And here I ain't even Irish but did have the good fortune to buck up against the following excellent L/W cluster, hey hey.
LLLLLLLLLLWWLLLLLLLWWLLLLLLLLLLWW
Is L/ W supposed to be Bank/ Player?
Quote from: 21 Aces on April 10, 2016, 02:24:37 AM
Is L/ W supposed to be Bank/ Player?
L = Lose, you slimy dog's worth of a bet selector.
W = Win, you master of the universe genius.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 10, 2016, 02:28:46 AM
L = Lose, you slimy dog's worth of a bet selector.
W = Win, you master of the universe genius.
Then why would it be lucky? Mostly loss then...
With that many L's in a row you gotta be digging deep,very deep
Bacman
Quote from: soxfan on April 10, 2016, 01:04:22 AM
And here I ain't even Irish but did have the good fortune to buck up against the following excellent L/W cluster, hey hey.
LLLLLLLLLLWWLLLLLLLWWLLLLLLLLLLWW
A particular style of variance may be handled with a particular MM but it may not be a good general strategy still.
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLWWWWWWW CAN BE BEATEN WITH Oscar's Grind or Pluscoup but that doesn't help us with other cruel or even regular variance.[/size]
Soxfan, as a 11 steps parley player you are indeed an extremely lucky cat.
Hope you had the balls to chase and get your money back on the WW streaks.
Good for you soxfan.
I copped this one recently, no bull.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWL
It just goes to show that if you play long enough you'll buck up against all kinda strange things and stuff too. In any event, this makes up for last year when I got clipped for two progressions busts outs in the same damned shoe. That ain't happened before or since and not even during my testings against 2 thousands shoes, hey hey.
Quote from: greenguy on April 10, 2016, 10:18:56 AM
Good for you soxfan.
I copped this one recently, no bull.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWL
Dang, that would be sweet proposition, hey hey!
Quote from: Bacman on April 10, 2016, 05:27:08 AM
With that many L's in a row you gotta be digging deep,very deep
Bacman
Ya gotta have the balls and bankroll, baby, hey hey!
Hi sofan I am still interested in your bets selections process.
Quote from: goez on April 10, 2016, 12:08:26 PM
Hi sofan I am still interested in your bets selections process.
Can't really teach the subjective style, but it ain't no big thing. The mm/progression and the balls and bankroll are much more important than the bets selections. I'll leave it to the gr8888888888one and the jimske to capture better than 51% winner and I'll content myself with the thousands of units profits; cuz that's plenty enough to feed the bulldog and that's what counts, hey hey!
In a $10 table, soxfan progression requires a bankroll of $875. If you bust you are down $875. Soxfan has a subjective style of bet selection that gives him back to back wins within 11 attempts most of the time. Unless your bet selection can duplicate this feat, you will be out of money.
Most of the common bet selections dbl, odbl, fld, old etc. fail in zumma 1600 using soxfan progression. Progression alone can not make you a winner, unless you have a bet selection that makes it a winner. All bet selections have a negative edge of about 1.15% flat betting, and no progression will make it a winner mathematically.
Quote from: james on April 10, 2016, 01:48:41 PM
In a $10 table, soxfan progression requires a bankroll of $875. If you bust you are down $875.
You would need more than that.
Using his progression of 2,2,2,6,8,10,15,20,25,35,50 (See June 7, 2015), you would be down 125 units after ten consecutive losses.
In order to make the 50 unit bet after ten losses, you would need a BR of 175 units.
Using that progression, the deficit would be 50 units plus commissions after winning the last 50 unit bet.
soxfan is making that bulldog fatter and fatter ----he probably has a good enough bet selection to win enough in 11 attempts with some losses included ----nothing wrong with that
Last night was full of correct plays being smoked by one for me consecutively. I was on the winning side of two stolen high payout plays where the high payout lost by one. A shoe with more naturals than the Amazon that was chopping like a watch. _hit happens.
I think you either have to bank roll through it or take a break in some way. Things can turn.
(https://betselection.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.boston.com%2Fbonzai-fba%2FGlobe_Photo%2F2007%2F10%2F06%2F1191646590_2503.jpg&hash=984b38f8c03225dff265a081bb6be8fdc2d6012f)
Quote from: james on April 10, 2016, 01:48:41 PM
In a $10 table, soxfan progression requires a bankroll of $875. If you bust you are down $875. Soxfan has a subjective style of bet selection that gives him back to back wins within 11 attempts most of the time. Unless your bet selection can duplicate this feat, you will be out of money.
2-2-2-6-8-10-15-20-25-35-50 units bets. Don't that add up to $1,750.00? Yup.
The soxfan prog got to hit at least 90% of prog win to come out ahead. I say at least because my brief study of several hundred shoes not exhaustive so it's more like an educated guess. Winning even 85% is a loser from work I've done.
QuoteMost of the common bet selections dbl, odbl, fld, old etc. fail in zumma 1600 using soxfan progression. Progression alone can not make you a winner, unless you have a bet selection that makes it a winner. All bet selections have a negative edge of about 1.15% flat betting, and no progression will make it a winner mathematically.
Yup and don't you think it's about time that everyone gets this through their head? So when you hear "subjective" bet selection please read "guessing." So how does Jimske do it? He guesses. LOL However he does start with fixed rule bet selections that, in and of themselves, will produce 50%. If things going south changes are in order. You got to know your bet selection(s) cold and what they lose to and what they win to. So you got to choose something that conforms to the shoe and hope that it will stay long enough to get a few wins. In soxfan case then hope it stays long enough to get back to back which is VERY common.
