+ Register

[alrelax]

Statistics—Systems and Bet-Placement Methods
Why So Detrimental to a Player, Short and Sweet

2 Important Things IMO You Must Understand and Be Clear On:

Positive Statistical Outcome.  The number of events that were captured and claimed happened with respect to a certain event outcome or perhaps several outcomes group into a singular cause, that won—prevailed and occurred.

Deficient Statistical Outcome.  The number of events that were produced accurately to a certain event outcome that lost—failed to happen and would be considered the opposite of the 'Positive Statistical Outcome'.

The author will twist and turn with written glamour, glitz and a cherry on top, to feed the greed—the desperation and the general urge to win, in every player with his vision to finally recoup all of his lost funds prior to the reading and believing of the author's book/system.   This is always the case with every system, for whatever reason it is always added on, I can only assume for the author's intense motivation of the people to buy his book/system. 

Here is an example.  1,000,000 shoes.  Say there is a 75% positive statistical outcome of what the author found to be a newly discovered betting pattern that will make you all kinds of money if you follow his instructions and advise, etc.  Great!  The hype and the 'Wow' status will be huge to the newly founded holy-grail discovered by 'so and so'.  Let's take a quick look at this.  What does a 75% player advantage really mean—in reality?

That the event happened a total of 750,000 times in the course of the author's One Million shoe test.  That means the author documented a legitimate and honest 750,000 hits for the positive outcome of the event he just discovered out of the One Million shoes, which is 80,000,000, Eighty Million Hands. The first thing the authors normally do, is cite the statistics for the number of shoes where the event occurred and not the number of hands.  Which would favor the author greatly beyond belief by doing it that way.  But let's just say for the sake of discussion, that the positive hit rate was a true 75% of the 1,000,000 shoes.  So there was a positive hit of 60,000,000 times out of the 1,000,000 shoes.   Likewise the test also proved the winning event lost, did not happen, a total of 250,000 times, 25% of the shoes.  Which would equate to a total of 20,000,000 hands out of those 1,000,000 shoes tested. 

But, can the author/researcher give you an exact schedule of when these 750,000/75% of the time or the 250,000/25% of the time, will happen?  The test was with one series of 1,000,000 shoes.  Not 1,000,000 tests of 80,000,000 hands played.  One series of shoes (One Million) of about 80 hands a shoe, equates to 80,000,000 hands tested.  I sincerely think that is insufficient in every way, shape and form.  I think a series of 1,000,000 of the 80,000,000 hands is more like it.  If you have something, you really have it.  The greater amount of shoes is necessary to being out the down fall of 'too few' in a series.  So let's get serious.  Even if that was done and accomplished correctly and definitively, it still will be unable to produce any schedule of events that can prove definitely consistent and consistent enough for you to learn when those 750,000 or the 60,000,000 positive hits will actually be produced. 

So many 'experts' will write something along the lines of, 'a large bankroll is needed to allow for the losses and the negative variance to progress and the players optimum chance to capitalize on my system of betting', etc.  Or, 'you have to lose 'X' amount of times in order to prevail according to my system', etc.  Like I said, even if the 75/25% is accurate and correct—it is and cannot be to the player's advantage simply because the production of either side is unknown.  Meaning, the player has no way to know, when those winning or losing wagers will actually happen.  Progression wagering in order to make up losses to wait it out and continue wagering is simply insane and the reason for almost every single player to go bankrupt, repeatedly before being able to profit from any such system. 

Furthermore, say 550,000 of the positive 750,000 figure, might appear in one 1,000,000 shoe test—during the first 625,000 hands and then the remainder is spread out among the remaining 375,000.  Or visa-versa.  During say a second 1,000,000 shoe test maybe the positive hits were equaling spaced out when they appeared, unlike the first one.  But the positive hits of the author's event, nonetheless still hit with nearly the same results.  And a third 1,000,000 shoe test produced results of groups of 25,000 shoes having a closer together ratio of positive hits and alternating groups of 25,000 shoes having a further away positive hit ration.  Etc., etc., etc., with varying appearance schedules but with basically the same ratio/results of the positive outcomes themselves. 

