As I experienced 10 LIAR today :'(, watching the shoe while cursing myself :stress:, I realized that I was paying someone else's win. Those who bet at the opposite side of my bet.
Actually, it is a fact that baccarat only have 2 results (tie of course was ignored). Banker or Player. Repeat or Opposite. Trending or Anti-trending. Unlike roulette where 0 or 00 could make those who bet even/odd, red/black etc all lose, tie won't hurt anyone.
I also believe there are two side of player. The "Player" bettor vs "Banker" bettor, the "Trending" vs "Anti-Trending", the "FLD" vs "OLD" and so on and so on.
Many experts said that itlr the amount of B=P, streaks=singles. Could I safely conclude that those above player with their own style/method or whatsoever they used actually paying each other. The Casino only take 5% comm.
Then, the amount of losing player should be equal to the winning player. How come we always hear that more people are losing to this game than winning? Many said only small percentage will win itlr.
So there must be something wrong here. Could it mean the majority of player playing the same method? Do you believe it? Is really the universe has set up a scenario that would make all player losing, no matter what method/approach they used ?
Would we be able to stand on the correct side most of the time? Knowingly the other side, where the majority of player who claimed they lost all over the year are. Isn't there any way at all to know what kind of approach/method all the losing player is using and we just bet the opposite of that?
And how come baccarat always be the biggest money maker for Casino?
Would someone please give me a hint, explanation, or anything.
Thank you,
Quote from: Garfield on January 12, 2016, 02:10:39 PM
I also believe there are two side of player. The "Player" bettor vs "Banker" bettor, the "Trending" vs "Anti-Trending", the "FLD" vs "OLD" and so on and so on.
Many experts said that itlr the amount of B=P, streaks=singles. Could I safely conclude that those above player with their own style/method or whatsoever they used actually paying each other. The Casino only take 5% comm.
I mean the Player bettor will lose while the Banker bettor win, vice versa. The amount should be fairly the same minus comm 5%.
The Trending player will lose while the Anti-Trending player will win at the same time, vice versa.
The OLD will win while at the same time the FLD player will win, vice versa.
Is it really possible that in certain of time only player with the same methodology play at the same time and they lose all together?
I started to get lost at my own topic. But I believe you all know what I mean.
Quote from: Xcaliforniadealer on January 12, 2016, 02:25:58 PM
Because short and simple. It is the easiest game to win at. (I am not addressing holding the win or giving it back).
So for casino it's the easiest game to win the player money?
The easiest but still the money maker for Casino. Ironic isn't it? ;D :scared: :cheer:
hi Garfield
i can answer your question. the casinos make money not from the 5% but from your progression. Any type of progression 1-2, 1-1.5, 1-2-4 etc are in the house favor.
for example. if you use 1-2, if you lose 2 in a row, you lose 3 units meanwhile if you win 2 in a row, you win 2 units. do you understand what iam saying?
that's why casino offers comps or etc if you sit for long time. the casino hopes you lose in rows.
Exactly bacpro. It's not an easy concept to grasp. I tried to indicate the difference between a vig as in baccarat and an odds-based HE as in roulette in another thread but it isn't easily understood. Perhaps a small example here might help. Imagine you win 4 units playing Banker. The commission you would have paid (using the 5% on every Banker win method) would be simply 4 - (5% of 4), right? This equals 3.8 units.
Now imagine you have won 4 units using a D'Alembert (just because this particular progression is easy to calculate). You have had 4 losses in a row followed by 4 wins in a row - this results in a win of 4 units if you were playing Player (which means the outcomes were BBBBPPPP). Your bets were 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2. Work it out yourself - it's easy to see.
Now imagine the same scenario for Banker. That is, the outcomes were PPPPBBBB so the bets were, as before, 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2. Add up the winning B bets and work out the commission you would have paid. That is 5% of (5+4+3+2). 5% of 14 = 0.7. So your net win is 4 - 0.7 = 3.3 units.
