Hi guys! I am brand new on here and a bit of a baccarat junkie. I only have 1 strategy that I use in Baccarat and it is quite simple. In Baccarat there are always more runs of 2 than 3 or more. So I only bet after 2 in a row that the 3rd will be opposite. I flat bet to win 3 units per shoe. If that fails I double on the next shoe. It is extremely successful but a bit of a grind. Works well on Dublinbet as the shoes are dealt faster than a BnM casino. I usually play more than 1 computer aswell. I sometimes also use a 3 level marty system aswell to keep the risk lower: 1,1,1,2,2,2,4,4,4,8,8,8,16,16,16 etc. once a level is completed I revert back to the beginning. Just my 2 cents but it works great. Patience is the key.
Welcome, don't seem to bad, whatever is working for you, keep with it!
it is an even chance bet. there will be as many series of 2 as larger series.
Quote from: spankmythighs on March 28, 2015, 03:59:39 PM
Hi guys! I am brand new on here and a bit of a baccarat junkie. I only have 1 strategy that I use in Baccarat and it is quite simple. In Baccarat there are always more runs of 2 than 3 or more. So I only bet after 2 in a row that the 3rd will be opposite. I flat bet to win 3 units per shoe. If that fails I double on the next shoe. It is extremely successful but a bit of a grind. Works well on Dublinbet as the shoes are dealt faster than a BnM casino. I usually play more than 1 computer aswell. I sometimes also use a 3 level marty system aswell to keep the risk lower: 1,1,1,2,2,2,4,4,4,8,8,8,16,16,16 etc. once a level is completed I revert back to the beginning. Just my 2 cents but it works great. Patience is the key.
Do you stop after one L or after few losses?
Is this the PB method?
There are always more runs of 1 than 2 or more so why not bet against the 2's?
There are always more runs of 3 than 4 or more so why not bet against the 4's?
There are always more runs of 4 than 5 or more so why not bet against the 5's?
There are always more runs of 5 than 6 or more so why not bet against the 6's?
I don't get it, really?
Quote from: greenguy on March 29, 2015, 09:17:34 AM
There are always more runs of 1 than 2 or more so why not bet against the 2's?
There are always more runs of 3 than 4 or more so why not bet against the 4's?
There are always more runs of 4 than 5 or more so why not bet against the 5's?
There are always more runs of 5 than 6 or more so why not bet against the 6's?
I don't get it, really?
There are as many singles as series. In your terms as many runs of 1 as 2's, 3's, 4's, ... and so on. So it would be simple to bet against series larger than 2. At least in theory.
Total singles will form the same amount of total streaks, obviously things are very different depending which side we are considering.
At B side, any larger streak will be prevalent over the inferior streak up to a point. The gap is doubled for every class considered (so B 3+/3 gap is double than the B 4+/4 gap and so on).
At some cut-off point any B streak class will be equally placed than larger streaks.
At P side, there's no cut-off points, so any P streak class will always be inferior to larger streaks.
as.
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.
So you're essentially betting opposite the last, but with blinkers on.
You can do better than that.
What is the maximum bet you have made so far? I presume if you lose the three 16 unit bets, you start at 1 unit.
Thanks.
Quote from: greenguy on March 29, 2015, 09:17:34 AM
I don't get it, really?
It is because the FoO which rings true on all data samples.
However I would suggest the frequency between "singles and doubles" are simply too close, you can get shoes were the second line hole gap is only happens twice in a shoe. Which is great for second line players, those that bet FLD, however you can't see around corners, so don't sweat it..
A much better way for on-line players (can't do this in a bricks 'n' mortar joint without heavy bankroll), on-line you can bet a pittance. So run a progression, I use my own form based on a Labby, you can construct your own. Run this progression after any three streak for three bets, if you lose a lot of bets (streaky shoe) who cares, but you will want this money back at some stage.
Next; run a higher progression for bets, say 5 times or more than the first progression, should you lose three bets you have run into a six streak.
Next; pull out the big guns and make bets that the current 6 streak doesn't run beyond 9, if it does then stop betting.