Simple.
I haven't seen it, but will. Unofficial clothing line of baccarat. I have always found their ads to be very informative.
(https://betselection.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia2.intoday.in%2Findiatoday%2Fimages%2FPhoto_gallery%2F4_103013044528.jpg&hash=409462bf2cc6375d464dff588f286a15573ebf38)
Ah, if only it were truly that "simple", Jimske. Alas, it is not. At least, it wasn't for me:
I played, years ago, a similar style to that of the Soxter's. I needed back-to-back parlayed wins within a certain number of bets. And I, too, was playing a subjective bet selection process.
I was doing well for quite a while. Until: Bally's casino, mini-bac, I was at the last (read: highest) bet of my progression, and I distinctly remember my hesitation at putting up that bet, even though I was supposed to bet for the "reccurring double" on the Banker's side at that time. Well, that hesitation cost me dearly that day, as I missed the winning play after watching that Bank win go by, and further exacerbated the problem when I lost my next subjective placement and effectively busted my progression. That was the last time that I played that style.
You see, at least for me, anyway, that subjective placement becomes a rather "shaky" proposition when you're at the highest level of bet in your progression, and I found that the pressure of that bet caused my "subjectiveness" to wander. And that, for me, was the end of it.
Now I find that the smaller I bet, the more I win, in the long run. Yes, winnings are smaller, too; but so are losses, and those smaller losses are relatively easily eradicated through my long term play.
I feel compelled to add that my post in no way is meant as a knock on Soxster's preferred playing style. In fact, I find that if you do, in fact, have the "balls" (as Soxster so eloquently puts it) to play that style, than there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Again, I did very well for quite some time with it. It's just that those higher bets were, obviously, out of my own personal comfort zone and when I found that that affected my bet selection process (which was then and still is a rather "subjective" one), that is when I decided to adjust my bet sizes waaayyyy downward. In that manner, I can now place my bets without the hesitation that accompanies undue stress.
Mr majiks money management technique
Need a back to back win one time within 12 tries
Soxfan progression is 2-2-2-6-8-10-15-20-25-35-50 or 10-10-10-30-40-50-75-100-125-175-250. Add it up and and you will get $875.00 in a $10 table.
Quote from: james on April 10, 2016, 08:27:19 PM
Soxfan progression is 2-2-2-6-8-10-15-20-25-35-50 or 10-10-10-30-40-50-75-100-125-175-250. Add it up and and you will get $875.00 in a $10 table.
You're making a mistake. I don't know where you get the second $10 prog that does add up to 875 but the first prog which he wrote gets to 175 units or $1,750.00 at $10.
Quote from: gr8player on April 10, 2016, 06:57:50 PM
Ah, if only it were truly that "simple", Jimske. Alas, it is not. At least, it wasn't for me:
I played, years ago, a similar style to that of the Soxter's. I needed back-to-back parlayed wins within a certain number of bets. And I, too, was playing a subjective bet selection process.
I was doing well for quite a while. Until: Bally's casino, mini-bac, I was at the last (read: highest) bet of my progression, and I distinctly remember my hesitation at putting up that bet, even though I was supposed to bet for the "reccurring double" on the Banker's side at that time. Well, that hesitation cost me dearly that day, as I missed the winning play after watching that Bank win go by, and further exacerbated the problem when I lost my next subjective placement and effectively busted my progression. That was the last time that I played that style.
You see, at least for me, anyway, that subjective placement becomes a rather "shaky" proposition when you're at the highest level of bet in your progression, and I found that the pressure of that bet caused my "subjectiveness" to wander. And that, for me, was the end of it.
Now I find that the smaller I bet, the more I win, in the long run. Yes, winnings are smaller, too; but so are losses, and those smaller losses are relatively easily eradicated through my long term play.
Ahhh the Gr8 one is back. Not simple? You got the holy grail. Maybe the rules are not so easy to learn but how hard can it be to follow rules. Sox says he can't teach his placement because it has an element of subjectivity. Makes sense. Your method with a terrific win rate of 54% is not subjective therefore teachable, right?
Why not try to find someone and teach it to them for a nice fat one time pay check. Wouldn't be too hard to get someone to fork over a couple hundred grand for the holy grail!
Quote from: james on April 10, 2016, 08:27:19 PM
Soxfan progression is 2-2-2-6-8-10-15-20-25-35-50 or 10-10-10-30-40-50-75-100-125-175-250. Add it up and and you will get $875.00 in a $10 table.
This is what sox uses?
Needs two wins?
Quote from: soxfan on April 10, 2016, 01:04:22 AM
And here I ain't even Irish but did have the good fortune to buck up against the following excellent L/W cluster, hey hey.
LLLLLLLLLLWWLLLLLLLWWLLLLLLLLLLWW
Mr majiks MM beats this
Awesome to have big bank to throw and have nominal performance still mean something. For example, 100 large to win 3 or 5!
Imo one, two, three or even more shoes could get us the most tough spots ever encountered no matter how sophisticated our BS or MM will be.
So, imo, we should think the game as a long term proposition, the like casinos will make tons of bucks itlr, accepting the short-intermediate losing periods.
Any single shoe has its own history and there are two main mistakes we can do, a minor and a major one: trying to adapt to the actual shoe (minor mistake) and trying to "force" our expected outcomes by a strong MM (major mistake).
The adjective "minor" and "major" are not intended for the prediction of the future outcomes but just for reward/risk issues.
Imo we can't give casinos the luxury to catch all or great part of our money just on one, two or three key hands.
