+ Register

[alrelax]

The most important part of wagering at baccarat is recognizing and developing the strategy.  A simple and good strategy will save more money than implementing the most advance and technically thought out attack of the game of baccarat.  The great news is that in most circumstances we have sufficient experience to actually develop a strategy even though most of us doubt the ability to do so.  The bad news is that we often write about or think about the Scope of Results before we discuss the strategy.  Too often this is prematurely the thing that kills most of our chances.  Reason?  Because after COMPLETELY convincing ourselves that the characteristics which will happen, we begin to feel comfortable with our understanding of that specific event, yet to happen.  Thousands or tens of thousands of dollars later, we begin to look for other strategies to fit the Scope of Results that the first did not let us profit from.  Then we build the system we believe in and proceed to fall into something that cannot meet our goals, desires, etc., and produce more winning hands than we actually lose.  Hence, a dangerous cycle most of us will fall into and be desperate to believe it will work, when there is no way it will except for a few hands here and there. 

This order of events is expensive and procedurally incorrect.  By treating the thought as real or you believe in the strategy like following a recipe in a cookbook, you have ignored all the knowledge that we usually gain over the years and any other valuable, helpful or really important thing that can actually assist us.  While each baccarat shoe is really unique, there are many techniques that we can and should transfer, implement and use from shoe to shoe.  We always have the opportunity to change our methods, so we do incorporate the knowledge of the correct Scope of Results into the process of our wagering beliefs and techniques. 

The first mistake that is typically made is selecting the wrong or wishful objectives that flirt with us and turning rationale thoughts into greed, thus overwhelming everything else we stand for.  Too often, we simply set the objective for winning and winning as much as we can or lots of money.  Everything else is generally tuned out of our reality scope and as well, the Scope of Results, as I label it, just is plain wrong and almost always unreachable. The problem with setting the objective is that one of the main lessons learned over many (numerous) years is that we cannot reach our Scope of Results at all times.  This is a very powerful tool, but in most all cases it is used the wrong way.

The Scope of Results are providing you with  being overconfident with a method that does not and will not work as you expect.

Redundant methods are used when you have no experience in the actual operation of the Scope of Results and creates a tendency to back up the method with the absorption of what will work and what will not work.  Very difficult to define outside of a certain section of the shoe within an extremely short span of hands.  Some will label it as guessing and others will visualize what I am defining. 

You view your calculations as gospel believing that you will frequently replicate your models you found, learned and tested.  However, real events prove different the vast majority of the times.  Sadly what that produces is progressions to profit and you go in way over your head and out of your comfort zone, playing with all your emotions as well as your thinking/frame of mind, totally throwing yourself off.  You wind up losing more than you win and you then believe losses are sacrifices for the much larger wins that will eventually come.  A sad and extremely dangerous scenario most baccarat players find themselves caught up in. 

Lastly, you teach yourself, research and find and eventually believe that technology is part of the remedy and you totally get involved in redoing and revamping your play, believing you will be successful on a particular set of events without actual realization that your theory is producing very limited winning limitations of opportunity that could prove positive,  based upon approaches that have to meet criteria that cannot be predicted to happen at any certain time. 

Thus, you play with your psych, totally confusing wagering techniques and what will actually assist you and allow you to excel with the game, and a warped sense of reality grasping onto an unattainable Scope of Results that are totally out of reach.

[alrelax]

I would like to repost this copy and paste here that was just written in another thread on this board as it pertains to this one. 

Again, I am not against anyone positively using technology, I just do not see it working and I do not believe in it in baccarat because IMO, it pushes a player to falsely believe in something that might not happen within the course of his buy in or bank roll limitation, thus providing false positives in huge amounts. 

I had thought really, that this app I was looking to build, would be part of an experiment and a personal endeavour and I could easily find someone in my country to do so. I thought to put it on the betselection forum to see if it could generate any interest and discussion.

A separate thread went on incessantly about technology being the wrong approach et cetera etc. The tone was condescending and it left no room for disagreeing points of view. While generally correct about the game, the one moot point is that not everybody is moulded in the form of Glen. Nor do they want to be. And technology is to be utilised for our benefit and assistance. Some don't need it. Some need it. Desperately.

My other thread I just posted was actually written last week, and just took the time tonight to post it. 

It was not directed towards you or anyone else with positive thoughts about technology in baccarat.  None, Zero.  Honestly. 

On the flip side, what works for one might not work for another, especially in baccarat because of the greed and the emotions that fly around so fast and hard at the table, etc.

Please, let me say, if you find something that works for you, including technology, or anything else, pursue it and believe in it 100%. 

Sorry you thought that my other post was geared towards you, it was not. 

[Gizmotron]

You are right Glen, as a techno expert and a real player, I have noticed that hand written charts or secret chip stacking methods are way better because they lend themselves to simplicity. It takes too long to wait on a computer. I can fill in 12 sets of 6 groupings and the win/loss stats on a roulette spin in less than ten seconds. To keep up with the w/L stats & the pass / don't pass on Craps only take 5 seconds with custom stacked chips. And nobody complains.

[alrelax]

Thanks Mark, I'm not saying computers are wrong.   I'm not saying using technology is  wrong.

I'm saying false positives become the result of technology.  And technology is a creator and a perpetrator of providing false positives and false positives are detrimental to the real gambler with huge consequences and most of the time those huge consequences wind up being the wrong decision based upon other factors that false positives push the player into.

I have a very long piece I've been handwriting on false positives.  It's not done yet and that is way up there with trying to understand the game of Baccarat.

Hopefully that little bit straightened out any misunderstanding some have and understand I am not against technology, I just don't see it benefiting the player the way that most think it does.

