+ Register

[alrelax]

Lots of talk about Progressions (both positive and negative), as well as Flat Betting and at time Random Wagering.

Personally, I stick to both, positive progressions (1-3-2-6) and flat betting when starting and winning. 

I seldom engage in negative progressions.  I just don't see it and usually adds insult to the injury.  Crawling out of a hole at times has worked more successfully for me than the negative progression route.  Easily said on the internet and in talk--to do such and such to recover, but just doesn't work that way with negative progressions-especially in the martingale amounts. 

BTW, I have 'pre-saved' myself countless times (and I stress countless) by calming down or flat betting even when I won quite a few hands.  No rhyme or reason for me to convert from 1-3-2-6 to just parlaying a win and then pulling down, other than a gut feeling or the experience that things change without my control, etc.

Personally, I get less frustrated and upset if I pull down and wager a smaller amount or even do not wager on a winning hand rather than wagering on the losing side because of such and such, etc.   I guess what I wanted to bring out, 'better safe than sorry'.  I do believe the non-tangible feelings and clear mind, etc., is a vital and most important piece of a players success in this game.

To better define the paragraph above, I offer the following.  For myself, I stay more in the frame of mind and get less frustrated if I win less or don't wager versus losing.  Meaning, say there was a streak, unlike lots of players these days wagering against it, if I was on it I would not wager to cut to the other side.  I rather cut-down on my wager or not wager at all if I really feel it will cut or it's ending, etc.  If I wager on the other side and lose, I get frustrated to the max.  If I cut down or didn't wager, I don't feel as bad if I won or even lost.  To me, it is so paramount to stay cool-headed, clear-minded and so on then to get all frustrated and upset.

I mention these things because I read on here as well as other forums, how most everyone that is posting is hell-bent and has a written agenda and won't deviate from it. 

There are so many variables and other non-tangible matters concerning wagering and the repercussions of them, that there is no way a written protocol can be deployed for what to wager and what not to wager, shoe after shoe after shoe.  All, IMO.

[AsymBacGuy]

If systems, progressions or mechanical methods cannot beat the game, then why are we  here wasting time and wondering how other "empirical" methods could have the best of it?

A player willing to cut streaks or patterns isn't more stup.id than a player trying to follow trends or whatever.

In the long run the final outcome for either player will be the same.

It's just the short term illusion that varies.

Progression players will get more short term winnings than "instinct" players and among the list a flat bettor will be the less apt to lose his/her entire stack.

If "instinct" would be a valuable tool to beat the game, baccarat tables would have disappeared a long time ago. And of course the same is about mechanical or progression systems. 

as. 













 




















 

[alrelax]

And that is some of the reason why I mix it up from many different aspects. 

[soxfan]

Betting flat don't feed the bulldog, hey hey.

[Qswaggerstupid18]

Betting flat don't feed the bulldog, hey hey.

Same Here!!.... Lol   I can only imagine flat betting when you have an 50/50 shoe!! .... COULD'VE BEATEN IT with a little progression!!!.... LOL 

[alrelax]

If systems, progressions or mechanical methods cannot beat the game, then why are we  here wasting time and wondering how other "empirical" methods could have the best of it?

A player willing to cut streaks or patterns isn't more stup.id than a player trying to follow trends or whatever.

In the long run the final outcome for either player will be the same.

It's just the short term illusion that varies.

Progression players will get more short term winnings than "instinct" players and among the list a flat bettor will be the less apt to lose his/her entire stack.

If "instinct" would be a valuable tool to beat the game, baccarat tables would have disappeared a long time ago. And of course the same is about mechanical or progression systems. 

as. 



What is the long run to you?

10 hands out of the shoe, 30 hands out of the shoe.  The whole shoe if you wager all 80 or so hands???

One year of playing 5 days a week or 10 years of playing 1 day a week for a couple of shoes?

Everyone always is quick to cite, 'in the long run'.....

Define it.........................of course this will be your definition of it.









 

[21 Aces]

Once a lap is complete, it is complete.  Differentials add up over time given sustained performance so it seems 'In the long run' really is referring to a deterioration in performance.

[alrelax]

If you are saying, 'I am not going for the streak because in the 'long run' I will lose at least 50% of the time, you are absolutely the most misinformed player I have ever come across.