Compare this with a 4 unit win flat betting: 3.8. So using progression to win your 4 units, in this case you are 0.5 units worse off. If you work out the ACTUAL percentages of your wins it works out like this:
flat betting: 4 units won, 0.2 units commission = 0.2 / 4 *100 = 5%
progression: 4 units won, 0.7 units commission = 0.7 / 4 * 100 = 17.5%
I realize that this example is simplistic, but I did it this way only to demonstrate the principle - that progression increases your commission cost as a percentage of your win. There are further corollaries if you wanted to pursue it further but the principle is sound - progression, no matter what kind, will ALWAYS make your commission cost LARGER than 5%.
Quote from: sqzbox on January 12, 2016, 10:32:27 PM
Exactly bacpro. It's not an easy concept to grasp. I tried to indicate the difference between a vig as in baccarat and an odds-based HE as in roulette in another thread but it isn't easily understood. Perhaps a small example here might help. Imagine you win 4 units playing Banker. The commission you would have paid (using the 5% on every Banker win method) would be simply 4 - (5% of 4), right? This equals 3.8 units.
Now imagine you have won 4 units using a D'Alembert (just because this particular progression is easy to calculate). You have had 4 losses in a row followed by 4 wins in a row - this results in a win of 4 units if you were playing Player (which means the outcomes were BBBBPPPP). Your bets were 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2. Work it out yourself - it's easy to see.
Now imagine the same scenario for Banker. That is, the outcomes were PPPPBBBB so the bets were, as before, 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2. Add up the winning B bets and work out the commission you would have paid. That is 5% of (5+4+3+2). 5% of 14 = 0.7. So your net win is 4 - 0.7 = 3.3 units.
Compare this with a 4 unit win flat betting: 3.8. So using progression to win your 4 units, in this case you are 0.5 units worse off. If you work out the ACTUAL percentages of your wins it works out like this:
flat betting: 4 units won, 0.2 units commission = 0.2 / 4 *100 = 5%
progression: 4 units won, 0.7 units commission = 0.7 / 4 * 100 = 17.5%
I realize that this example is simplistic, but I did it this way only to demonstrate the principle - that progression increases your commission cost as a percentage of your win. There are further corollaries if you wanted to pursue it further but the principle is sound - progression, no matter what kind, will ALWAYS make your commission cost LARGER than 5%.
Incredibly we almost simultenously stated the same thing here and on my Chemin de Fer post.
as.
Taking it just a little bit further then ... while I 100% agree that the probability of Player is -1.24% I do NOT agree that the probability of Banker is -1.08%. They have arrived at this figure by combining the true probability (+1.24%) with a bet amount of 1 unit in order to calculate that figure. What is not said is that as soon as you vary the bet amount the calculation that arrived at -1.08% is invalidated. A probability and a bet amount are apples and oranges - you can't combine them and expect a meaningful result.
A further corollary of this is - given that increasing bet amounts causes an increase in the commission cost as a percentage of the win (when playing Banker), then there must be a point where the effect of this diminishing returns phenomenon results in a cost greater than your profit - a cap if you will. In the case of a D'Alembert this cap is 20 units. But of course different progression schemes will result in a different cap.
This is just an example of the reason why many people say that you must understand the nature of your chosen progression in order to play it effectively. I would agree with this assertion.
Quote from: sqzbox on January 13, 2016, 12:01:03 AM
Taking it just a little bit further then ... while I 100% agree that the probability of Player is -1.24% I do NOT agree that the probability of Banker is -1.08%. They have arrived at this figure by combining the true probability (+1.24%) with a bet amount of 1 unit in order to calculate that figure. What is not said is that as soon as you vary the bet amount the calculation that arrived at -1.08% is invalidated. A probability and a bet amount are apples and oranges - you can't combine them and expect a meaningful result.
A further corollary of this is - given that increasing bet amounts causes an increase in the commission cost as a percentage of the win (when playing Banker), then there must be a point where the effect of this diminishing returns phenomenon results in a cost greater than your profit - a cap if you will. In the case of a D'Alembert this cap is 20 units. But of course different progression schemes will result in a different cap.
This is just an example of the reason why many people say that you must understand the nature of your chosen progression in order to play it effectively. I would agree with this assertion.
Good comment, imo.
as.
