﻿ Lugi

### Topic: Lugi  (Read 1229 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Jimske

• Hero Member
• Posts: 558
##### Lugi
« on: April 30, 2018, 05:01:05 pm »
• Sorry Lugi - Not about you.  Just wanted to get off of Assym thread because it was going far afield.

I always get a kick out of these "secret" bet placements that cannot be shared.  You should have just told your friend that you won't share it because you don't want to look like the unintelligent he obviously is.

But I think you are on to something when you consider LIAR.  Does one bet placement have less LIAR than another?  I'll answer that.  Nope.  But that doesn't mean we cannot judge our betting style to conform with LIAR "tendencies."  If you're thinking that you kind of have to guess at these to recoup then you'd be correct.

Factoid:  % LIAR will ocurr on average approximately every 72 non-tie decisions IF using a fixed bet placement.

#### Johno-Egalite

• Full Member
• Posts: 190
##### Re: Lugi
« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2018, 03:26:19 am »
• Should have named this thread LIARs.

There is really no need to disparage a bet selection which you probably don't recall.  He is a pretty smart guy and he asked me not to post publicly, so out of respect I haven't.  Anyway we are at cross purposes here, I only mentioned it in passing as a response to Mike, as it kind of makes mathematical sense in the long term.  Yet in the real world prone shall we say to get uncomfortable at the tables in other words can produce many LIAR's, only good enough for a table minimum flat bet approach.  Like I say I use it to keep a shoe moving if the case arises (playing solo), operates very similar to DBL but makes more sense when you look at it mathematically.  It is far from being any type of HG, will likely burn if you use a negative progression, yet should produce a few units profit inside a few shoes.  So let's put this to bed, it plays no part in how currently play.

In regards to the general question of LAIRs, in a game of independent trials, you simply just never know.  I can't count the LAIR's for the 1/256 option, as I've already overlapped my Excel spreadsheet with other bet options, so would need to clear then redo the exercise to give you precise figures.  TBH I much prefer to play live and see how things unfold at the table.

My worst case  testing, is 6LIAR which occurred twice in 50 shoes.  In my experience one should expect a worst performance when taking methods from the kitchen table to the live table and this 1/256 expectation is no different.  24 hrs ago I got 7LIAR, however the saving grace, is that this occurred once in about 15 shoes.   It is easy to get excited about bet placement while testing.  Then during live play, along comes the shoe from hell which not only consumes your bankroll, but also zaps your confidence, with what is probably a decent method of play, whereas more attention should be paid to the frequency of the 'shoes from hell'.

Regarding %LAIRs, if I isolated the prime bet selection, the player is not betting enough hands per shoe.  1 or 2, 3 bets, sometimes no bet opportunity within 70 hands.   Not practical for live play, so you should get a sense that the LAIR's are going to be very short and manageable, such as 2 or 3 perhaps.

Maths is great like that.  Once it's been proven that no method exists to do what you claim, it's not necessary to go through the details of your system to prove that it doesn't work.  You claim that it does something which can be proven impossible, therefore your claim is false. The details don't matter.

#### AsymBacGuy

• Hero Member
• Posts: 735
##### Re: Lugi
« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2018, 02:07:53 am »
•  Jimskie, what do you mean?

as.
Next to edge sorting it's me

#### jsintl

• Rising Member
• Posts: 42
##### Re: Lugi
« Reply #3 on: November 14, 2018, 10:04:50 pm »
• Should have named this thread LIARs.

There is really no need to disparage a bet selection which you probably don't recall.  He is a pretty smart guy and he asked me not to post publicly, so out of respect I haven't.  Anyway we are at cross purposes here, I only mentioned it in passing as a response to Mike, as it kind of makes mathematical sense in the long term.  Yet in the real world prone shall we say to get uncomfortable at the tables in other words can produce many LIAR's, only good enough for a table minimum flat bet approach.  Like I say I use it to keep a shoe moving if the case arises (playing solo), operates very similar to DBL but makes more sense when you look at it mathematically.  It is far from being any type of HG, will likely burn if you use a negative progression, yet should produce a few units profit inside a few shoes.  So let's put this to bed, it plays no part in how currently play.

