+ Register

[alrelax]

Certainly a banker heavy shoe at the end, but equalization and near equalization occurred a few times.

Now that I am writing about some of the shoes I play, I watch the other people more, pay a lot more attention to what I wrote about, with NOT applying experiences subconsciously and as well, concentrating on reality interpretation, etc.  I feel the benefits both physically with decision making and the results there of, wins. 

(It would be great if many could do the same and post on the forum!  I have even read on other forums how several like to come into BetSelection here and view the real boards and results I post, but they do not post, lol.  Whatever, guess it's just the mentality of most and how many of the forums have an abundance in drama banter and that endless search for the never found holy grail wagering system(s), rather than actual gaming reality and results.)

The Shoe.

Fortune 7s.  Hands 3-8-19-28.  Love the 0-1-2-3 'Low Ties' happening as well!  One of the factors that I always look for. 

Just before the 7 player IAR, it was 12 bankers and 6 players. Then equalization comes about 12 Bankers and 13 players. Then it turns to 19 Bankers to 14 players and then 19 Bankers to 17 players.

Then the next section after the back to back ties after the triple player.  2 sets of triple bankers and three single players brings us to 26 bankers and 20 players.

Sitting at hand 51 with serious conscious thought of a classic (and so commonly occurring) 1s and 2s and maybe a triple for the next 25 or so hands, is the way I was actually figuring it out.

But the banker started and it was a strong banker with several hands that should have lost easily to the players, but did not. A hint I love to follow!  I will post 2 board pics as examples as to what am I talking about with 1s and 2s and maybe a triple or so after some clumping like what happened already in the first half and then some. Because that is what happens in the highest majority of the shoes.

I liked it and believed in it continuing with the banker when it made that 4th IAR win (hand 55). The 5th and 6th wins were clearly favoring the players side when their first two cards were flipped but the bankers prevailed. The tie caused most everyone to wager on players or back off as I do recall.

Two more naturals won over the players 2 card 7 and a players natural 8. The bankers side was unquestionably strong.  The triple players that occurred convinced almost everyone the players side would equal out, but they certainly fell off.

On the third Banker all I saw, which doesn't come that often, was a 'BOX' to be made and I said it out loud and everyone looked at me like I was absolutely crazy and it would never happen. There were a few comments how it was going to chop or just make 1s and 2s and there is no way the bankers are going to make a come back.

THINK & SEEK IN REALITY!  Is all I can stress about what I did.

Three more bankers were made for a beautiful clean 'BOX'

A great shoe for those that played it in sections, believing in what was happening for short periods of time, not engaging in the cut wagering consistently as so many do, and doing a couple positive progressions and just pulling down until you lose the last one and starting over again.

Additional Note.  By the 28th hand I was up well over $3,000 (buy-in put away) even with giving back a good $1,500 + on that 7 IAR players.  Just had it consciously in myself to set my buy-in safely away, and risk half of what I won already. And that paid off nicely with multiplying that $3,000 win numerous times when that 'BOX' was beautifully built out!!!

The first two pictures are this shoe I am making reference to. The last two pictures are examples of what I made reference to the 1s, 2s and a triple or so after some clumping or a stronger shoe, etc.

[alrelax]

My 'Sections' and how I marked them up at the casino. 

[KungFuBac]

Thx alrelax for taking the time to post pics/mark.

An area I'm constantly trying to improve is: How to spot a new trend earlier.

For example, in the example above where you have made subsections: 1,2,3,4. I would maybe have anticipated the change from (1) to section (2). Though doubtful if early enough in sect 2 to grab many as Im not clear on why you have that first vert line between sect 1/sect2.

    Q: From sect (1) to (2) where vertical line is drawn--I would not have viewed (1) as finished or anything too noteworthy, at least not until after the fact.
What made you draw line there? In other words what were you thinking in real time?

Also, anticipation if the shoe continued after (4) the very next section would likely "Not-Be-That", in other words not long same-side streaks, thus short 1iar/2iar type chops.


*Also, after sect(2) I probably would have been expecting more of a chop for (3) so doubtful if I would have detected that at the beginning.


Thx in advance for any/all comments.



More later,

[alrelax]

KFB, it is not anticipation, it is as it has occurred.. Yes it is after the fact. But, as soon as it happens within the guidelines I explain below.

First of all, generally 3 to 5 sections. Generally 15 to 25 hands per section.

As the pattern/trend breaks, the line is drawn. So it has to occur. So when ending section 1, I drew the line once the 4th Banker, which was hand 15 occurred.

The way I looked at it was only 1s and 2s, with the single triple already occurring and then the first 4 IAR happened.