Sure you will have the odd on-line streak greater than 9, doesn't matter unless they happen back to back and frequently, but it is very unlikely for that to happen. This is a long term strategy, hit a bad (streaky) shoe, next one should be normal with lots of runs stopping at 3, 4, 5 etc.
As for the singles and doubles, don't worry about them, too much headache, your still making money anyway.
BTW; hit the wrong shoe and your really low progression gets battered, round up he total and move the current draw-down to the higher progressions for means of recoup and restart the lower progression.
This is what I did about a month or so ago, but where I play have really sloppy shuffle procedures which results in a lot of clumping therefore long streaks, such as a 10 streak or more every fcuking shoe and you can become frustrated and sometimes don't feel like stopping and when you think you have won cos' your side is on 8, the other side stops at 9. Then become even more angry and hammer away at the mouse button swearing and calling them a bunch of cheating %^$&$*'s.
Basically you see mad runs on-line that you don't see in a real world casino, I put it down to the outfit simply wanting to keep the game going, so they call in some other trainee to shuffle the cards, who doesn't do the job properly because she earns less than peanuts for a wage, there are reasons why UK operations choose to be based in the Baltic states...
(FoO = frequency of occurrence)
Quote from: Rolex-Watch on March 30, 2015, 12:44:21 PM
It is because the FoO which rings true on all data samples.
However I would suggest the frequency between "singles and doubles" are simply too close, you can get shoes were the second line hole gap is only happens twice in a shoe. Which is great for second line players, those that bet FLD, however you can't see around corners, so don't sweat it..
A much better way for on-line players (can't do this in a bricks 'n' mortar joint without heavy bankroll), on-line you can bet a pittance. So run a progression, I use my own form based on a Labby, you can construct your own. Run this progression after any three streak for three bets, if you lose a lot of bets (streaky shoe) who cares, but you will want this money back at some stage.
Next; run a higher progression for bets, say 5 times or more than the first progression, should you lose three bets you have run into a six streak.
Next; pull out the big guns and make bets that the current 6 streak doesn't run beyond 9, if it does then stop betting.
Sure you will have the odd on-line streak greater than 9, doesn't matter unless they happen back to back and frequently, but it is very unlikely for that to happen. This is a long term strategy, hit a bad (streaky) shoe, next one should be normal with lots of runs stopping at 3, 4, 5 etc.
As for the singles and doubles, don't worry about them, too much headache, your still making money anyway.
BTW; hit the wrong shoe and your really low progression gets battered, round up he total and move the current draw-down to the higher progressions for means of recoup and restart the lower progression.
This is what I did about a month or so ago, but where I play have really sloppy shuffle procedures which results in a lot of clumping therefore long streaks, such as a 10 streak or more every fcuking shoe and you can become frustrated and sometimes don't feel like stopping and when you think you have won cos' your side is on 8, the other side stops at 9. Then become even more angry and hammer away at the mouse button swearing and calling them a bunch of cheating %^$&$*'s.
Basically you see mad runs on-line that you don't see in a real world casino, I put it down to the outfit simply wanting to keep the game going, so they call in some other trainee to shuffle the cards, who doesn't do the job properly because she earns less than peanuts for a wage, there are reasons why UK operations choose to be based in the Baltic states...
(FoO = frequency of occurrence)
I agree about the FoO being too close to do much with. As regards waiting for 3 LIAR isn't it just a difference of event frequency? By waiting for LLL we are simply betting less hands. Not going to necessarily win more hands per 100 bets. So we could do just as well betting OLD at every event.
So poor shuffles producing clumps and long streaks? Now we are getting into what Ellis has been saying for years. He adds that the casino does it on purpose to thwart the player. We can go down that road forever but the point is IF you think or believe or if in fact shuffles producing more long runs than random would dictate why not change your bet strategy to accommodate the bias? I digress.
One could do the same bet prog that spanky is doing using any number of fixed criteria and get the same successful results unless there is a bet selection that changes the LIAR.
