it not simple, if given a set of axioms, that the conclusions may follow beautifully into place? The assumption of the "imperfect human" (imperfect in that they cannot calculate 1+1=2) is somewhat facetious - it's really that the human's (lack of) experience of the truthfulness of a validity claim (1+1=2) that can bring them to an incorrect conclusion.

#5)  In the Bayesian interpretation of probability, probability represents subjective belief. So there may be an ideal world with a perfect mathematician can make a deduction, and be 100% guaranteed to be correct. But a Bayesian reasoner in the real world must consider the possibility of errors, deception, or even crazy hypotheses like false memories. It must attach probabilities to all beliefs, and consider all hypotheses, far too many in the game of baccarat to stick to and score all correct or even the majority of your wagers correct, hand after hand after hand.

Humans are certainly not perfect. We make mistakes all the time. If nothing else, the neurons that run your brain are somewhat random and probabilistic, and you can't ever be 100% sure that your thoughts are memories are correct.

#6)  All proofs or arguments (deductive or otherwise) are finite; if they weren't, the conclusion could never be reached. They rely on premises, and those premises, forming the basis for the argument, are unproven.

You could create a proof of those premises; but that new proof would in turn itself rely on unproven premises. So, the problem is inescapable. Ultimately, all deductive reasoning depends on premises that aren't deductively proven.

Arguments often also rely on auxiliary premises that aren't explicitly present. They are background assumptions.

Premises fall into three categories: arbitrary premises, like those chosen for an abstract formal system; provisional or working premises; and self-evident truths.

And, right here in #6 the brutal truth and reality will surface as to why baccarat is so hard to consistently be correct in the hand after hand after hand scenario based upon your experience, knowledge and statistical deductions applied, etc., etc., and so on!

#7)  And about computer, statisticals and testing:  You see, computer people and believers need to be able to reason about the outside world, and to do that, they come up with models. Models are nice because they are finite and you can not only reason, but you can also prove hypotheses, baccarat wagering selection and much more. For example in a model of the traffic lights of an intersection, the traffic light can only be green or yellow or red, and not all at the same time, or dim red, or blue, because you define the model that way. Simple, the model is what the tester, the prover or the author is saying, it always will be one way or another and if not his way, at least proving your way will not and cannot work well.  Tell me if I am wrong!   

You can make models in mathematics, for example. If you take all natural numbers, define the + operator to mean your usual addition, then you can prove that 1 + 1 = 2 definitively. However, there is nothing preventing you from defining the model so that 2 + 2 = 5, it would just be a rather useless model.

Now, the reason we need models is because it's impossible to reason about the real world. And there are two ways to illustrate this.

Firstly, there is language. If you dig a little bit into linguistics, because trying to understand and generate natural language is a problem we've been working on for a while, you'll see that the biggest problem with human language is that it's ambiguous. And since our natural language is the only tool we have for reasoning about the real world, we can't really have absolute truths. Some people will agree and realize this and most will not.  Because that (most) as I just said, always have to have it their way no matter what. 

And for that same reason, it's so hard for a computer to understand natural language. Since I'm not a linguist, I unfortunately can't really go much into detail explaining why language is ambiguous, but think about this: if I say, "There is a cup on the table," then that is a very ambiguous statement. What is a cup? Is it a cup because it's atoms are arranged in a special way? Is it a cup because you use it like a cup? Is it a cup because it has a handle that looks a certain way? Would you still call it a cup if it were made out of a radioactive material? Would you still call it a cup if it had a hole in the bottom? Is it still a cup if it didn't have a handle? You see, the word "cup" is not well-defined, it's another model. 

To be able to have absolute truths, we'd need to have absolute knowledge, and we are unable to get that because we simply don't have the mental capacity. I dare say, to have absolute truths about the universe, we'd need to know the position and velocity of every single atom, electron, neutron, positron, neutrino, quark, photon and whatever news things the physicists discover, and to hold that information we'd need a brain that is large enough, and to have a brain that is large enough, it'd need to be larger than the universe because we need more than one atom to store a bit of information, and with a brain that size, the three-dimensional interconnections would be too slow, so we'd ideally need to live in a higher dimension as well.