I have tried this with a very simple method that convinced me of what I am referring to.  I took one deck of cards.  I shuffled them and I recorded what happened after every natural 8 and 9.  Then I wrote down the order of that deck as it came out.  When I was finished with that one deck, I put it back together the same exact way it came out previously.  AMAZING!  The same exact thing was produced.  I recorded a 100% result of knowing what hand or 'cut' will appear immediately after every single natural 8 or 9.  Then I shuffled the deck once again.  My third test.  I shuffled the legitimate way.  Completely different than the previous 2 tests.  A few of the hands were the same.  Then I shuffled a 4th time, a 5th time, a 6th time, a 7th time and all the way up to a 50th time.  And each and every deck produced different patterns after each other.  Some decks produced a greater number of the same results and other decks produced a lesser number of the same results. 

Even if the number of say, Players being produced after a natural 8 or 9 was 75% in my test of the 50 decks, I still would not know the order those 'cuts' top the Player side would be produced.  Of course the system authors would just say to have a large enough bankroll in that case to cover the 25% or so you stand to lose and you will win at least ¼ of the wagers you make.  The only problem with that is, you would need a definitive block of wins and losses to accurately occur.  Meaning a test would have to be something along the lines of 1,000,000 test of 1,000,000 shoes as I already outlined.  Test of small numbers that prove high in positive outcome events, are totally misleading and full of false fallacies that system authors thrive on to get people exciting and their temporary trust in their work. 

No 50 shoe test, no 10,000 shoe test, not even a real 1,000,000 shoe test is going to produce anything definitive that will happen in certainty or even to the players advantage with its scheduled appearance definitive and discovered.  Nothing.  Sad news for all the system 'wannabes' millionaires, but the absolute truth. 

That is the problem with all statistical and testing in baccarat.  Maybe in roulette you can predict where the little white ball will land with great accuracy based upon the way the dealer spins it and the way the wheel handles it---I don't know, but I do know in baccarat, the cards will never fall in any definitive order that you can wager with consistency with them or against them in any order and always win.  Not even with the winning discounted to 'the majority of the time'.

Play to win, not to have a slight advantage to possibly wager negative progressions to get even and recoup the funds you have just lost.  Or, have the thought process along with that, if I do that a certain amount of times, I will have a certain amount of '1 unit' wins.  The order of the events that have to appear will reclaim all of your '1 unit' wins with staggering speed over the short term, the long term as anything you can think of in-between those. 

And, if you think you really can predict when those positive outcomes will come out, you still have a huge amount of deficient outcomes that have to be juggled in the total number.  Okay, I will fold--I give in to all the system authors,  They are all correct.  Say in their case there really is 75% positive hits on their event.  I don't doubt it one bit.  Just the 25% of the deficient one/side, the opposite of the positive outcome has to me interfaced and mixed within the total picture each shoe.  And no amount of bank roll unless it is truly unlimited with no max bets on the table limits, can really attack something like this without eating up your bankroll/buy ins by blindly wagering for something consistently to happen without knowing what the production appearance schedule actually is of that event to come forward and be produced.   And, if you are wagering on that system and it held up to its true statics within a shoe, the next shoe or the 4th one after that one, your hit ratio will be a huge amount less than what is was supposed to be in order to make up for the total ratio, no matter if it is from one trillion shoe test or a one million or even a 10,000 shoe test.  Giving you the benefit of the doubt and folding to the 100% Holy Grail find by any author, wagering on the positive events of any system will deplete your bankroll or buy in the greatest amount of times due to the ratio of the deficient outcomes coming forward.  Once again, the key trigger which is absent and will always be absent on a system event to prevail with consistency, is not knowing when the production appearance of that positive outcome will be produced.   

A series of the tests that contain numerous amounts of shoes, means absolutely nothing, because that test series will not be produced with the same results when the test is repeated as many times as I mentioned earlier.  If it holds up for 1,000,000 shoes and is real, it will also hold up for 1,000,000 series groups of 1,000,000 shoes.  Which would be 1 Trillion shoes of 80 hands in each and every shoe.  All that would happen, would be that the author's positive event that happened with a smaller amount of shoes was so diluted, he would need a microscope to find his positive hit outcome ratio.  For the simple reason.  The cards will always be in a different order after being shuffled as compared to the first test. 