J
Here's an idea that I've put on my TODO list, maybe someone's already tried it although the book keeping would be arduous:
Have a separate progression for each single, double, triple streak (up to say 5 or 6) on both sides. i.e., banker singles, player singles, banker doubles, player doubles etc.
I don't think the progression would need to be aggressive, perhaps a modified d'Alembert. When you have a new high balance, reset all progressions. Also, it might be worth shifting the debts around from one progression to another if things get too out of balance and you're still in the red.
I play more the way Bayes does dividing things up and I separate banker and player also
I was sitting at a roulette terminal the other day and in the Genting Casino I visit, they have these big electronic scoreboards hanging down where you can see what's going on. The two shoes I watched would have made a killing with the 'Pit Boss' Strategy. All 2's and 3's the whole way through the shoe.
Quote from: Jimske on March 31, 2015, 08:49:51 PM
By waiting for LLL we are simply betting less hands. Not going to necessarily win more hands per 100 bets. So we could do just as well betting OLD at every event.
Because wins will take care of themselves, we as players need to focus more on avoiding losses. Losses consume bankroll, I rather go home "even" and win less on other days. Avoiding losses is more important than seeing how much you can win. Bet OLD were I play on-line and you will get your behind handed to you on a plate sooner than you know it.
Quote from: Jimske on March 31, 2015, 08:49:51 PM
So poor shuffles producing clumps and long streaks? Now we are getting into what Ellis has been saying for years. He adds that the casino does it on purpose to thwart the player. We can go down that road forever but the point is IF you think or believe or if in fact shuffles producing more long runs than random would dictate why not change your bet strategy to accommodate the bias? I digress.
Let's nor worry about what Ellis says, but yes the shuffle procedure has a major impact. You could chance betting FLD, but even streaky shoes usually includes chops and again, you can't see around corners. When I say sloppy shuffle procedures produce streaky shoes, this doesn't mean the entire shoe or shoe after shoe is streaky. However nearly every shoe I play has at the very least a single 8 streak, many shoes have multiple long streaks, I simply don't know when things are going to run, so don't play for them.
Most definitely without a doubt there is a difference. I see runs that hardly occur in my land-based casino, on-line they are very frequent. Ditto a particular over-seas casino as like "Streak-City", they installed those Angle Eye auto-card shufflers like another over-seas joint and it was a 100% game changer.
Quote from: Bayes on April 01, 2015, 11:41:58 AM
Here's an idea that I've put on my TODO list, maybe someone's already tried it although the book keeping would be arduous:
Have a separate progression for each single, double, triple streak (up to say 5 or 6) on both sides. i.e., banker singles, player singles, banker doubles, player doubles etc.
I don't think the progression would need to be aggressive, perhaps a modified d'Alembert. When you have a new high balance, reset all progressions. Also, it might be worth shifting the debts around from one progression to another if things get too out of balance and you're still in the red.
I went through this a few years ago, forget about separating the sides, GR8 was trending individual sides this some time back, I tried it a few times, it wasn't long before it stank the place out.
Even if you combine, too bad when one streak length goes to sleep for a while, hence I took sub-sets of streak lengths and applied various flexible progressions to various portions of the shoe. The problem is, a few long runs consume too much bankroll and you have to start all over again clearing your lines or in my case "strings".
Quoteunless there is a bet selection that changes the LIAR.
I may have something that achieves this, the expectation for 3Liar is 17%.
Time to give these people a break
[attach=1]
Next week I'll be in MBS and Resorts World (any Singapore players here?).
Sir Rolex Watch, yeah the soap opera is now flown away for the mind serenity of many, you first.
How have you thought we were on the same "symmetry wawe" if I stressed months long to the importance of asymmetricity?
And, lol, do you really think yours is a "very brilliant system"?
We (we) were kidding you. It's just the old soup made of progressions, progressions, progressions.
After all, today is april's fool.
as.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on April 01, 2015, 03:56:03 PM
Sir Rolex Watch, yeah the soap opera is now flown away for the mind serenity of many, you first.
How have you thought we were on the same "symmetry wawe" if I stressed months long to the importance of asymmetricity?