My point is, our perception is limited by what we can see (two-dimensional image of a narrow range of photons), hear (short range acoustical signals), feel, smell, and process (with our inherently ambiguous and limited language). So, in effect we are limited to reasoning about models that we make of the world. That is how most of science works anyways, and the goal is to expand the model to make it as close to the real world as possible, while still allowing us to reason properly.  It is just that when talking, explaining and deciphering baccarat, it all has second and third or more meanings that do apply and are very necessary to properly understand and become successful at baccarat wagering, etc.

Once again and I know it surely gets old after the hundred millionth time, that is exactly the reason all casinos provide pencil, paper, scorecards, scoreboards and many even allow you to use a cell phone at the table.  There is a way to win, might not be what some of you think or desire or as long and consistent, but there most certainly is a way. 

[alrelax]

Sat there at the baccarat table last night in complete disbelief and then it hit me, like falling into that proverbial pot-of-gold at the end of that classic rainbow!  BOOM! 

I watched these three 100% convinced know-it-alls that they had baccarat all figured out.  I was back at a property I was formally banned at, but through invitation by the new host staff and of course, a release and reinstatement by the security department I went back for a change of scenery and to check out the place once again.

So there we all are.  The 3 know-it-alls, H-Money, my wife's friend and myself, the 6 of us.  The game is getting interesting on many points.  Maybe about hand 40 or so, regardless, about half way.  Everyone is doing the blues, winning some and losing some.  Nothing magical, nothing outstanding, no records setters in other words. 

However, those 3 players are talking and making it known, that they know what will be presented and when.  Hey, do not get me wrong, I want nothing more than anyone to win.  I am old school when playing this game, unlike the vast majority at today's tables.  Whereupon they really do wager against you and prey you lose or actually do pick a side with considerably less money wagered to fulfill a belief that you will lose and the casino will alter a shoe to pay less money out, etc., etc., etc., and so on. 

H-Money is with almost his regular pointing and observing, alternating with or against other players for whatever reasons, but not in a vindictive or hateful mode by any means.  My wife's friend is an extremely patient and drawn out type of player, waiting for her opportunity, pouncing on it and taking the profit every time she capitalizes on wagering.  The first half of the shoe was extremely unbalanced with both B's and P's either weak or strong.  There was a few 4's and 5's and one 7 repeating streak.  Then it went to ones and twos.  It was pretty much Players sitting around 20 wins with ties around 7 and the Bankers about 12 or so.

All the 3 kept saying was; Banker, Banker, Banker.  They would wager $250.00 and lose, their next wager was $500.00 or greater and lose, then their third wager would be $800 to $1,200.00 or better and lose again.  Each time their mouths did that complete jaw line drop open, especially when Player won with a 7 over the Banker 6 or the Player total of 1 over the Banker total of 0.  Classic, Sad; But absolutely true!

This went on for a while, a good 15 or so hands where the 3 had to continuously buy in and buy in for extra chips to wager with.  They were so hell bent on the shoe equaling out right then, they were just not comprehending that some shoes just never do equal out.  I have said many times on this board right here.  + - 10 and then if it goes beyond it goes to + - 20 for the counts.  Although the shoes that finish with a + - 20 total hands are considerably fewer and less that finish right at + - 10 or considerable less than the + - 10 count, it does happen.  And, if you are going to believe that shoe has to equal out, be prepared to Marty or wager greater than Marty amounts in order to catch-up and recoup.   

Each one was in complete awe, no doubt.  I wanted so bad to say something to them, but I really did not know them at all.  Like I said, I have not played at this property for a good 3 years or so.  Of course, when they either switched sides to the Player or dropped their wagers way down, they won the bet.  And, all they did was visibly add more fuel to their own fires they had going.   

And deduced down here it is spelled out for you:  The physical world exists independent of the observer.  Especially at the baccarat table.  Watch, watch, watch and add all your feelings, experiences, math and/or stats into the mix, etc., etc., etc., and so on and so forth.  Then your wagering inclinations arise and BOOM, you wager.  You are influenced by the observation you witness.  It happens, no matter whom you are or what experience you have, tell me it does not!  It does.  Period. 