[alrelax]

Here, let me add a few more things.  Thinking and talking last night to a couple of long time baccarat players, mid range, mid bank roll, serious type of players.  In other words, been around the block.

Here is what I came up with. 

Going on Tilt!  That famous gambling saying.  It is said and that is it.  But you know what, those of us that have experienced, Going on Tilt, you know what it is.  But why do we go on tilt?  I will tell you.  Because of the Scope of Results and your really off.  As well as your understanding of the game, but the precise reason, IMO you went on tilt, is your misapplication or not applying a realistic Scope of Results to your play.

The other one is the Win Streak.  Actually a Win Streak is lots of false positives mixed in without you even knowing why it happened or what happened the majority of the times.  Not that a Win Streak is wrong, but almost all players just lose faster and with more damage after a Win Streak, because once again their failure to recognize or subscribe to a realistic Scope of Results. 

Think about it.

[Jimske]

You've written a lot in this thread; most of which I haven't read though I did skim some of it.  My main criticism is that you've yet to pick a data set (shoe) and give a play by play account of your reasoning.  Fact is that we all need a reason to place a wager.

From what little I've read it's pretty clear that you base your methodology on past history of outcomes and a particular MM.  So far few, if any, have questioned or commented positively/negatively on your thesis.  One can only speculate the reason but dare I say it comes from a lack of understanding or interest?  Given the amount of time and energy to date perhaps it would behoove you to detail some specific examples.

I did read this whole post but had to stop where I did.  You make a lot of assumptions.  Building an argument on false assumptions can lead to false conclusions.

The most important part of wagering at baccarat is recognizing and developing the strategy.  A simple and good strategy will save more money than implementing the most advance and technically thought out attack of the game of baccarat.

Why?  Okay, perhaps an advanced method may be more difficult to implement without error.  Other than that I cannot see why one is inherently more efficacious than the other.

The great news is that in most circumstances we have sufficient experience to actually develop a strategy even though most of us doubt the ability to do so.

Really?  I suppose this might be true for the wholly uninitiated "fun" gambler.  But as you well understand developing a strategy does not guarantee a win.  It's my opinion that most serious players entertain a strategy and spend time attempting to overcome its flaws (MM).

The bad news is that we often write about or think about the Scope of Results before we discuss the strategy.

You go on using this term.  I, for one, cannot be sure of what you mean.  So I will guess that you mean that it's the horse before the cart?  People first decide how much they want to win and then attempt to "discuss the strategy" in order to have the means justify the end?

Maybe you don't mean that at all.  Can you please define your logic and how you've come to this conclusion?

Too often this is prematurely the thing that kills most of our chances.  Reason?  Because after COMPLETELY convincing ourselves that the characteristics which will happen, we begin to feel comfortable with our understanding of that specific event, yet to happen.

Certainly that event that's "yet to happen" is contrary to the characteristics we hope and strategize for.   However I honestly think that the serious player recognizes this and strategizes for it because he is NOT convinced he's working with the HG.  No, the serious player plans for changes.  And he may well use some of the techniques you have outlined in your writings.

But in the end, without a definable and duplicatable method we're all back to square one.  That is guessing.  And it matters not if you are following the roads are counting 1's and 2's.  As you point out what matters is a plan, discipline and MM.

It ain't rocket science, baby.  Hey, Hey!

P.S.But it's sure fun searching for the HG!  LOL

[alrelax]

I will try my best to answer your questions in my upcoming posts, that will be posted shortly:

1)  False Positives;

2)  Real World Results & Understanding Baccarat;

3)  Perfect Knowledge.  Absolute Conclusions,  Opinions.;

4)  Change & Use to Your Advantage, Stop the unintelligent Beliefs.

Right now, I will answer this one:

Define:   Scope of Results

You go on using this term.  I, for one, cannot be sure of what you mean

What I label the end result, similar in nature and purpose to a WIN STOP or The Players Goal, etc.
But with a little more understanding and value, IMO. 

Scope.  Really a range of things within a subject or activity you are dealing with.  Which is wins, losses, pushes, ups and downs, winning lots of money and so on.  Much more than just a number like a win stop or a goal will offer you.  Scope.  Your ability to see a wide range of whatever it is you are after or attempting.  Scope.  The path or hallway there.  Scope.  Defining your boundaries and limits on the way there to assist you to achieve your goals, your results.

Scope.  A real picture you can see and look at along the way there rather than a false picture with a preset number. 

Results.  The presentment and reality as it happens as it is happening.  What is laying there as you are tackling the path and the way down the hallway to the result.  Realizing results are what is present.

Scope of Results.  A scope on a rifle and the target at the other end.  Your vision is multiplied to assist you in obtaining the target without setting or believing in extremely difficult or super risky goals.  For sake of explaining this anyway. 

Since visualization has a tremendous amount to do with playing baccarat, with adaptation and involution (involution to the aspect of reverting and negation that satisfies the law of double negation, etc,), which I will post a separate but related article I wrote regarding that, a true Scope of Results you thought out, understanding and employ while playing, I do believe will give you many advantages over sitting there with the classic win/loss stop and hoping for the best.  Why?  Because most of those kind of players have no idea where they are at in the journey down the hall or walk down the path, attempting to get to their win/loss stop. 

[alrelax]

I specifically watched the table last night.  At the grinding $10 to $25, 1's and 2's players and at the GO FOR IT repeating or cut type of players with larger stakes.

Interesting.  But the 1's and 2's type of players just do not seem to stop, at least around where I play, 2 states about 6 or 7 casinos, all the same style and thoughts from each group.

But I must say, the visualization end of the influencing, is very large indeed upon the player.