+ Register

[soxfan]

Good to see the john-O/gr888888888888one feud still goin strong, hey hey.

[HunchBacShrimp]

We don't have to forget that at baccarat there's a very slight force shifting the outcomes on the opposite side of the last hand (Michael Schackelford, Wizard of odds).

That's why we'll get a fair amount of B singles despite and over the asymmetricity factor's value.
Maybe Worldbaccaratking could better illuminate you about this.

as.

I could use some clarification on "... a fair amount of B singles despite and over the asymmetricity factor's value..."

I recall reading something similar that I also did not grasp. It sounds to me as if B singles more often than it should as it interrupts long runs of P and/or prevents P from doubling. I can't imagine I'm understanding that accurately. Because the bet that B singles is on P which holds no commission, if it happened more often than normal it would hold +EV.

I would appreciate some clarity.

[AsymBacGuy]

I could use some clarification on "... a fair amount of B singles despite and over the asymmetricity factor's value..."

I recall reading something similar that I also did not grasp. It sounds to me as if B singles more often than it should as it interrupts long runs of P and/or prevents P from doubling. I can't imagine I'm understanding that accurately. Because the bet that B singles is on P which holds no commission, if it happened more often than normal it would hold +EV.

I would appreciate some clarity.

Hi!
Yes, some P bets have shown to get a slight positive expectation itlr.
It all depends when and how.
And those favourable spots are quite rare. 

as.

[WorldBaccaratKing]

Hi!
Yes, some P bets have shown to get a slight positive expectation itlr.
It all depends when and how.
And those favourable spots are quite rare. 

as.

Let me know where to send the 5 dollars for your book. I always need a good read (or good laugh) when on the toilet.

[Sputnik]

I Think AS is trolling this forum.

Cheers

[WorldBaccaratKing]

I Think AS is trolling this forum.

Cheers

You don't say!!!!!!

[HunchBacShrimp]

Hi!
Yes, some P bets have shown to get a slight positive expectation itlr.
It all depends when and how.
And those favourable spots are quite rare. 

as.

We are talking about 1 P bet in particular.
If any P bet shows a slight positive expectation ITLR then I don't follow how it could 'depend on when and how'. 'When' especially. The Long Run covers all possible occurrences of "When" regardless of 'rarity. It either has a positive EV or it doesn't.

So, if you don't mind could you be more specific.

[AsymBacGuy]

We are talking about 1 P bet in particular.
If any P bet shows a slight positive expectation ITLR then I don't follow how it could 'depend on when and how'. 'When' especially. The Long Run covers all possible occurrences of "When" regardless of 'rarity. It either has a positive EV or it doesn't.

So, if you don't mind could you be more specific.

Hi HBS.
Since a deck is formed by a finite number of cards and knowing that the vast majority of resolved hands are produced by a perfect coin flip proposition, imo we should focus about the probability or better the unlikelihood to get some "complex" consecutive events.

as. 


   
 
   




   

[HunchBacShrimp]

Hi HBS.
Since a deck is formed by a finite number of cards and knowing that the vast majority of resolved hands are produced by a perfect coin flip proposition, imo we should focus about the probability or better the unlikelihood to get some "complex" consecutive events.

as. 

This is still not an answer.
We are talking about one P bet in particular, not "...some complex consecutive events" The P bet we are talking about is after the first instance of B. Isolating that B as a single event.

and now you need to further clarify ".....the vast majority of resolved hands are produced by a perfect coin flip propostion....." as it implies that some resolved hands are not produced by a perfect coin flip so I must assume they are resolved by some bias.

Yes, a deck is formed by a finite number of cards. Are you implying card counting?

   
 
   

[AsymBacGuy]

I'm not referring about the possible raised likelihood to get a P after a single B, instead I'm talking about a small range of bets where P is slightly more probable than what mathematics dictates.

The "bias" is just a long term distribution topic and it's a finding coming out after certain deviated situations.
Imo, it's not a mere RTM effect, instead it is a reflex of the general nature of baccarat which favors an alternating hands formation (providing that some deviated sequences have exhausted in some way the asymmetrical effect).

Card counting? Not working, as you well know.

as.

[HunchBacShrimp]

Yes, I knew card counting did not work. I wasn't trying to lead you down that path, I thought you were leading 'me' down that road.

Alright, I'm starting to figure out what you are getting at. I'm going to think it through some more and then ask more questions.