As already posted, there must be a general plan and an actual plan.
The wisest move we can do to match those plans is to wait, wait and wait. Not hoping to get the expected when things seem to not coming in our favor (of course the term "our favor" is totally subjective, being the byproduct of what our betting plan dictates).
There's no a f possibility that some expected outcomes of some lenght won't appear after 3 or 4 shoes. Especially if some unexpected outcomes were overrepresented on the last shoes.
Virtually losing some bets, imo, will get the best results.
In the sense that we can start our betting plan after some virtual losses.
Anyone here knows the difficulty to keep the winnings after some played shoes, well we should think the perfect opposite when we're finding us on the losing (virtual) side.
as.
Quote from: Jimske on April 10, 2016, 09:00:15 PM
Ahhh the Gr8 one is back. Not simple? You got the holy grail. Maybe the rules are not so easy to learn but how hard can it be to follow rules. Sox says he can't teach his placement because it has an element of subjectivity. Makes sense. Your method with a terrific win rate of 54% is not subjective therefore teachable, right?
Why not try to find someone and teach it to them for a nice fat one time pay check. Wouldn't be too hard to get someone to fork over a couple hundred grand for the holy grail!
Hello, Jimske, I trust all is well with you.
I do play a rather subjective game; had you have read my very next post below the one you quoted, you'd have known that.
You and I both know that there exists no "mechanical" holy grail, so why even bother to bring that up?
That all said, my game most certainly is "teachable", even given its subjective nature. I've been "teaching" on these boards for years now, and I have enlightened many a member as to the real truths of how one might be able to get the better of this game over the long run.
But, know this, my friend, it's anything but "simple". If it were, this game would not exist for us.
Stay well.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on April 10, 2016, 11:15:29 PM
So, imo, we should think the game as a long term proposition, the like casinos will make tons of bucks itlr, accepting the short-intermediate losing periods.
Imo we can't give casinos the luxury to catch all or great part of our money just on one, two or three key hands.
As already posted, there must be a general plan and an actual plan.
The wisest move we can do to match those plans is to wait, wait and wait.
Virtually losing some bets, imo, will get the best results.
In the sense that we can start our betting plan after some virtual losses.
Anyone here knows the difficulty to keep the winnings after some played shoes, well we should think the perfect opposite when we're finding us on the losing (virtual) side.
as.
Spot on, ABG; good job, my friend.
I've been espousing the inherent advantages of "virtual losses" forever, and my Bac game would not/could not succeed lacking same.
After two consecutive losses (three, at most), I'll await a virtual win before recommencing real betting. In this manner, I find myself "recalculating" my position constantly, as well as "re-reading" the table's current propensities.
Know this: Often times, my "no-bet" (read: virtual) option is my most powerful weapon at the time.
Stay well.
gr8player: thanks, my friend!
Along with maybe a couple or three posters here, with 1 trillion accuracy there wouldn't be a f. single chance we can lose itlr playing this game together.
No jokes, we should set up a team.
as.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on April 10, 2016, 09:19:35 PM
Mr majiks MM beats this
Soxfan progression is a variation of Mr. Majik progression. Both need two consecutive wins. In Soxfan progression you win more as you go deeper, whereas in Majik progression you win the same amount.
Quote from: Jimske on April 10, 2016, 08:53:23 PM
You're making a mistake. I don't know where you get the second $10 prog that does add up to 875 but the first prog which he wrote gets to 175 units or $1,750.00 at $10.
You are right if the unit size is $10 and the starting bet is $20. The total loss if you bust is $1750.
My numbers are for unit size of $5 and starting bet of $10 for $10 minimum tables.
james
with a strong bet selection it should do fine
the bet selection technique is the big one
HOW do we get a back to back win once within 12 tries guaranteed?
Quote from: Eight Iron on April 10, 2016, 02:41:02 PM
You would need more than that.
Using his progression of 2,2,2,6,8,10,15,20,25,35,50 (See June 7, 2015), you would be down 125 units after ten consecutive losses.
In order to make the 50 unit bet after ten losses, you would need a BR of 175 units.
Using that progression, the deficit would be 50 units plus commissions after winning the last 50 unit bet.
A single win at the 50 units level don't get it done, ya gotta capture the parlay to scoop a fat profit and reset the progression to first bet, hey hey.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on April 11, 2016, 01:05:39 AM
james
with a strong bet selection it should do fine
the bet selection technique is the big one
HOW do we get a back to back win once within 12 tries guaranteed?
You can't avoid progressions busts outs. They are inevitable, the cost of doing business, nothing more or less. I buck up against 30 shoe each and every week and win about 90% of shoe. My lifetime bankroll is 1800 unit so no single progression busts clips me for more than 10% of my lifetime roll; and I often capture 40+ units profits on winning shoe so it ain't too hard to claw back from those 175 units busts outs, hey hey.
Quote from: soxfan on April 11, 2016, 03:34:04 AM
You can't avoid progressions busts outs. They are inevitable, the cost of doing business, nothing more or less. I buck up against 30 shoe each and every week and win about 90% of shoe. My lifetime bankroll is 1800 unit so no single progression busts clips me for more than 10% of my lifetime roll; and I often capture 40+ units profits on winning shoe so it ain't too hard to claw back from those 175 units busts outs, hey hey.
I understand
Quote from: gr8player on April 10, 2016, 11:21:50 PM
Hello, Jimske, I trust all is well with you.
I do play a rather subjective game; had you have read my very next post below the one you quoted, you'd have known that.
You and I both know that there exists no "mechanical" holy grail, so why even bother to bring that up?