[alrelax]

Statistics—Systems and Bet-Placement Methods
Why So Detrimental to a Player, Short and Sweet

2 Important Things IMO You Must Understand and Be Clear On:

Positive Statistical Outcome. The number of events that were captured and claimed happened with respect to a certain event outcome or perhaps several outcomes group into a singular cause, that won—prevailed and occurred.

Deficient Statistical Outcome. The number of events that were produced accurately to a certain event outcome that lost—failed to happen and would be considered the opposite of the 'Positive Statistical Outcome'.

The author will twist and turn with written glamour, glitz and a cherry on top, to feed the greed—the desperation and the general urge to win, in every player with his vision to finally recoup all of his lost funds prior to the reading and believing of the author's book/system.   This is always the case with every system, for whatever reason it is always added on, I can only assume for the author's intense motivation of the people to buy his book/system. 

Here is an example.  1,000,000 shoes.  Say there is a 75% positive statistical outcome of what the author found to be a newly discovered betting pattern that will make you all kinds of money if you follow his instructions and advise, etc.  Great!  The hype and the 'Wow' status will be huge to the newly founded holy-grail discovered by 'so and so'.  Let's take a quick look at this.  What does a 75% player advantage really mean—in reality?

That the event happened a total of 750,000 times in the course of the author's One Million shoe test.  That means the author documented a legitimate and honest 750,000 hits for the positive outcome of the event he just discovered out of the One Million shoes, which is 80,000,000, Eighty Million Hands. The first thing the authors normally do, is cite the statistics for the number of shoes where the event occurred and not the number of hands.  Which would favor the author greatly beyond belief by doing it that way.  But let's just say for the sake of discussion, that the positive hit rate was a true 75% of the 1,000,000 shoes.  So there was a positive hit of 60,000,000 times out of the 1,000,000 shoes.   Likewise the test also proved the winning event lost, did not happen, a total of 250,000 times, 25% of the shoes.  Which would equate to a total of 20,000,000 hands out of those 1,000,000 shoes tested. 

But, can the author/researcher give you an exact schedule of when these 750,000/75% of the time or the 250,000/25% of the time, will happen?  The test was with one series of 1,000,000 shoes.  Not 1,000,000 tests of 80,000,000 hands played.  One series of shoes (One Million) of about 80 hands a shoe, equates to 80,000,000 hands tested.  I sincerely think that is insufficient in every way, shape and form.  I think a series of 1,000,000 of the 80,000,000 hands is more like it.  If you have something, you really have it.  The greater amount of shoes is necessary to being out the down fall of 'too few' in a series.  So let's get serious.  Even if that was done and accomplished correctly and definitively, it still will be unable to produce any schedule of events that can prove definitely consistent and consistent enough for you to learn when those 750,000 or the 60,000,000 positive hits will actually be produced. 

So many 'experts' will write something along the lines of, 'a large bankroll is needed to allow for the losses and the negative variance to progress and the players optimum chance to capitalize on my system of betting', etc.  Or, 'you have to lose 'X' amount of times in order to prevail according to my system', etc.  Like I said, even if the 75/25% is accurate and correct—it is and cannot be to the player's advantage simply because the production of either side is unknown.  Meaning, the player has no way to know, when those winning or losing wagers will actually happen.  Progression wagering in order to make up losses to wait it out and continue wagering is simply insane and the reason for almost every single player to go bankrupt, repeatedly before being able to profit from any such system. 

Furthermore, say 550,000 of the positive 750,000 figure, might appear in one 1,000,000 shoe test—during the first 625,000 hands and then the remainder is spread out among the remaining 375,000.  Or visa-versa.  During say a second 1,000,000 shoe test maybe the positive hits were equaling spaced out when they appeared, unlike the first one.  But the positive hits of the author's event, nonetheless still hit with nearly the same results.  And a third 1,000,000 shoe test produced results of groups of 25,000 shoes having a closer together ratio of positive hits and alternating groups of 25,000 shoes having a further away positive hit ration.  Etc., etc., etc., with varying appearance schedules but with basically the same ratio/results of the positive outcomes themselves. 