And, lol, do you really think yours is a "very brilliant system"?
We (we) were kidding you. It's just the old soup made of progressions, progressions, progressions.
After all, today is april's fool.
as.
a$$BacFool who's been jerking off for over 18 months at the expense of others. Symmetrical and betting against it continuance or OW, truly is an art, however it is anthropomorphizing a casino game no matter how you attempt to justify it, (Fools Gold),
that sayed it all. .
Having played Baccarat in many territories, as we know, 80 ~ 90% of players are those whom English is not their prime language, from the low rollers to the VIP rooms, the majority of players are from East Asia (cool with that). Now the Chinese can be smart cookies when it comes to maths, so let's imagine for a second somebody discovered a flaw or an exploitable bet opportunity for the game of Baccarat.
Our non-English speaking players congregate amongst themselves, they chat amongst themselves in their first language. Having spent the last 10 years sharing tables. I can assure you ,
if they had 'something' they would not share outside their own circle [fact of life, applicable to all].
Do you really think it would be laid out or clues posted to it's existence on an internet forum? Or instead the person with the key to the treasure chest might form a syndicate and first rape all the US casinos, then the Canadian ones, then fly over to Singapore, Macau, then possibly Australia, staying in 5 star hotels, their every need being comp'd. Of course you would put all of this at risk and irking your friends (maybe even risking your well-being!!!), by revealing or even hinting that there exists an exploitable flaw in the game.
Of course none of this is applicable, because it doesn't exist, no single exploitable flaw, no primo distribution / asymmetry, in fact the game shouldn't be anthropomorphized at all.
Of course AsymBacJock could have cut to the chase a long long time ago, it is safe to assume internet jollies are rewarding for the small minded, courtesy of the few that continue to feed into the nonsense.
For those the have spent more than 5 minutes playing this game, think back to all those times you have lost 9-8, not been paid when yours was the side to first reach 9. Frequently yes? This is why there is no flaw, no single hand, sequence exploit, it is not only discourteous to those that actually play, it is mischievous to suggest otherwise. a$$bacjock has been given enough rope to hang a small colony and still hasn't produced squat or even provide a sniff of common sense, it is a bad testament for the forum.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on April 28, 2014, 05:00:50 pm
Sorry, but I had to remove the post after experiencing an unusual heat from the personnel of a Vegas casino.
Maybe tomorrow I'll post something correlated to it.
as.
[smiley]wan/1775465358wan.gif[/smiley]
Like I said before, a.s. Knows nothing.
He's a piker trying to catch a few unsuspecting newbies and lure em in.....
I would place a large wager he never bet more than a 5 dollar chip at a baccarat table. That's if he's even been to a live game.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on April 03, 2015, 12:12:56 AM
Yep, btw don't forget to change the diaper to your buddy RW (oh, sorry in Manchester, UK area they'll name it "nappy")
as.
as.
Why aren't you in your own thread talking in circles? Don't you get it yet? Many of the old timers who have been around on these boards for ten plus years think you're a joke!!! You're the laughing stock (next to N9.AKA-Alvin)! Jokes on you pal! Now go and ramble on about whatever you ramble on about. I swear you posted you were going to lock your thread? Another lie................You have told so many lies, you just can't keep track now can you?
Wow, unless I missed it, the clown finally closed up the worthless thread he started! THANK GOD! :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:
Quote from: WorldBaccaratKing on April 03, 2015, 04:24:04 AM
Wow, unless I missed it, the clown finally closed up the worthless thread he started! THANK GOD! :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:
He's gone one step further, he has deleted the entire thread. He was full of excrement. He mentions being in Vegas, then tells me he isn't far away from me, seeing I'm a long way from Vegas. Even more contradictions, WTF??
Good riddance to the biggest game player in the last few years, "I sayed".
[smiley]giga/dingue.gif[/smiley]
Hallelujah !!!!!!!!!! He's gone he's gone!!! Imagine the poor saps family? They have to sit and listen to him nonstop! Wowzaaaaaaaa
Has anyone toyed with the idea of changing the texture of the shoe ?