That all said, my game most certainly is "teachable", even given its subjective nature. I've been "teaching" on these boards for years now, and I have enlightened many a member as to the real truths of how one might be able to get the better of this game over the long run.
But, know this, my friend, it's anything but "simple". If it were, this game would not exist for us.
Stay well.
We've been having the same discussion on these forums for over ten years. We keep on going around and around. Perhaps it's just a matter of definition which causes the problem.
You got soxfan implying can't teach the bet selection because it's subjective. Than Gr8 contradicts and says yes his method subjective but it can be taught. Can we all at least agree that both statements cannot be true?
My definition of "subjective" play or perhaps better stated as subjective bet placement simply means that given the same exact circumstance(s) one would not necessarily make the same placement(s). Further, subjective bet placements are not rule based therefore cannot be demonstrated to either have a positive or negative expectation.
So if you say you can teach subjective bet placement then what can be said other than show how to make some educated guess based on some pre-condition?
If you call advising players to be patient, have discipline, use virtual losses, promoting the 7-Step negative prog and money management "teaching" and "enlightening" than yeah. . . fine, whatever.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on April 11, 2016, 12:07:50 AM
gr8player: thanks, my friend!
Along with maybe a couple or three posters here, with 1 trillion accuracy there wouldn't be a f. single chance we can lose itlr playing this game together.
No jokes, we should set up a team.
as.
Wait . . . was it a year now? two years ago? when you were going to fly to the East Coast and get together with me and/or Gr8 to combine talents? You've been spewing hot air on this and other forums for years now.
First it was knowing some "rare opportunities" that had a high positive expectation that for some reason could not be revealed. Then came the book endeavor which was going to be published "soon." Lately you're thinking maybe it should be two or three books!
Are you surprised , John, that you have lost all credibility?
Quote from: james on April 11, 2016, 12:42:02 AM
Soxfan progression is a variation of Mr. Majik progression. Both need two consecutive wins. In Soxfan progression you win more as you go deeper, whereas in Majik progression you win the same amount.
You need to be able to capture more than just a coupla unit for a coup of back to back win, hey hey.
Quote from: Jimske on April 11, 2016, 02:42:52 PM
Wait . . . was it a year now? two years ago? when you were going to fly to the East Coast and get together with me and/or Gr8 to combine talents? You've been spewing hot air on this and other forums for years now.
First it was knowing some "rare opportunities" that had a high positive expectation that for some reason could not be revealed. Then came the book endeavor which was going to be published "soon." Lately you're thinking maybe it should be two or three books!
Are you surprised , John, that you have lost all credibility?
"
Do I contradict myself? / Very well then I contradict myself / (I am large, I contain multitudes)".
(Walt Whitman)
as.
I made this post to show that at times you will need and get some good lucks on yer side. Also, you can win when yer bets selection is capturing less than 50% winner, hey hey!
Quote from: soxfan on April 11, 2016, 08:58:00 PM
I made this post to show that at times you will need and get some good lucks on yer side. Also, you can win when yer bets selection is capturing less than 50% winner, hey hey!
If you were able to pass such horrible sequence you must be good at this game. :thumbsup:
as.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on April 11, 2016, 09:58:39 PM
If you were able to pass such horrible sequence you must be good at this game. :thumbsup:
as.
The baccarats is a serious thing but most cats ain't serious, hey hey.
I simulated this progression over ten trials.
Starting with a BR of $18,000.
Betting Unit = $10
It busted 100% of the time.
Total number of hands to bust ranged from 8,500 to 26,000.
Average number of hands before busting was 16,000 hands.
Total Loss = $180,000
What was the bet selection you used in the simulation? I believe Sox Fan applies experience based discretionary bet selection. You can't simulate that.
Quote from: Eight Iron on April 12, 2016, 10:05:57 AM
I simulated this progression over ten trials.
Starting with a BR of $18,000.
Betting Unit = $10
It busted 100% of the time.
Total number of hands to bust ranged from 8,500 to 26,000.
Average number of hands before busting was 16,000 hands.
Total Loss = $180,000
Your simulation would not matter because sox fan has a selective bet selection.
He does not bet every hand
When he busts (which he will its the price of gambling) he is still up or wins it back fast with his lifetime bankroll
Not everything is cookie cutter one size fits all
Quote from: 21 Aces on April 12, 2016, 11:20:12 AM
I believe Sox Fan applies experience based discretionary bet selection. You can't simulate that.
Well, we know how well that worked out, don't we.
Ten losses in a row, then seven losses in a row, then ten more losses in a row.
Quote from: Eight Iron on April 12, 2016, 12:43:52 PM
Well, we know how well that worked out, don't we.
Ten losses in a row, then seven losses in a row, then ten more losses in a row.
Bet selection means everything
Your assuming he walks up to the table and just bets this progression over and over again.
Not true
So instead of attempting to find fault, make the glass half full and find how to make it work
We know all progressions bust.
Got to play smart
I can make a martingale work......
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on April 11, 2016, 08:53:32 PM
"Do I contradict myself? / Very well then I contradict myself / (I am large, I contain multitudes)".
(Walt Whitman)
as.
Look - this really isn't personal with me though I can understand why it seems like a personal attack. You may be a real nice guy with good intentions. Same with Gr8 for that matter.
You now invoke Walt Whitman as if to justify two years of claims and promises. Here's a quote that is more befitting: "the emperor has no clothes,"
Quote from: RouletteGhost on April 12, 2016, 01:07:57 PM
Bet selection means everything
Yes it does. However, IMO, a formula does NOT exist whereby one can follow in order to overcome the HA. If one such did exist than it could easily be demonstrated through "vector analysis" and would constitute "holy grail." This no matter striving for a 12 step parlay, win more hands than lose, whatever.