Quote from: sqzbox on January 12, 2016, 10:32:27 PM
Exactly bacpro. It's not an easy concept to grasp. I tried to indicate the difference between a vig as in baccarat and an odds-based HE as in roulette in another thread but it isn't easily understood. Perhaps a small example here might help. Imagine you win 4 units playing Banker. The commission you would have paid (using the 5% on every Banker win method) would be simply 4 - (5% of 4), right? This equals 3.8 units.
Now imagine you have won 4 units using a D'Alembert (just because this particular progression is easy to calculate). You have had 4 losses in a row followed by 4 wins in a row - this results in a win of 4 units if you were playing Player (which means the outcomes were BBBBPPPP). Your bets were 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2. Work it out yourself - it's easy to see.
Now imagine the same scenario for Banker. That is, the outcomes were PPPPBBBB so the bets were, as before, 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2. Add up the winning B bets and work out the commission you would have paid. That is 5% of (5+4+3+2). 5% of 14 = 0.7. So your net win is 4 - 0.7 = 3.3 units.
Compare this with a 4 unit win flat betting: 3.8. So using progression to win your 4 units, in this case you are 0.5 units worse off. If you work out the ACTUAL percentages of your wins it works out like this:
flat betting: 4 units won, 0.2 units commission = 0.2 / 4 *100 = 5%
progression: 4 units won, 0.7 units commission = 0.7 / 4 * 100 = 17.5%
I realize that this example is simplistic, but I did it this way only to demonstrate the principle - that progression increases your commission cost as a percentage of your win. There are further corollaries if you wanted to pursue it further but the principle is sound - progression, no matter what kind, will ALWAYS make your commission cost LARGER than 5%.
Got to disagree. The commission is never more than 5%. It's not the commission that is the killer. This is a 50-50 game meaning in theory we should win half of all our hands itlr. Whether or not we bet flat or a prog. With a prog we must, however, win just as many big bets as small bets (cumulatively if not bet per bet). When we do we only pay the 5%. As soon as we lose more of the big bets than small bets we get hammered.
The real profit that goes to the casino is that we lose more big bets than small bets and keep reaching and then run out of bank because we got no more money or hit the table max and are stuck.
Example if we bet $1000 on bank and win $500 and lose $500.00. Our loss is -$25.00. Still just 5%. If I play a prog and lose just one more big bet than small bet, say I win $450.00 and lose $550.00 I have now lost $122.50 including the $22.50 for the vig. Same principle for flat betting.
Finally one might consider the vig as that "losing hand." So we got to win half our hands PLUS pay the vig just to break even which in essence means we got to win more hands than lose. OR - win more of our big bets than small which is what progs NEED to do. Otherwise you may as well just flat bet the average bet size.
Based on these snapshots it is hard to argue against the fact that trends do happen in the short term. Why bet against the trend? Why do the random walk? I am open to arguments against...
Anti-streaks play is solid but you can get whacked hard in the short/medium term, hey hey.
Normally I play alone. It would upset me no end to share a table with an anti trend believer when the trends are so strong and that guy bets the other way early to end the trend! It psychologically affects the rest who wants to bet and they could reduce their bets or abstain altogether when in effect one should be making a killing!
Give me a trend like this any time and I will take them casinos to the cleaners.
We all tend to remember those long streak or chops because such occurrence is unusual, hey hey.
Quote from: Lung Yeh on January 17, 2016, 12:19:38 PM
Normally I play alone. It would upset me no end to share a table with an anti trend believer when the trends are so strong and that guy bets the other way early to end the trend! It psychologically affects the rest who wants to bet and they could reduce their bets or abstain altogether when in effect one should be making a killing!
LOL. That's funny. Sometimes it happens when I am the only one losing on the table. Makes you feel kind of stupid. Sometimes it happens when I am the only one winning on the table. Genius! LOL. As HBS mentioned sometimes everybody is winning yet the placements are varied!
Easier said than done but you got to play your own game and can't let other punters get to you.
Quote from: Lung Yeh on January 17, 2016, 12:22:56 PM
Give me a trend like this any time and I will take them casinos to the cleaners.