So that the result may be more 2's or less long runs for example?
interesting idea but how would you accomplish that?
Thanks Tomla,
I don't have an answer to the question.
Quote from: ezmark on April 11, 2015, 02:09:49 AM
Has anyone toyed with the idea of changing the texture of the shoe ?
So that the result may be more 2's or less long runs for example?
Yeah, we toy with it all the time. Reducing runs a key to progressions. The XXOO placement "supposed" to do just that. ZZ tries to do it too. Does it work? I'd like to see an analysis but my guess is . . . nope! Maybe using these two in conjuction and with a little guessing can help.
Quote from: Jimske on April 12, 2015, 04:02:10 AM
Yeah, we toy with it all the time. Reducing runs a key to progressions. The XXOO placement "supposed" to do just that. ZZ tries to do it too. Does it work? I'd like to see an analysis but my guess is . . . nope! Maybe using these two in conjuction and with a little guessing can help.
There was a cat on a forum years back that clamied to have good lucks using z and zz in combination depending on what the shoe was offering up, hey hey.
:-\
Quote from: Jimske on April 12, 2015, 04:02:10 AM
Yeah, we toy with it all the time. Reducing runs a key to progressions. The XXOO placement "supposed" to do just that. ZZ tries to do it too. Does it work? I'd like to see an analysis but my guess is . . . nope! Maybe using these two in conjuction and with a little guessing can help.
I was watching a Chinese player holding his own over a few sessions at Sky City in Kiwi-land (level Eight) recently. He only flat bet, basically he "knew what he was doing", he had a plan, as opposed to staring at the score board, engage in massive debate and then follow the herd.
As he didn't speak English, conversation on the balcony was rather difficult. But I got the gist of what he was saying, mocking those that are forever digging into more and more pockets and continually buying in.
His MM was easy, flat bet, his bet selection appeared to be XXOO, come rain or shine, XXOO (every hand), not that I have considered it myself, because to be right once in a 4 hand sequence, you have odds of 16/1 in your favour, to be right every time in a 4 hand sequence, the odds are 16/1 against. Perhaps flat betting minimises the sting of being 100% out of sync occasionally, never really tested it myself.
But if anybody is keen to run few of their own shoes, maybe post up your findings.
Quote from: Rolex-Watch on May 26, 2015, 08:09:18 AM
But if anybody is keen to run few of their own shoes, maybe post up your findings.
Surely you can't be serious! Oh my Goddness, Johno, what has happened to you over the years???!!!! "run a few shoes" on the "double Zigzag" (XXOO)....gee, how original, I'm sure nobody ever thought of that bet selection before....LLLOOOLLLL
Wait....I'll save you the trouble....the double ZZ is, much like you, a L.O.S.E.R.
(But....just between you and i, Johno....we both know you already knew that, after all, you played it exclusively after Systemmaker posted it years ago on the Gamblers Glen site, and, even worse, you proclaimed it as your grail shortly after. So don't even try to claim innocence about the double ZZ, Johno, those that know you for all these years know you all too well. Hasn't playing the double ZZ taken enough of your money already? Geez, my friend, you're a glutton for punishment. Wise up or give it up before you find yourself living out of an old washer/dryer box, for Goodness sakes.)
Good to see the john-O/gr888888888888one feud still goin strong, hey hey.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on March 30, 2015, 01:54:37 AM
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.
Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on June 03, 2015, 11:35:49 PM
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.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 04, 2015, 11:08:24 AM
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.
I Think AS is trolling this forum.
Cheers
Quote from: Sputnik on June 04, 2015, 02:12:51 PM
I Think AS is trolling this forum.
Cheers
You don't say!!!!!!
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 04, 2015, 11:08:24 AM
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.
Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on June 04, 2015, 09:57:18 PM
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.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 09, 2015, 10:38:53 PM
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: ezmark on June 16, 2015, 08:09:43 PM
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?
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
Imo, the "bias" should be interpreted as the difference, hand by hand, between a perfectly "zero starting point" game (as roulette) and a partially dependent game as baccarat.