There is no reason to doubt that he manages to maintain a higher percentage of wins in order to reap an acceptable profit but I'll guarantee it is due to an ability to deviate from some chosen mechanical placement. If he disagrees he can say so. I have worked with this prog quite a bit and have found that, like any other deep prog, it sure gets by an awful lot of breakouts. So the key is to know when to deviate. I don't know how he does it but I can tell you what I do. Before I lose too many I look at the shoe and decide what placement will do better IF the most recent "bias" continues. I'll choose from 4 different placements, some of which overlap. Thus, it comes down to a guess, doesn't it?
A shoe from yesterday went South quick after some good wins: LLLWLWWLWW....LLWLLLLLWLLLWW. Didn't get a parlay until the 11th try. If you'r Gr8 player with a 54% strike rate or me with a lowly 51.13% strike rate it shouldn't be too hard to overcome devastating breakouts.
Like Gr8, I don't have the nerve to go all the way and it has helped me out a few times (I did go all the way with the above). So I use a hedge with the parlay based on MM and perception of individual shoe bias.
THUS IT COMES DOWN TO A GUESS, DOESN'T IT?
Quote from: Jimske on April 12, 2016, 04:05:33 PM
Thus, it comes down to a guess, doesn't it?
...
THUS IT COMES DOWN TO A GUESS, DOESN'T IT?
And the best guess involves the use of an existence of an occurring overall global dominance. It would be worth knowing what I'm saying. The term "global effect" and "global dominance" are characteristics of randomness coined by me. So you will only find the concept here at this forum. At least if I were to play deep I would use the slight advantage of the coincidence.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 12, 2016, 06:02:15 PM
And the best guess involves the use of an existence of an occurring overall global dominance. It would be worth knowing what I'm saying. The term "global effect" and "global dominance" are characteristics of randomness coined by me. So you will only find the concept here at this forum. At least if I were to play deep I would use the slight advantage of the coincidence.
I don't know what you mean by "global" but betting the dominance is what most players do. Whether they're playing derivative roads or Ellis' NOR. Sometimes the dominance in a shoe is more extreme than other times. In way of an example you might find a shoe where P had no more than 2 IAR or maybe one side has few 1's IAR. There are a lot of nuanced stuff like that. Extreme you could find long dragon runs or chops or 22222 or whatever - happens all the time.
Quote from: Jimske on April 12, 2016, 07:19:07 PM
I don't know what you mean by "global" but betting the dominance is what most players do. Whether they're playing derivative roads or Ellis' NOR. Sometimes the dominance in a shoe is more extreme than other times. In way of an example you might find a shoe where P had no more than 2 IAR or maybe one side has few 1's IAR. There are a lot of nuanced stuff like that. Extreme you could find long dragon runs or chops or 22222 or whatever - happens all the time.
I gave it the term global because a global variable in the X-talk language is a way of keeping the data in that variable alive and accessible from any functionality in a running application. It's a way of declaring data as permanent and usable everywhere. So in randomness it is like a trend or set of patterns that are everywhere. For example, you might notice that every time the blacks hit that there is always a second black that follows it at least once. When it changes to red there is at least one red that follows it every time too. Then it switches and starts happening the same way in the odd/even bets. It looks like a dominance of doubles but it happens everywhere. I once saw a global dominance occur on four different Roulette tables at the same time and last for four and one half hours. I've seen thousands of different types of global effects that last typically for at least thirty minutes or more.
What I'm suggesting is using an existing global effect to risk a deep progression and only during one. You can pick the best time to go deep. Just trying to suggest a best guess.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 12, 2016, 08:45:34 PM
I gave it the term global because a global variable in the X-talk language is a way of keeping the data in that variable alive and accessible from any functionality in a running application. It's a way of declaring data as permanent and usable everywhere. So in randomness it is like a trend or set of patterns that are everywhere. For example, you might notice that every time the blacks hit that there is always a second black that follows it at least once. When it changes to red there is at least one red that follows it every time too. Then it switches and starts happening the same way in the odd/even bets. It looks like a dominance of doubles but it happens everywhere. I once saw a global dominance occur on four different Roulette tables at the same time and last for four and one half hours. I've seen thousands of different types of global effects that last typically for at least thirty minutes or more.
What I'm suggesting is using an existing global effect to risk a deep progression and only during one. You can pick the best time to go deep. Just trying to suggest a best guess.
So this shoe should qualify? Didn't start so great for me but after W 5 and L 6 I won 67% of next 43 bets. I did real well but any takers why some more aggressive players might have taken a good portion of the rack? And what was the placement?
BBB ppp B pp BBBBBB p B p BB p B p BB p BBBB p BBBBBB p B p BBB pp B p BB p BBB pp BBB
Maybe Sox Fan can go back on everyone's behalf and call for a forensic review of the shoe based on the surveillance records. :nope:
I googled "Luck of the Irish", and found the following text...
"During the gold and silver rush years in the second half of the 19th century, a number of the most famous and successful miners were of Irish and Irish American birth. . . .Over time this association of the Irish with mining fortunes led to the expression 'luck of the Irish.' Of course, it carried with it a certain tone of derision, as if to say, only by sheer luck, as opposed to brains, could these fools succeed."
Seems an apt title for the thread now that it's clarified.
