+ Register

[soxfan]

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.

[Jimske]

Maybe Sox Fan can go back on everyone's behalf and call for a forensic review of the shoe based on the surveillance records.   

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!

[21 Aces]

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!

[greenguy]

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

[Jimske]

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.

[AsymBacGuy]

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. 

[AsymBacGuy]

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. 



   







 

 













       










   

 

 



 




 

[AsymBacGuy]

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. 

[soxfan]

I do wish that some cats came with subtitles so I could understand what they was tryin to say, hey hey.

[AsymBacGuy]

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. 

 
     

[21 Aces]

I am not BaccPro, but he posted this recently and I think this is somewhat similar to what the latest posts are talking about.

[AsymBacGuy]

I am not BaccPro, but he posted this recently and I think this is somewhat similar to what the latest posts are talking about.

Yep, this shoe is terrific, nonetheless some players will find reasons to lose a lot in playing it. 

as.

[soxfan]

Yep, this shoe is terrific, nonetheless some players will find reasons to lose a lot in playing it. 

as.

Hey, some cats play a strict anti-streak style, hey hey!

[AsymBacGuy]

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

[Jimske]

The game is easy relative to a lot out there.

Really, relative to what?  You who negates odds and statistics are now some expert?       

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.

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?

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!

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.