Moreover, roulette outcomes are classified as an endless infinite hands' succession whereas at baccarat everything is restricted into the average 70 hands term.
Of course the only mathematical approach leading to some possible advantage includes a strict card counting procedure. Jacobsen demonstrated that about the Dragon and Panda bets; the fact that ties are payed only 8 to 1 and not 9 to 1 (still worth of an almost 5% house advantage) should confirm this (final decks rich of even cards, final decks rich of 6s and zero value cards and so on).
That's all about very unfavourable side bets, what about the more appealing BP hands?
In the intricate field of BP card counting, we know that some card sequences will favor the player side, not a single card but some sequences of cards.
And talking about the sequences of cards the task to grasp some hint will be almost worthless.
Anyway, some single cards (or a bunch of certain cards) will enchance the probability to get either an asymmetrical hand or a symmetrical one.
Naturally, knowing that the future hand will mostly be a symmetrical hand will raise our propensity to bet the P side, as we won't pay any vig on our winning bets. Of course "mostly" must be translated into a higher 91.4/8.6 S/AS ratio.
Any B bet won on a symmetrical hand will be a disaster for us, since we have to pay a 5% vig not benefitting for the privilege to have the B side deciding the best move after the third card has been dealt to the player.
Some very deviated final deck situations will raise the probability to get S hands.
For example, final decks particularly rich of 8s and 9s along with a decent amount of zero value cards will greatly increase the likelihood to get symmetrical hands, hands where B side won't get any advantage beyond a mere 50/50 probability.
The same happening comes out whenever a final deck is rich of very low and zero value cards.
But we shouldn't be bothered about this facts, as (imo) any bac deck will show a so called "average" shoe, the like any BJ shoe will form an average number of some negative shoes along with some positive shoes.
We can be 99.999% sure that in a sample of let's say 10-20 shoes, some most likely events will take place either for asymmetrical issues and for card distribution issues.
To get a better and simple idea of what I'm talking about (always IMO), let's register the shoes where in any point of a given shoe a a 5+ B streak will be followed by a 5+ P streak or viceversa.
The long term 50/50 odds are 2 to 1024.
Yep, in a perfectly 50/50 game.
as.
Quote from: Missmusibat on June 17, 2015, 12:40:19 PM
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
Hello, Missmusibat.
The apprehension is not so much about the "wild cats who will pounce" as much as it is the very frustration of it all.
You see, players such as myself employ alot of "subjectiveness" into their Bac games, both bet selection process-wise and money management-wise. Becomes rather difficult to either explain or share, as my placements will change "on the fly" so very often, based upon my experience and knowledge. That doesn't mean that I don't have a set bet placement strategy...I do...but I am constantly adjusting that strategy to the current dispositions of each particular shoe (or portion thereof).
Stay well.
A general question,
Will a systematic method, which wins an average 4 units per shoe for 20 shoes using a 1, 2 negative progression, be considered an exceptional method ?
Quote from: ezmark on June 28, 2015, 03:42:21 AM
A general question,
Will a systematic method, which wins an average 4 units per shoe for 20 shoes using a 1, 2 negative progression, be considered an exceptional method ?
Unequivocal and re-sounding NO from me. Forgetting the bet selection for a second (in reality there is no edge). I've observed regulars playing this way and it has generally lead to disaster. Here is why, for every LL you lose 3 units, for every WW for win 2 units, so already you have to win a third more of your placed bets for every back to back loss just to break even after LL. You are slowly pushing yourself into a massive unbeknown "unrealistic and long term unobtainable" required win rate.
Another way of looking at it,
Can you guarantee winning your 1st bet?
Can you guarantee winning your 2nd bet?
Can you guarantee winning your 3rd bet?
Can you guarantee winning your 4th bet?
Of course you can't, (if you think you think you could, then bet the farm and retire), yet somewhere in the remainder of the shoe you need to win
two more bets than you lose (not considering tax) before you even see any profit.
So flat bet because the hit won't be so great, otherwise in your way take the progression further.