Quote from: Jimske on April 12, 2016, 09:47:54 PM
So this shoe should qualify? Didn't start so great for me but after W 5 and L 6 I won 67% of next 43 bets. I did real well but any takers why some more aggressive players might have taken a good portion of the rack? And what was the placement?
BBB ppp B pp BBBBBB p B p BB p B p BB p BBBB p BBBBBB p B p BBB pp B p BB p BBB pp BBB
That's a spectacular example of it. It's not 100% perfect but it's definitely a strong characteristic. Not only do the Bankers repeat a lot but the Players single a lot too. That's like when the casino acts like an ATM machine.
Quote from: Jimske on April 12, 2016, 09:47:54 PM
BBB ppp B pp BBBBBB p B p BB p B p BB p BBBB p BBBBBB p B p BBB pp B p BB p BBB pp BBB
That shoe would have given me a few back to back win, hey hey.
Quote from: 21 Aces on April 12, 2016, 10:24:05 PM
Maybe Sox Fan can go back on everyone's behalf and call for a forensic review of the shoe based on the surveillance records. :nope:
Maybe you can. You've been ballyhooing about how easy the game is and how we all are a bunch of morons looking at long run, statistics, etc. Give it a shot!
The game is easy relative to a lot out there. How a thread on being lucky with a series of plays turned into some completely off the charts academic discussion would be standard here. People talking about:
- Nobody wins.
- Nobody wins IN THE LONG RUN!!!!
- 1% of players know what they are doing.
- Super secret shuffle shoe XYZ should be played like this. And if you do this exact bet selection and that exact bet sizing, you'll win 51% of the hands!!!
I'm summoning the Dark Wizard right now to unleash his Black Riders and their super secret shoe shuffles as we speak. Seriously contact the house and dig up the video for review!
Quote from: Jimske on April 12, 2016, 09:47:54 PM
So this shoe should qualify? Didn't start so great for me but after W 5 and L 6 I won 67% of next 43 bets. I did real well but any takers why some more aggressive players might have taken a good portion of the rack? And what was the placement?
Lw LLLwwwLwLwwL wL wwL wwwwLwwwwwLwL wwwLL wL wwLLwwwLLwww
BBB ppp B pp BBBBBB p B p BB p B p BB p BBBB p BBBBBB p B p BBB pp B p BB p BBB pp BBB
I play for dominance. This shoe has a clear banker dominance, not that you would know at the start.
I chart for 4 of 1 and 3 or less of the other, so after BBB ppp B there is a 4/3 ratio to banker. Here I would commence betting on B for a loss.
L
Looking back now there is a 4/1 ratio to player ppp B p. Here I would commence betting on p for a win.
Lw
Looking back there's still a 4/1 ratio to player pp B pp. Here I would continue betting on p for a loss.
LwL
Looking back there's now a 4/2 ratio to player pp B pp B. Here I would continue betting on p for a loss.
LwLL
Looking back there's now a 4/3 ratio to player pp B pp BB. Here I would continue betting on p for a loss.
LwLLL
Looking back there's now a 4/3 ratio to banker p B pp BBB. Here I would commence betting on B for a win.
LwLLLw
After this point banker only relinquishes dominance for 1 bet near the end of the shoe for a double loss.
LwLLLwwwLwLwwLwLwwLwwwwLwwwwwLwLwwwLLwLwwLLwwwLLwww
Further refinement of the selection process can be gained by concurrent use of the same ratio formula with the Lw registry.
Following dominance in this type of fashion is the only way you can catch the luck of the Irish for devastating win sequences like the one I shared earlier.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWL
Quote from: greenguy on April 13, 2016, 02:58:21 AM
I play for dominance. This shoe has a clear banker dominance, not that you would know at the start.
I chart for 4 of 1 and 3 or less of the other, so after BBB ppp B there is a 4/3 ratio to banker. Here I would commence betting on B for a loss.
L
Looking back now there is a 4/1 ratio to player ppp B p. Here I would commence betting on p for a win.
Lw
Looking back there's still a 4/1 ratio to player pp B pp. Here I would continue betting on p for a loss.
LwL
Looking back there's now a 4/2 ratio to player pp B pp B. Here I would continue betting on p for a loss.
LwLL
Looking back there's now a 4/3 ratio to player pp B pp BB. Here I would continue betting on p for a loss.
LwLLL
Looking back there's now a 4/3 ratio to banker p B pp BBB. Here I would commence betting on B for a win.
LwLLLw
After this point banker only relinquishes dominance for 1 bet near the end of the shoe for a double loss.
LwLLLwwwLwLwwLwLwwLwwwwLwwwwwLwLwwwLLwLwwLLwwwLLwww
Further refinement of the selection process can be gained by concurrent use of the same ratio formula with the Lw registry.
Following dominance in this type of fashion is the only way you can catch the luck of the Irish for devastating win sequences like the one I shared earlier.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWL
Right the main thing that eventually sticks out is B dominance. P and B disparity can be important and is in this shoe - eventually but I'm careful not to put to much credence in disparity alone because in a streaky shoe it can be deceiving. What is and was more important to me in this shoe is disparity that is confirmed by the lack of 1 IAR on the B side. I keep my card vertical so it is easy to see that P dominates the singletons and that the B does not miss "filling" its column more than twice IAR after the initial P 3 IAR at start up. So as long as this disparity continues I am going to win just by betting B.
But . . . a lot has to do with betting strategy. I was playing the soxfan prog looking for back to back wins so I just went straight down on B after catching W 5 IAR on the first B 6. If B started to chop I might have had to reevaluate and go to a slightly different placement like TBL.