In regards to the general question of LAIRs, in a game of independent trials, you simply just never know.  I can't count the LAIR's for the 1/256 option, as I've already overlapped my Excel spreadsheet with other bet options, so would need to clear then redo the exercise to give you precise figures.  TBH I much prefer to play live and see how things unfold at the table.

My worst case  testing, is 6LIAR which occurred twice in 50 shoes.  In my experience one should expect a worst performance when taking methods from the kitchen table to the live table and this 1/256 expectation is no different.  24 hrs ago I got 7LIAR, however the saving grace, is that this occurred once in about 15 shoes.   It is easy to get excited about bet placement while testing.  Then during live play, along comes the shoe from hell which not only consumes your bankroll, but also zaps your confidence, with what is probably a decent method of play, whereas more attention should be paid to the frequency of the 'shoes from hell'.

Regarding %LAIRs, if I isolated the prime bet selection, the player is not betting enough hands per shoe.  1 or 2, 3 bets, sometimes no bet opportunity within 70 hands.   Not practical for live play, so you should get a sense that the LAIR's are going to be very short and manageable, such as 2 or 3 perhaps.

Hi Lugi,

You mentioned in another thread that one of your methods is to risk series of 4 bets to win 1.  Are you in profit if you win at the 4th bet?

Thanks.

#### Johno-Egalite

• Full Member
• Posts: 190
##### Re: Lugi
« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2018, 08:14:47 am »
• My MM can vary, but in general usually not.

I sometimes use two levels of chip values, so the lower value chips have experienced LL, the higher chip value has experienced LW.

I operate for things to even out over the course of a session, and expect wins and loses to be evenly distributed within a shoes.

If the lower chip values start to get out of hand, I'll simply transfer a portion of the deficit over the to larger chip value and aim to play more shoes /longer to clear.   Required units on both sides in reality do not have to be fully cleared \ won, because when I start any session, there is an initial goal target.  So for example, let's say I start the higher chip level at 8, and after many shoes it sits at 4, I could if I wish, decide to end the session, because I've actually made 4 units, obviously dependant on the lower chip value not greater than the initial start count.

To conclude, all this nonsense we about negative progressions being dangerous, requiring massive bankrolls, yada yada, I assure you, I rarely  place a bet greater than 10 units. I grind things out, I do my utmost to avoid risk and big drawdowns, if I lose a series of bets, I stop digging and grind it back, because I have a lot of confidence in the bet selections that I use.
Maths is great like that.  Once it's been proven that no method exists to do what you claim, it's not necessary to go through the details of your system to prove that it doesn't work.  You claim that it does something which can be proven impossible, therefore your claim is false. The details don't matter.

#### jsintl

• Rising Member
• Posts: 42
##### Re: Lugi
« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2018, 09:27:03 am »
• My MM can vary, but in general usually not.

I sometimes use two levels of chip values, so the lower value chips have experienced LL, the higher chip value has experienced LW.

I operate for things to even out over the course of a session, and expect wins and loses to be evenly distributed within a shoes.

If the lower chip values start to get out of hand, I'll simply transfer a portion of the deficit over the to larger chip value and aim to play more shoes /longer to clear.   Required units on both sides in reality do not have to be fully cleared \ won, because when I start any session, there is an initial goal target.  So for example, let's say I start the higher chip level at 8, and after many shoes it sits at 4, I could if I wish, decide to end the session, because I've actually made 4 units, obviously dependant on the lower chip value not greater than the initial start count.

To conclude, all this nonsense we about negative progressions being dangerous, requiring massive bankrolls, yada yada, I assure you, I rarely  place a bet greater than 10 units. I grind things out, I do my utmost to avoid risk and big drawdowns, if I lose a series of bets, I stop digging and grind it back, because I have a lot of confidence in the bet selections that I use.

Thanks Lugi for the clarification.