I do agree R-W. If a flat bet will not win , then a progression will not improve your chances.
Unless your progression is extended beyond your system failure point.
Thanks gr8player.
Just for fun, I will post a shoe played today. 6 28 15
P B P BB P B P B PPPPPP BBBB PP B PP BBBB P B PPP B P B P B P BB P B PPPP B P BB PPP B P BB P BBBBBB P B P BBBBBB P
The following is a shoe produced by a spin on the same above shoe's texture.
PBPPPP BB BP PPBB PB B P P P PB B P B PB B P B B B PP B P P PBP
This example is only one shoe, which one would you rather play.
Quote from: Rolex-Watch on June 28, 2015, 05:47:58 AM
Unequivocal and re-sounding NO from me. Forgetting the bet selection for a second (in reality there is no edge). I've observed regulars playing this way and it has generally lead to disaster. Here is why, for every LL you lose 3 units, for every WW for win 2 units, so already you have to win a third more of your placed bets for every back to back loss just to break even after LL. You are slowly pushing yourself into a massive unbeknown "unrealistic and long term unobtainable" required win rate.
It is true every LL is a 3u loss and every WW is a 2u gain. However, there is the LW where the negative marty recovers that lost 1u, as the flat better achieves 0u.
Not disagreeing that a negative 1-2 can dig a huge hole fast, but it doesn't require a win rate any more unobtainable than that of the flat bettor.
Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on July 06, 2015, 08:19:41 PM
It is true every LL is a 3u loss and every WW is a 2u gain. However, there is the LW where the negative marty recovers that lost 1u, as the flat better achieves 0u.
One should consider all possibilities. Consider WL also into the mix and that will make up the difference.
Quote from: Missmusibat on July 07, 2015, 04:22:33 PM
One should consider all possibilities. Consider WL also into the mix and that will make up the difference.
I am not sure what you mean. I think we are talking about the same thing and are in agreement.
The WL is a 0u achievement for the flat bettor and an unresolved bet sequence for the negative 1-2 progression bettor. Since we are considering accumulated losses we compare L strings vs W strings. Each L string must end with a W. The WL has been considered, just in reverse.
It's not really an apples to apples comparison since the neg prog has 3u of exposure over two bets, but not every two bets. The house edge theoretically grinding against every chip ever placed on the felt. So the accumulated loss of the 1-2 negative prog is greater than the 1u flat better. The flat would have to be something like 1.15u for a more equal comparison. The particular calculation eludes me.
I'm still in agreement with Rolex, that the 1-2 neg can dig a huge hole fast. Even though the average exposure is considerably less than 1.5u per bet, when variance goes against you it's traveling at a speed of -3u at a time.
I've mentioned it once before, I feel that a negative 1-2 bettor needs to also play a positive 1-2 simultaneously. So a LL = -3 and the corresponding WW= +3. But I take it on faith that the math all works out the same either way.
Greetings,
1-2 progression will pick wins betting against p or b after one to continue p bb p bb p b p . (ones and twos)
1-1-1 progression will have similar win results as well.
Quote from: gr8player on June 16, 2015, 09:25:38 PM
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.
There you have it again, first he was tending each side individually, 12 months later he is counting the first 3 holes individually, such a rapid change inside 12 months for a long term winner. What grabbed my attention was the comment,
"loss window" as tight as possible, darn I could have written that myself, oh bugger I did.
Creepy and a disturbing twist to it all.....
Can you give me more details on PIT BOSS Strategy?
Quote from: mb201333 on October 28, 2016, 01:17:38 PM
Can you give me more details on PIT BOSS Strategy?
simple.
he bet against 2 in a row for a unit. if that loses he bet 2 units against 3 in a row. If that loses, he would now bet 4 units that the 4 in a row goes to "5". If that loses, he restarted. Stop loss was 8-10 units per shoe.
You can use any progression. Keep it simple. Find a casino with toteboards. You can see if a majority of the shoes are streaking or staying under 3-4 in a row...
good luck....
Against 1 going to 2 and then 2 going to 3.