Most shoes are not so obvious. Lots of different ways to see dominance.
Quote from: Jimske on April 13, 2016, 09:04:03 PM
Right the main thing that eventually sticks out is B dominance. P and B disparity can be important and is in this shoe - eventually but I'm careful not to put to much credence in disparity alone because in a streaky shoe it can be deceiving. What is and was more important to me in this shoe is disparity that is confirmed by the lack of 1 IAR on the B side. I keep my card vertical so it is easy to see that P dominates the singletons and that the B does not miss "filling" its column more than twice IAR after the initial P 3 IAR at start up. So as long as this disparity continues I am going to win just by betting B.
But . . . a lot has to do with betting strategy. I was playing the soxfan prog looking for back to back wins so I just went straight down on B after catching W 5 IAR on the first B 6. If B started to chop I might have had to reevaluate and go to a slightly different placement like TBL.
Most shoes are not so obvious. Lots of different ways to see dominance.
I like this post.
as.
What I like about Jimskie strategy is he'll try to win the most on some favourable dominant situations.
As he sayed, there are many ways to see dominance. And I agree with him that it's not so easy to get the most from certain streaky shoes, even knowing that streaky shoes in some way are the best many players could hope for.
On the other hand, every experienced bac player have noticed that shoes have a slight propensity to be more chopped at some degree than to be streaky (singles is the chop #1 feature, than doubles, triples and so on).
Without going into deep analysis, the best shoe (or portion of it) anyone could hope for is a strong one side dominated shoe presenting a lot of more or less long streaks on one side with singles (or few doubles) on the other one. This is the kind of shoe illustrated above.
Adopting a low progression, such shoe portions will offer a virtual zero chance to be losers.
Of course but at a lower degree may exist many other forms of "repetitive" patterns we could grasp as long single-single or double-double patterns showing on both sides, or events which seem to be "favorite" over the counterparts.
Itlr everything will be equally distributed and mathematically unfavored, so the only options we might have to be long term winners are two: a- winning more bets on such favourable situations than losing on the other undepictable situations; b- virtually discarding long negative situations not playing them at all.
Of course we cannot know when a favourable situation will come up and of course trying to discard some losing patterns might end up by missing a part of those winning opportunities that will show up along the way.
In the sequence provided here by soxfan, we know that the future probability to get more W than L is quite enlarged, still we had to wait such rare situation. And of course there are no guarantees that our bets will be right more often than not.
One thing we are sure about is that "the more we play the more we'll lose".
Generally speaking.
Now we wish to try to limit our field of operations trying to take advantage of some statistical features the game will provide.
Not forgetting that statistics cannot be disjointed from mathematics, being its reflex.
The BP results are produced by a finite number of innumerable card distributions. Words "finite" and "innumerable" seem to be opposite, but in some way they aren't.
Let's say we want to restrain more the real outcomes any shoe will provide, trying to see if anything will happen as mathematicians keep stating.
We will put in play 32-38 fictional players betting for us, each corresponding to a column shown on the table display. The number is included within a range since some shoes are more streaky than chopped and viceversa. To be sure any shoe will put in action each of our players, let's say we have 30 different column bettors.
Differently to any other kind of "derived roads", we know that every player will get his result shoe per shoe, so it's a sort of intermediate-long term registration we are going to make.
In a word, every column will be affected just one time per any shoe played, not being influenced by the B or P outcome other than by an indirect post hoc fashion.
Actually and for obvious reasons, some columns will be filled more or less fast so even the time now will play a role. Naturally the time is just the byproduct of consecutive winnings happening on the same column/s and this is not an infinite parameter itlr. Especially considering that some columns could be previously filled either by red dots (B) or by blue dots (P), not having the same long term probability. And this affects the future results. Slowly but steadily.
as.
Btw, I posted this last comment as a soxfan style approach cannot be wrong itlr.
We do not want to necessarily guess which will be the exact outcome on some columns, instead we do just want to wager that some outcomes won't be present at a given time by a degree higher than what the negative mathematical percentages dictate.
as.
I do wish that some cats came with subtitles so I could understand what they was tryin to say, hey hey.
Lol, ok.
Compare many shoes registered in columns similarly to table displays (this isn't a kind of key action, of course, but it might help imo), then look at what happened below any single column.
Now you'll get a more precise variance picture about the events occurred so far, for example.
as.
I am not BaccPro, but he posted this recently and I think this is somewhat similar to what the latest posts are talking about.
(https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xal1/v/t1.0-9/12920360_217950361903765_8083307997447620975_n.jpg?oh=20a8eaec301015005f0d977b04631283&oe=577668AA)
Quote from: 21 Aces on April 17, 2016, 02:39:06 AM
I am not BaccPro, but he posted this recently and I think this is somewhat similar to what the latest posts are talking about.
(https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xal1/v/t1.0-9/12920360_217950361903765_8083307997447620975_n.jpg?oh=20a8eaec301015005f0d977b04631283&oe=577668AA)
Yep, this shoe is terrific, nonetheless some players will find reasons to lose a lot in playing it. :nope:
as.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on April 17, 2016, 03:02:50 PM
Yep, this shoe is terrific, nonetheless some players will find reasons to lose a lot in playing it. :nope:
as.
Hey, some cats play a strict anti-streak style, hey hey!
Quote from: soxfan on April 17, 2016, 03:04:53 PM
Hey, some cats play a strict anti-streak style, hey hey!
I'm on such list, but I never ever will find reasons to bet other than B here. Up to the P streak of course.
as
Quote from: 21 Aces on April 13, 2016, 02:44:26 AM
The game is easy relative to a lot out there.