Replace the bold highlighted word with; doubles, chop-chop, whatever term or event you wish. 

We are talking about the instant shoe, at the casino on a live game.  I am not talking about adding up 50,000 shoes over a period of 10 years wagering 1,500,000 hands on the streak, doubles or chop-chop, etc. 

[AsymBacGuy]

Hi Al!

Baccarat is a game of asymmetrical percentages and implying a very huge variance.

This very huge variance will happen as the difference between B and P is just the by product of an average 50.68%/49.32% ratio. A tiny asymmetrical ratio.

If I'm betting 10, 100, 1000, 10.000 or 10.000 hands, I know I'll get closer and closer to that expected ratio the more I'm playing.
For example, I'm 99.9999999999% sure I won't get ten consecutive 3+ P streaks in a row without a P double placed in between. And many other less deviated statistical situations.

Imo it's very important to wait the happening of certain more or less deviated situations where thereafter one side must show up more likely than not as mathematics will dictate so. I call it globally long run, it could be named intermediate run, relatively short run or whatever.

No one sane baccarat player in the world could think to get more B singles than B streaks or more 3+ P streaks than P doubles.
This doesn't mean to regularly bet to get those so called most likely outcomes.   

as.



 


 

     

[alrelax]

Hi Al!

Baccarat is a game of asymmetrical percentages and implying a very huge variance.

This very huge variance will happen as the difference between B and P is just the by product of an average 50.68%/49.32% ratio. A tiny asymmetrical ratio.

If I'm betting 10, 100, 1000, 10.000 or 10.000 hands, I know I'll get closer and closer to that expected ratio the more I'm playing.
For example, I'm 99.9999999999% sure I won't get ten consecutive 3+ P streaks in a row without a P double placed in between. And many other less deviated statistical situations.

Imo it's very important to wait the happening of certain more or less deviated situations where thereafter one side must show up more likely than not as mathematics will dictate so. I call it globally long run, it could be named intermediate run, relatively short run or whatever.

No one sane baccarat player in the world could think to get more B singles than B streaks or more 3+ P streaks than P doubles.
This doesn't mean to regularly bet to get those so called most likely outcomes.   

as.



 


 

   

Absolutely, alignment....gut-experience-and knowing anything and everything can happen at anytime.  However, as you outlined somewhat--there is realization and things that will probably not happen even in the short run, like one night of playing, etc.   Yes, I agree.

[AsymBacGuy]

Yeah, of couse Al!

It would be too easy to beat the game if P doubles, for example, regularly overcome the 3+ P streaks on "short" terms.

Say we want to share me and you a $100.000 bankroll trying to get a regular profit wagering toward the apperance of just a single B streak. Our standard unit is $500. That is we have 200 units to risk.

I can guarantee you by a 100% accuracy that we will be 99.99999999999% more likely to double up our bankroll than to entire lose it.

The same about P singles and many other statistical situations. (But we need a 200 unit bankroll to cover each of the presented outcomes, at least to get that 99.99999999999% probability to succeed)

There's almost no fkng way the casino will take all our money because we'll wait and wait and wait the favourable opportunities to bet.

as.

 

[alrelax]

If systems, progressions or mechanical methods cannot beat the game, then why are we  here wasting time and wondering how other "empirical" methods could have the best of it?

A player willing to cut streaks or patterns isn't more stup.id than a player trying to follow trends or whatever.

In the long run the final outcome for either player will be the same.

It's just the short term illusion that varies.

Progression players will get more short term winnings than "instinct" players and among the list a flat bettor will be the less apt to lose his/her entire stack.

If "instinct" would be a valuable tool to beat the game, baccarat tables would have disappeared a long time ago. And of course the same is about mechanical or progression systems. 

as. 

I think we are on the same page.

As far as 'empirical', we are wagering on propositions that could be correct or wrong.  How we get to the correct prevailing sides, no matter what they are, is by our believes and how each of us is guided.  No matter how that is. 

If you want to use the word instinct for the things I am saying-not 100% fair, I don't feel it is purely that.  It is like I said, being guided by many different sources.  Outcomes as you have said, prevailing happenings Vs. what is likely to happen or could happen or has happened more times than not happening (numerous possibilities) but the statement you said with 'favorable opportunities' and such things as 'probabilities to succeed', etc.