And our sense of reality is how accurately we can perceive that physical world and thus forms the truthfulness of our knowledge.  Relate this to the above post I wrote last night.  A vivid example of this is; The ever expanding amazing discoveries of outer space, billions of galaxies.  Those galaxies exist, no matter if they are discovered or not, they do.  So does a tree to a blind person, so does being fashion model skinny/slim to an overweight person, so does being a winner in a sporting event to those that lose the event. No matter if those people admit it or not, all those types of situations exist.  Does not matter if the blind person cannot see the tree I am talking about, or the overweight person admits that fashion model slender people are desirous over themselves, etc., etc.  The understanding and knowledge of the realities I mentioned are reality.  However, that reality is the same as baccarat.  Might be in every single situation presented in front of you and possibly, not showing up for a time or two or five or ten. 

So reality can be accurate, be incorrect for the situation but on the other hand correct, might be absent of a required component to make it a reality, etc. 

Thoughts.  Re-Read that, THOUGHTS.

I agree with you. BUT, there are additionals that must be considered in baccarat that are not always known or verbalized aloud.

Okay, how can I explain it?  Here let me try.  At baccarat, at the table, real money in a live game.  Many will say easy.  Grind a few units, get up, cash out and leave.  Do that very same thing day in and day out and live nice.  On the other hand, of course they have no proof that they do exactly what they are preaching, no matter the unit size or not.  In each and every instance I called someone out on just that, the answer was always the same.  I cannot produce anything because I would be identified, banned and cost myself  the professional living I built up by exposing myself to the casino personnel combing these forums to call-out the players that are getting over on them every day.  Okay, great, sure thing.

But what is the real answer and your real deduction as to the material being thrown at you at the table?  It is only going to benefit you after your understanding and conscious knowledge of physical reality of accuracy and inaccuracy; correctness and incorrectness; presence and absence; your role within or outside of the wagering that you are witnessing and the effects within you.  If you tell yourself there are none and you are oblivious to whatever happens at the table, no matter what, you are totally fooling yourself. 

All in all, there is the truth, the factual existence of the shoe and its presentments which will be made is the exact truth, nothing else.  Everything else is emotions, beliefs, desires, hopes, dreams, stories and other related fiction that you choose to believe to some point.  The latter is felt within you, you cannot and will not stop that much from happening at the baccarat table.

So, if you are still with me and following me, let me try to conclusively end this in two additional thoughts/sentences.  #1)  Most of the time the truth is not felt by the people around the baccarat table because they are programmed and believing what they have read, experienced and have knowledge of and the shoe will only sometimes present sections that would match the players programming.  And #2) What is truth to one player, will not be to another player.  We cannot easily change and we cannot have two minds, changing and having minds hurts and confuses the inner-self.  And, you will not do that to yourself in most all cases and events. 

[alrelax]

(Copy of edited Email I received last Thursday.  Glen, remember please, Be A Good Boy!)

6 of 1,696
Reinstatement to [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Casino]
Inbox
x

XXXXXXX.XXXXXX <XXXXXX.XXXXXXXXXX@XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX>
Thu, Sep 26, XXXX.XXXX (3 days ago)
to me

Glenn,



Per our conversation today, your playing privileges have been reinstated.  You are welcome to visit the casino and other areas of our property.  Please remember that this is a probationary reinstatement, so if there are any issues that arise the property may choose to reverse this reinstatement and any future ban from property would be permanent without the chance for reinstatement.





Thanks,



XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXX/XXXXXXXXXX Manager

XXXXXXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXX   XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, XX, XXXXXX

XXX.XXX.XXXX

XXXX.XXXXXXXXXXXXXX@XXXXXXXXXXX.com / wwwXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.com



** XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX**

[AsymBacGuy]

I do not understand.

What happened?

as.

[Albalaha]

Good to see you reinstated. By the way, did you do anything nasty apart from winning, Glenn?

[alrelax]

I do not understand.

What happened?

as.

Good to see you reinstated. By the way, did you do anything nasty apart from winning, Glenn?

Back from 2015 and 2016.  I turned a 30 day ban into a 60 then a 90 then a permanent one back 3 years ago.  It was not so much throwing the shoe into the pit it was the security and the way they handled it.  Fast forward, now all resolved.  However, the place has changed and most of the players are not even there any longer as they choose other properties over this place. Table limits are lowered and other ancillary items weighing negatively on bringing business at least for bac to this property.

But to answer yours and Albalaha's question is the above.