Sure. I would win ALL those shoes you posted! The reason is they all have a certain consistency. Shoes that maintain consistency are pretty easy but most shoes don't maintain that consistent "trend."
Take them to the cleaners? See how easy it is! The problem there is one's betting style. That last shoe you keep on betting up and take it to the "cleaners." Maybe even break the bank by betting table max hand after hand - LMAO. But what about the other shoes, the majority of shoes, when you jump on that trend with those big bets and you lose time after time? Too bad we can't see the future, huh?
Most players I see are playing like you intimate. They're are trying to make that kill and they do from time to time but the other side of the balance sheet is when they try and fail. It all balances out and as we all should know by now that it balances out in favor of the casino!
Enter MM. Tight game or big prog we better be in control and have a better betting plan than hoping to make a kill. So if you have a betting style that is consistent your wins will be more moderate - so will your losses. You cannot kick yourself after the fact wishing you had done this or that!
The question you raise, BL, whether to follow trend or not is, IMO, relative. So Gr8, for example, will likely make few bets on that last shoe while he is waiting for his "favorite" pattern or his virtual losses. Is that wrong? No, because he is playing a consistent game. Next shoe where others might get hurt he may very well profit. Me? I would make a lot of bets and do very well on those shoes but wouldn't take the casino to the cleaners because my bets are moderate. Sure, I would attempt to take advantage with bigger bets but . . . could easily fall short. Next shoe with little consistency I could easily lose or maybe, if I am lucky go nowhere. You see? It's all relative.
I am a new user
Quote from: Jimske on January 17, 2016, 03:34:22 PM
The question you raise, BL, whether to follow trend or not is, IMO, relative. So Gr8, for example, will likely make few bets on that last shoe while he is waiting for his "favorite" pattern or his virtual losses. Is that wrong? No, because he is playing a consistent game. Next shoe where others might get hurt he may very well profit. Me? I would make a lot of bets and do very well on those shoes but wouldn't take the casino to the cleaners because my bets are moderate. Sure, I would attempt to take advantage with bigger bets but . . . could easily fall short. Next shoe with little consistency I could easily lose or maybe, if I am lucky go nowhere. You see? It's all relative.
I have just, once again, seen evidence of your playing experience and expertise in knowing what works. My meat and potatoes is a slow grind upwards. Any sleeper laying there for 30 spins in a row is just a rare coincidence, like just deserts, and of course must be hammered.
Play like Joey Knish in Rounders (1998)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7NxEj4A1Cg
Taking them to the cleaners, is just an expression. These days, as the white hair overwhelms the black, yes, the bets are more controlled. The wins are more regular. Thank you all for participating and enjoying. But really, Baccarat players live for trends like these. Those who don't at least make a lot from streaks like these are in the wrong game.
Of course casinos will lose most money (so players will win most money) whenever a given trend seems to be endless and I provided a st.upid example elsewhere.
The problem is many bac players want to find a so called endless trend on too many occasions, a thing denied by mathematics and common sense.
Generally speaking, any shoe will provide from zero to one long exploitable trend, 5 shoes will provide from 2 to 5 exploitable trends, 10 shoes will provide from 4 to 10 exploitable trends.
Statistically, some trends are more likely to happen within a short amount of shoes with an accuracy touching the 100% degree.
We'll never know in which part of the shoe or in which shoe this thing will happen, but we know that for certain preordered patterns this thing will happen.
So imo we better rely upon some most likely preordered occurences than on what the actual shoe is producing, especially if the actual shoe is strongly deviating form the "norm".
A luxury we cannot take advantage of at many other 50/50 games, as here there's no way to evaluate a more likely event, being each occurence perfectly 50/50 placed.
as.
Quote from: Lung Yeh on January 18, 2016, 12:31:54 AM
Taking them to the cleaners, is just an expression. These days, as the white hair overwhelms the black, yes, the bets are more controlled. The wins are more regular. Thank you all for participating and enjoying. But really, Baccarat players live for trends like these. Those who don't at least make a lot from streaks like these are in the wrong game.