Section 2 ended once the double Banker occurred, hands 33 and 34.

I use the sections as reinforcing stimuli, as 'said and done'. Chops, 1s and 2s, clumping-strong IARs, etc., etc.

As we all know, some admit and some do not, how anything can and might frequently happen or infrequently happen. Only question is when.

Section 3 ended, line drawn again once the 4th Banker occurred which started the banker streaking at hand 55.

I attempt to block out previous sections (for predictions and desires, etc.) which allows me to place my 'reality decision making' within each section, thus using the stimuli in my decision making process. I attempt to keep myself away from previous experiences that influence the subconscious decision making which is a negative, IMO.

Proof. Section one has nothing much in common with section 2. Section 2 has nothing in common with sections 1 and 3. Section 4 is unique and most people there at the table did not capitalize on it as they totally believed 14 or 16 Bankers to the four players would NEVER happen, especially at the last quarter ending the shoe with the banker being strong previously.  But if you played the section as it was happening and used 'reality stimuli' you would have capitalized on it.

A good short piece, IMO:  [Perception is not reality, but, admittedly, perception can become a person's reality (there is a difference) because perception has a potent influence on how we look at reality.

Think of it this way. Perception acts as a lens through which we view reality. Our perceptions influence how we focus on, process, remember, interpret, understand, synthesize, decide about, and act on reality. In doing so, our tendency is to assume that how we perceive reality is an accurate representation of what reality truly is. But it's not. The problem is that the lens through which we perceive is often warped in the first place by our genetic predispositions, past experiences, prior knowledge, emotions, preconceived notions, self-interest, and cognitive distortions.]

And in reference to your last statement, "expecting more....", again you are not detecting you are attempting to use 'reality stimuli' to play the presentments as they are happening, with the shoe divided up into 3 to 5 sections where things tend to repeat themselves in short blasts of 15 to 20 or so hands.

[KungFuBac]

Ok, many thx for the prompt and elaborate explanation.

I see now the first vertical line was after hand 15 as I thought it was after only 10 hands. I was only looking at very last single pic of tote. Your thoughts/logic make sense.

e.g.,"As the pattern/trend breaks, the line is drawn. So it has to occur. So when ending section 1, I drew the line once the 4th Banker, which was hand 15 occurred.

The way I looked at it was only 1s and 2s, with the single triple already occurring and then the first 4 IAR happened...."

   on the following:

"..The problem is that the lens through which we perceive is often warped in the first place by our genetic predispositions, past experiences, prior knowledge, emotions, preconceived notions, self-interest, and cognitive distortions.]..."

I agree 100%.


More later tonight,kfb

[AsymBacGuy]

There's some logic in Alrelax idea to split the shoe into sections.
Cards are asymmetrically distributed along the shoe, so it's virtually impossible to get univocal lines for long unless we play two or three patterns together (singles/doubles, singles/triples, streaks of specific consecutive lenght, etc).

But suppose the first hands of the shoe are:

B
PP
BBB
P
B
PPPP
B
PP

What are we going to bet at this sequence?

Notice that even at byb and sr road patterns are undetectable, the only decent line is the cr road where there's a constant single/double line.

About what happens next obviously we'll never know.

Out of curiosity in this sequence our algo A got a +3 unit (before vig) and backup algo -1 unit (plus vig).
So it seems that our algos like most those whimsical 'undetectable BR sequences' and for the next portion of the shoe we have no reasons to shift from algo A to algo B, so calling a kind of 'section' until there are signs that the algo A forecasting seems to deteriorate.

Naturally the Al's thoughts remain interesting and actually algos were partially built upon this.

as. 

[Bally6354]

But suppose the first hands of the shoe are:

B
PP
BBB
P
B
PPPP
B
PP

What are we going to bet at this sequence?

Notice that even at byb and sr road patterns are undetectable, the only decent line is the cr road where there's a constant single/double line.

About what happens next obviously we'll never know.

Out of curiosity in this sequence our algo A got a +3 unit (before vig) and backup algo -1 unit (plus vig).
So it seems that our algos like most those whimsical 'undetectable BR sequences' 

This is what Craig Greiner described as the 'bag of trash' because it's neither one or the other. It's where a good player needs to find a way to navigate through it because obviously we can't just rely on streaks and chops.

One of my favourites is just using a simple S(same) + D(difference) chart alongside the results as they come out.

B
P D
P S
B D
B S
B S
P D
B D
P D
P S
P S
P S
B D
P D
P S

There is a nice little run there of SS, DDD, SSS, DD.