Really, relative to what? You who negates odds and statistics are now some expert?
QuoteHow a thread on being lucky with a series of plays turned into some completely off the charts academic discussion would be standard here. People talking about:
- Nobody wins.
- Nobody wins IN THE LONG RUN!!!!
- 1% of players know what they are doing.
I sure wish you would disclose the casino where you play that so many people are just cleaning up, including you apparently, though you don't give much away in terms of house, number of bets or shoes played! Ahem! I posted some documents previously that showed the casino profits about 20% per $ bet on this game. Why don't you log even about 500 bets and tell us your strike rate instead of going on about how many people clean up in this game?
QuoteSuper secret shuffle shoe XYZ should be played like this. And if you do this exact bet selection and that exact bet sizing, you'll win 51% of the hands!!!
I'm summoning the Dark Wizard right now to unleash his Black Riders and their super secret shoe shuffles as we speak. Seriously contact the house and dig up the video for review!
You are once again showing your ignorance. Regarding shuffles: People who have studied this game know that different shuffle iterations produce different kinds of results. How and whether various shuffles can be exploited is another topic and is VERY controversial.
As a long time card counter, shuffle tracker and witness to different kinds of shuffles I cn attest that there is a difference. I'm not going to get into that here.
So here is a live study done with actual live bets. This is not an end all but i thought it interesting. Pretty strict bet placement plus I took some advice and kept my number of bets per shoe down to around 30 bets. I used a MM including stop win/loss to get out of bad shoes and stay in winning shoes. I keep a W/L record and bet amount on each shoe. I made 737 bets and won 55.19% of bets for a flat bet win of 79 units (gross).
Next I decided to use a parlay prog of 111123468,11,15,20 for a possible loss of 73 units and re-played each shoe from the beginning to see the results. I played 23 shoes and re-started each from the beginning. 56%? WOW! Or is anyone out there achieving a much higher rate?
I lost the big kahuna twice for a 63 and 73 unit loss. Bottom line??? The prog got a total gross win of 110 units! I didn't figure the commission on either but got to assume the commission on the prog has to reduce that 110 win rate way more relative to the flat bet.
Only two losses for 23 tries. Does this make sense to play? Thoughts?
*********************************************
FYI. In case you're wondering. I didn't flat bet but bet my usual kind of grind method. I won 69 units including commission. LOL - about the same as flat bet, huh? The only difference is that my shoe win rate much higher with my bet style than if I just bet flat.
J
I'm sorry, but I will pound the table and state that 23 shoes is statistically significant and relevant and I do not believe that Black Riders are in their bull pen chopping at the bit with new and different super secret shuffles. Each shoe was different, but included much of the same.
Difficult to get up there in bet size so perhaps level it off?
Quote from: Jimske on April 17, 2016, 03:52:57 PM
So here is a live study done with actual live bets. This is not an end all but i thought it interesting. Pretty strict bet placement plus I took some advice and kept my number of bets per shoe down to around 30 bets. I used a MM including stop win/loss to get out of bad shoes and stay in winning shoes. I keep a W/L record and bet amount on each shoe. I made 737 bets and won 55.19% of bets for a flat bet win of 79 units (gross).
Next I decided to use a parlay prog of 111123468,11,15,20 for a possible loss of 73 units and re-played each shoe from the beginning to see the results. I played 23 shoes and re-started each from the beginning. 56%? WOW! Or is anyone out there achieving a much higher rate?
I lost the big kahuna twice for a 63 and 73 unit loss. Bottom line??? The prog got a total gross win of 110 units! I didn't figure the commission on either but got to assume the commission on the prog has to reduce that 110 win rate way more relative to the flat bet.
Only two losses for 23 tries. Does this make sense to play? Thoughts?
*********************************************
FYI. In case you're wondering. I didn't flat bet but bet my usual kind of grind method. I won 69 units including commission. LOL - about the same as flat bet, huh? The only difference is that my shoe win rate much higher with my bet style than if I just bet flat.
J
In some way you gave the answer by yourself.
And I'm glad you have reduced your bets per shoe.
as.
Quote from: 21 Aces on April 17, 2016, 04:25:34 PM
I'm sorry, but I will pound the table and state that 23 shoes is statistically significant and relevant and I do not believe that Black Riders are in their bull pen chopping at the bit with new and different super secret shuffles. Each shoe was different, but included much of the same.
Difficult to get up there in bet size so perhaps level it off?
Well you do know a lot about Batman I got to hand it to you. :))
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on April 17, 2016, 05:26:24 PM
In some way you gave the answer by yourself.
And I'm glad you have reduced your bets per shoe.
as.
So a function of betting less? or MM? or bet selection? or all three?
Quote from: Jimske on April 17, 2016, 05:58:17 PM
Well you do know a lot about Batman I got to hand it to you. :))
We have a thread going. I think it makes some people feel better.
The Dark Wizard and His Black Riders http://betselection.cc/off-topic/the-dark-wizard-and-his-black-riders/
Quote from: 21 Aces on April 17, 2016, 06:08:30 PM
We have a thread going. I think it makes some people feel better.
The Dark Wizard and His Black Riders
http://betselection.cc/off-topic/the-dark-wizard-and-his-black-riders/
you got a thread going. I'm not even curious enough to look.
Quote from: Jimske on April 17, 2016, 06:01:28 PM
So a function of betting less? or MM? or bet selection? or all three?
Betting less, imo, might help on BS. And a general flat betting plan isn't so bad after all.
as.