Pretty sure readers realize "take them to the cleaners" is a figure of speech just meaning to win a lot more than usual.
But how's the making a lot from streaks working out for you? What exactly do you mean by streaks? Long B or long P? Long chop?
Here's a shoe from today that I think is apropos.
First 18 decisions: B p B pp BB p B pp BB pp BBB. I lost the 1st decision and then proceeded to win the next 8 bets I made IAR. So does this constitute a winning streak that I should have made a lot of money on?
Shoe continued pppp BBBB pp BB pp BB p B. Four 2's IAR ocurr at about the same frequency as an 8 repeat IAR. So is that a run we should jump on? The last B made it a 9 IAR, no?
Shoe continued p BB pp BB p BB p BB p. Isn't the first three 2's IAR and the p a nice run of 2's to 7 IAR? How about the 212121 at the end. Isn't that a nice streak of 9 IAR?
These kinds of patterns that extend 6, 7 8 or more are no different than waiting for a long repeat. So when do you start jumping on them? How do you know when it is going to happen or are you just going to keep losing that last bet when they don't continue which will balance out any long repeat you might get lucky enough to hit?
QuoteThose who don't at least make a lot from streaks like these are in the wrong game.
Ridiculous!
Jim, you are losing the possibility to get your Malaysian trip! :-)
as.
The one thing I realize from participating in this forum is the diversity of ideas and strategies and thier total devotion to their own. I have said it before here and in private messages, I have total respect for that. There are many ways to skin the cat (that's for you Soxfan!) just as there are many ways to make money as there are ways to make love 🙈🙈😎😎.
Your winning streaks would be your Hot Phase, in my parlance Jim. The long 'dragon' streak I posted is really, from an Asian perspective, what Baccarat is all about. From Marina Bay Sands to Genting to Macau. Its not ridiculous Jim. Its just cultural.
Usually, one bets an appropriate amount (up to you) for the streak to continue. You could take some units off as the streak continues (normally). I do a slight increase or maintain. that's my style.
The mantra is 'Dare to win. Scared to lose'. For some of you here who believes that you cannot lose all the time (and hence the negative progression), its 'Dare to lose. Scared to win'. I just don't have the mental capacity and wherewithal to keep on betting in a negative progression to win one unit eventually.
Some of us may be strong swimmers and can and prefer to swim against the tide like the salmon swimming upstream. Old man me will swim with the tide.
Again, it's a diversity of playing strategies. Which unfortunately the casinos exploit...
@Yung Leh; my comment ridiculous references
Quote from: Lung Yeh on January 18, 2016, 12:31:54 AMThose who don't at least make a lot from streaks like these are in the wrong game.
Lots of ways to skin the cat as you say. This game is mostly played by Asians. Where I play Asians are 95%. Fifteen years ago they were 99.9% where I play and dozens of tables. Ever wonder who is paying for the chandeliers? Like I asked: How's looking for the dragon working out for you?
There are people who learn from experience and there are those who don't learn from their experiences. The best are those who learn from other people's experiences. Painful as it might be, I do hope I will learn from my harrowing experiences and acknowledge that many have their own experiences to tell. I have recorded significant improvements in performance but will await further validation.
Looking for the dragon? In its lair? No you don't go looking for this mystical creature. Just wait and know when it appears. The best selling Chinese movie in the US is appropriately titled 'Crouching Tiger and Hidden Dragon'. it's a sword fighting movie but I think baccarat 😎😎🙈🙈
Apologies if sometimes sentiments expressed do not take into account all possible points of view. But really, to the Asian mentality, chandeliars et al, Bacarrat is about witnessing the dragon!!
Quote from: Jimske on January 18, 2016, 10:33:54 PM
So when do you start jumping on them? How do you know when it is going to happen or are you just going to keep losing that last bet when they don't continue which will balance out any long repeat you might get lucky enough to hit?
When to jump IMO is subjective. How do we know? We will never know UNLESS we try. Based on what? Expectation maybe. Or relevant happening at the moment.
After all, I believed all the players here, mechanical or not, when they put their first bet, it must be based on something. It could be because your system dictate you, your expexctation, your plan, your subjective/objective observation, or just your feeling.