I have always believed it's not what you see but more what you don't see that can bring about your undoing although there is a limit I suppose to what we can handle and still play efficiently without making mistakes.

[Bally6354]

What I particularly like about a sections approach depending how I suppose you go about it is that you don't have to bet every hand and you can take the view that less is more. Be like a sniper and be happy in your attempts to catch a couple of units here and there. It's not going to kill your bankroll missing a few and if you are missing too many, then maybe you need to re-evaluate your game anyhow.

I can't remember where I read it or if it was an interview with Steve Wynn or somebody like that but he more or less said ''give me 4 hours of playing time at the tables and they are mine'' and so the inference is that it's probably not a good idea to get too entrenched in the game at any particular one time and that it might be better to take a more 'distant' approach about it all which you can do with the sections.

cheers

[alrelax]

Bally 6354 said; " I have always believed it's not what you see but more what you don't see that can bring about your undoing although there is a limit I suppose to what we can handle and still play efficiently without making mistakes."

And that is spot on!  Anything is adaptable to Sections to put you into 'reality stimuli' advantage approach and decision making.

[KungFuBac]

AsymBacGuy comment:

"...There's some logic in Alrelax idea to split the shoe into sections.
Cards are asymmetrically distributed along the shoe, so it's virtually impossible to get univocal lines for long unless we play two or three patterns together (singles/doubles, singles/triples, streaks of specific consecutive lenght, etc).
..."

I concur on trying to split shoe into sections. However, it's not easy to do(at least for me). As most will likely agree often we will see a "fake out". Often just as we think that last group of extreme outcomes is nearing the end it then continues for another 7-10 similar outcomes. If one waits to see definitive proof said extreme events are finished, we then miss out on the front end of that next section if it has indeed changed.

Personally, I feel the more extreme the previous section the greater likelihood the very next section will be "Not That". So sometimes to a small degree I can hypothesize that next section is less likely to be the same as the previous extreme section. I feel that is helpful as I can now hypothesize /guess the theme in that next section from fewer options(one less to select from). Obviously not always correct though I do perceive a little benefit.



Continued Success,

[AsymBacGuy]

KFB, It makes sense what you wrote.

For example, take the BPBPB...random betting for the entire shoe.
Obviously only specular PBPB...sequences hurt as almost any streak provides at least One winning spot.

Most winning and losing events will stop at low level values that tend to change in relationship of the previous pattern lenght, that's why is so difficult to win for long or, it's the same concept, to lose.

More later

as.

[ADulay]

Out of curiosity in this sequence our algo A got a +3 unit (before vig) and backup algo -1 unit (plus vig).

Plus 2 here.

Always nice to be able to test/run/practice against anything posted here.

Sometimes I think I'm playing at the worst casino in the world after seeing some of the great shoes posted here.

AD

[AsymBacGuy]

Actually I have the same thought, Adulay.

It's obvious that the probability to get something "homogeneous" (H) is lower than the probability to get everything else (D).

H<D and is a sure fact that 99.99% of bac players confide in crossing H events and not about D.

Now there are only few options to think to get a kind of advantage after knowing this H/D ratio:

a) setting up a plan capable to get the greater impact of D patterns, at the same time reducing the inevitable H clusters;

b) waiting for H clusters/predominance to happen then betting toward more likely D situations;

c) waiting for D clusters/predominance to happen then betting toward less likely H situations;

d) a mix of the b) and c) points. It's the algos action.

Alrelax stressed us about the importance to not trying to 'stop' a H pattern when "it seems to come out", a completely different thing than trying to get a H pattern around any corner of the shoe.
On the other end, the D world prevails and it's just the delicate assessment on how many ranges a given shoe is going to produce either the D patterns and/or the H patterns.

When in doubt (in our opinion this thing happens nearly 80-90% of the times) we shouldn't bet a fkng dime.

We can dissect the original BP production into infinite sub successions and D>H ratio still stands yesterday, now and in the future.

Nonetheless and when properly assessed in rhythm and frequency, the D world could produce LONGER streaks than expected and naturally it's stu.p.id to miss the natural H clusters hoping that the D model is always coming back by "precise values", a thing that cannot happen by any means.

as.

[alrelax]

Let me put it a simpler way.

I am dividing up the board just about the same as 'sectioning' the lawn, the way the highest majority of us do when we cut it.

Back to Baccarat.  When I divide up into sections, if I can focus with extreme concentration, I do and can fall into a presented groove that appears.

Sure there is comparison, but so many things-so many times are limited in presentation during the course of a bac shoe.  If you can isolate, I feel that helps highlight.

For myself, it's the recognition when it's happening, not after of course.