I have tried this with a very simple method that convinced me of what I am referring to.  I took one deck of cards.  I shuffled them and I recorded what happened after every natural 8 and 9.  Then I wrote down the order of that deck as it came out.  When I was finished with that one deck, I put it back together the same exact way it came out previously.  AMAZING!  The same exact thing was produced.  I recorded a 100% result of knowing what hand or 'cut' will appear immediately after every single natural 8 or 9.  Then I shuffled the deck once again.  My third test.  I shuffled the legitimate way.  Completely different than the previous 2 tests.  A few of the hands were the same.  Then I shuffled a 4th time, a 5th time, a 6th time, a 7th time and all the way up to a 50th time.  And each and every deck produced different patterns after each other.  Some decks produced a greater number of the same results and other decks produced a lesser number of the same results. 

Even if the number of say, Players being produced after a natural 8 or 9 was 75% in my test of the 50 decks, I still would not know the order those 'cuts' top the Player side would be produced.  Of course the system authors would just say to have a large enough bankroll in that case to cover the 25% or so you stand to lose and you will win at least ¼ of the wagers you make.  The only problem with that is, you would need a definitive block of wins and losses to accurately occur.  Meaning a test would have to be something along the lines of 1,000,000 test of 1,000,000 shoes as I already outlined.  Test of small numbers that prove high in positive outcome events, are totally misleading and full of false fallacies that system authors thrive on to get people exciting and their temporary trust in their work. 

No 50 shoe test, no 10,000 shoe test, not even a real 1,000,000 shoe test is going to produce anything definitive that will happen in certainty or even to the players advantage with its scheduled appearance definitive and discovered.  Nothing.  Sad news for all the system 'wannabes' millionaires, but the absolute truth. 

That is the problem with all statistical and testing in baccarat.  Maybe in roulette you can predict where the little white ball will land with great accuracy based upon the way the dealer spins it and the way the wheel handles it---I don't know, but I do know in baccarat, the cards will never fall in any definitive order that you can wager with consistency with them or against them in any order and always win.  Not even with the winning discounted to 'the majority of the time'.

Play to win, not to have a slight advantage to possibly wager negative progressions to get even and recoup the funds you have just lost.  Or, have the thought process along with that, if I do that a certain amount of times, I will have a certain amount of '1 unit' wins.  The order of the events that have to appear will reclaim all of your '1 unit' wins with staggering speed over the short term, the long term as anything you can think of in-between those. 

And, if you think you really can predict when those positive outcomes will come out, you still have a huge amount of deficient outcomes that have to be juggled in the total number.  Okay, I will fold--I give in to all the system authors,  They are all correct.  Say in their case there really is 75% positive hits on their event.  I don't doubt it one bit.  Just the 25% of the deficient one/side, the opposite of the positive outcome has to me interfaced and mixed within the total picture each shoe.  And no amount of bank roll unless it is truly unlimited with no max bets on the table limits, can really attack something like this without eating up your bankroll/buy ins by blindly wagering for something consistently to happen without knowing what the production appearance schedule actually is of that event to come forward and be produced.   And, if you are wagering on that system and it held up to its true statics within a shoe, the next shoe or the 4th one after that one, your hit ratio will be a huge amount less than what is was supposed to be in order to make up for the total ratio, no matter if it is from one trillion shoe test or a one million or even a 10,000 shoe test.  Giving you the benefit of the doubt and folding to the 100% Holy Grail find by any author, wagering on the positive events of any system will deplete your bankroll or buy in the greatest amount of times due to the ratio of the deficient outcomes coming forward.  Once again, the key trigger which is absent and will always be absent on a system event to prevail with consistency, is not knowing when the production appearance of that positive outcome will be produced.   

A series of the tests that contain numerous amounts of shoes, means absolutely nothing, because that test series will not be produced with the same results when the test is repeated as many times as I mentioned earlier.  If it holds up for 1,000,000 shoes and is real, it will also hold up for 1,000,000 series groups of 1,000,000 shoes.  Which would be 1 Trillion shoes of 80 hands in each and every shoe.  All that would happen, would be that the author's positive event that happened with a smaller amount of shoes was so diluted, he would need a microscope to find his positive hit outcome ratio.  For the simple reason.  The cards will always be in a different order after being shuffled as compared to the first test.

And, in one sentence--that is why following statistical patterns that are published will not help you be an overall winner in the game of baccarat.