I appreciate your time and patience.

[ezmark]

Bias is something I've tried to find a solution for or more clearly , How to control.

For example this is the approx. default frequency of bias percentage as it relates to P/B in a row.

  1's      50%
  2's      25%
  3's      12 %
  4's        6%
  5's        3%
  etc...

For any progression or bet selection to win, there must be a deviation, in your favor, of the bias percentage calculated over a large number of games on the bet you have selected .   

For example,  we look at 2 IN A ROW, as the thread topic,  If the bias percentage is 28% instead of 25% we should bet that there will be more two in a row.

If the bias percentage is 21%, then we should bet that there will be less of two in a row.

Feel free to express your thoughts.

[ezmark]

In addition, When the P/B 's  in a row,  is the same as the default frequency , the game is unbeatable , blind luck aside, regardless of your progression or bet selection.

In conclusion, every shoe has its own bias frequency , that's why some we win and some we lose.

To control the bias is the only true grail.

[gr8player]

To control the bias is the only true grail.

OK.  I'll give you that one.

But, you see, EZMark, here's the rub:

How do we define the bias?  And when do we define the bias?

Biases come and go just as P's and B's come and go.

So, yes, I too play for biases.  But, my friend, mine are set.  I won't let the table have me chasing trends and/or biases like a dog chasing its tail.

You want the TRUE GRAIL, ezmark:

It's held by the player that INSISTS that THEIR PREFERRED BIAS COMES TO THEM.  No chasing, just waiting.  ASSUMING that your preferred bias holds any water over the long term (read:  is statistically sound), it then becomes ONLY A MATTER OF TIME.

So, you must win.  What did I just say???!!!  Did I just say "you MUST win"!!!

Patience, my friends....Discipline, my friends.....conservative win goals (and, yes, strict loss limits so that you'll ALWAYS live to fight another day)....and a money-management plan that conforms to your own personal comfort zones....YES, YOU MUST WIN over the long term.

OK, gr8player, spill it:  Your bet selection process IS:

I measure the singles (1's) and I measure the doubles (2's) and I measure the streaks (3's and above).

Singles is easy, bet for OLD.
Doubles are easy, bet for the 2-hole (read: second line on your horizontal scorecard).
Streaks are easy, a 1/2 unit at any "new top", then my parlay play.

Wait a minute, gr8player, this all sounds too easy....can't be THAT easy, can it?

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!

Look, what is your bet selection process' nemesis?  That is a true key.  So you learn to keep your potential "loss window" as tight as possible.  Then you learn what your loss streaks look like....how do they appear?  In other words, what makes you lose?  Then it's but a short step to the all-important LOSS AVOIDANCE.  In other words...don't bet when your loss window appears expending/appearing.  There's even a term for it, and a rather vital and valuable one at that:  VIRTUAL LOSSES.  Losses to your preferred bet selections that cost you NOTHING!  It doesn't get any better than that, my friends, especially not for the player who's always thinking for the long term.

Be Patient.  Be Disciplined.  And allow the game to come to you, rather than chasing for it.

Now, to be sure, this sort of play does take experience.  Knowing your way around a shoe is very vital.  People that can't do that are left with their mechanical templates, columns, and double z's....but we rise above all of that with our trending/biased play.  We're the hunter just waiting to ambush our prey as quickly as it begins appearing.  Now, we might miss a catch every now and again, but the true winner plays this game as a long term game, so we've got answers for both the good and the not-so-good times.  Valid, proven answers.  True winners do what the losers either can not or will not, because our Baccarat game is designed by us and built by us to WIN.

And so I leave you with this one question:  What do you want said of you?

[Missmusibat]

Why confuse people and talk in the air?

From when baccaratt was invented, people has been preaching be patient, be disciplined, set yourselves goals so on and so forth. Nothing new and there will not be anything new. Measuring single, double, streaks, every baccaratt player will have some kind of a bet selection that goes for single, double and streaks. Nothing new. I can't understand the point, repeatedly beating the bush.

But i am awed by some posts in the forum that claims about a supernatural power knowing the way around a shoe. All i can say is it cannot be supernatural and if it cannot be supernatural, people are just talking around the bush scared/protective to show their way of play. Why talk loud when you cannot back it. hmm....can't blame them, the world is full of wild cats who will pounce upon as soon as someone show their way of play. good luck