Then, win or lose, you will make a second choice in your mind. Again, it based on something.
That is Jim, IMO is different for each of us. Your question to Lung Yeh, I can only think of it this way. You're asking someone why he/she loves the colour blue. Or a fried rice. Or Billy Joel's song.
Sorry, no offense at all.
I also wondering, why some particular events (i.e long streaks, or long chops, or long 2-2-2) could make a player have a streak of winning one time, and losing streaks at the other time. Do you guys experience it also or it just me?
Also, maybe the holy grail to win in baccarat is this, if not both then one of them. SUBJECTIVENESS and/or RANDOMNESS. Cause they both can't be measured.
What do you think?
Quote from: Lung Yeh on January 18, 2016, 11:31:20 PM
The mantra is 'Dare to win. Scared to lose'. For some of you here who believes that you cannot lose all the time (and hence the negative progression), its 'Dare to lose. Scared to win'. I just don't have the mental capacity and wherewithal to keep on betting in a negative progression to win one unit eventually.
But what would you call that one unit if someone could grind out getting it without going deep into the likelihood that being set back for a lot of hands was no longer necessary? If a dragon is an almost perfect coincidence or even a long lasting perfect coincidence, Big Dragon, then what is the low-risk slow grind upward? I once built houses for escaping Hong Kong residents, back during the transition from Britain to China, that lived by traditional superstitions, quite likely validated beliefs for all I know. There must be some kind of a "Tortoise & the Hare" similarity to a grinder versus a crash test dummy of some historical or significant point. If not, then let's give this grinder animal a stereotype.
I once saw a young Vietnamese cat make 11 bet at the baccarats table, and he lost 200$ despite winning 9 of those 11 bet. I was gonna tell him that using the Holloway parlay style you can lock up profits while still "shooting for the moon". But then I remember the Spike advice to never wise up the chump, hey hey.
Xcaliforniadealer,
Wow, what a post. There's an example of an elegant pattern, almost perfect, and admitted de facto evidence of a strategic mistake by a large sample of the population. Cool.
You guys and gals seem to have a good grasp on randomness. It's pretty much in your hands now. The only way to expand your knowledge of randomness is to discover it. It has to become your very own comfort zone. Your confidence level can't thrive if you can't be absorbed in its characteristics and its ever changing uniqueness.
Good luck with your school.
I don't know how anyone loses that shoe even if one doesn't make a killing on it but . . .
Quote from: Gizmotron on January 20, 2016, 02:56:21 PM
Xcaliforniadealer,
Wow, what a post. There's an example of an elegant pattern, almost perfect, and admitted de facto evidence of a strategic mistake by a large sample of the population. Cool.
You guys and gals seem to have a good grasp on randomness. It's pretty much in your hands now. The only way to expand your knowledge of randomness is to discover it. It has to become your very own comfort zone. Your confidence level can't thrive if you can't be absorbed in its characteristics and its ever changing uniqueness.
Good luck with your school.
I guess I'm just a little obtuse, Gizmo, but I really don't understand much of what you are talking about when it comes to understanding random.
Quote from: Jimske on January 20, 2016, 10:56:37 PM
I don't know how anyone loses that shoe even if one doesn't make a killing on it but . . .I guess I'm just a little obtuse, Gizmo, but I really don't understand much of what you are talking about when it comes to understanding random.
It's not your cup of tea i guess.
Quote from: Xcaliforniadealer on January 20, 2016, 01:31:23 PM
They all seemed to be following one Asian guy.
And that's what I don't like about baccarat.
Almost everyone wants to follow the table lead, and if you bet against them they give you a hard time. Betting that shoe you posted should have been a banker slaying, and the white guys probably held off betting so no to upset the rest of the table.
As if it's not hard enough to win a few dollars without having to tread on bloody eggshells for the sheep herd.
At my local casino they all play squeezie with the cards, I think it's stupid. Whenever I have the chance I just flip the little f**kers straight over before anyone can blink. Pisses them all off big time, lol.
I mostly stick to roulette where everybody gets along just fine.