After that bet that 4 will go to 5.
What about 3 going to 4? Any bets to make here?
Quote from: Lung Yeh on October 29, 2016, 02:23:44 AM
Against 1 going to 2 and then 2 going to 3.
After that bet that 4 will go to 5.
What about 3 going to 4? Any bets to make here?
I don't think the approach bets against the 1st going to 2 in a row.
Quote from: Lung Yeh on October 29, 2016, 02:23:44 AM
Against 1 going to 2 and then 2 going to 3.
After that bet that 4 will go to 5.
What about 3 going to 4? Any bets to make here?
Singles are the vast majority of total outcomes followed by doubles and so forth.
I mean that after a decent amount of outcomes registered, singles cannot be very far from their slight above 50% expected predominance on either sides, expecially on one side.
The same about doubles and triples and so on.
Of course we can get 20 or more consecutive streaks followed by a single or few singles and another string of streaks or a 20 string of doubles or triples with no counterparts. So what?
The main mistake playing baccarat is trying and forcing to get expected results over a restricted amount of samples.
The more we play the higher will be the probability to get an expected ratio of outcomes, up to the point where the probability to get two or more shoes not containing a couple of singles or doubles on either side is zero.
Moreover, expected outcomes which went silent for long time must be classified in their forms of appearance and according to their probability to form.
We can bet to get a further deviation of some outcomes produced or we can bet to get an expected balancement after a given deviation had occurred.
We shouldn't find ourselves in the position to guess or to hope for, just bet accordingly to the long term expectancy.
as.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on October 31, 2016, 12:23:11 AM
The main mistake playing baccarat is trying and forcing to get expected results over a restricted amount of samples.
as.
Absolutely 1,000%!!
Quote from: Lung Yeh on October 29, 2016, 02:23:44 AM
Against 1 going to 2 and then 2 going to 3.
After that bet that 4 will go to 5.
What about 3 going to 4? Any bets to make here?
you're wrong and are giving bad advice. if you want pb strategy read my post above.
Quote from: marinetech on October 29, 2016, 02:13:43 AM
simple.
he bet against 2 in a row for a unit. if that loses he bet 2 units against 3 in a row. If that loses, he would now bet 4 units that the 4 in a row goes to "5". If that loses, he restarted. Stop loss was 8-10 units per shoe.
You can use any progression. Keep it simple. Find a casino with toteboards. You can see if a majority of the shoes are streaking or staying under 3-4 in a row...
good luck....
You never said what 'he' did when/if it was 4 after 'he' might have lost the 3rd/repeat one??
If you are saying to wager on the second/repeat to cut, as well as the third, as well as he fourth, and then wager that there will be the 5th repeating, etc., this is absurd!
You lose on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and then hope for a 5th.
When 5 or more is really rarer than 3's and 4's by far!!!
OMG, I played 2 shoes last night on a random stop at a casino and there were plenty of 4's, at least 4 lines going down of 4's and there was only 1 of 5 or more. Personally, if you have a 8-10 unit/chip stop loss---you better have some great luck real early on.......
Plenty of 1', 2's and 3's as always. No order. I would say equally as many 2's and 3's as 1's. Which is probably the largest factor by far to make the 'system' a disaster to follow.
Topic: Still think Pit Bosses one of the best
http://betselection.cc/baccarat-forum/still-think-pit-bosses-one-of-the-best/msg32664/#msg32664
UPDATE:
Certain segments of a shoe may tend to 1's, 2's, 3's, or more. Tendencies can be split by Bank/ Player as well. There was a shoe last night that went Player 2 max except once with a 3 at the start of the shoe. Will this tell you anything about the next shoe? Most likely, no. But for that shoe it was the trend...
Quote from: alrelax on November 01, 2016, 03:11:17 PM
If you are saying to wager on the second/repeat to cut, as well as the third, as well as he fourth, and then wager that there will be the 5th repeating, etc., this is absurd!
You lose on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and then hope for a 5th.
When 5 or more is really rarer than 3's and 4's by far!!!
OMG, I played 2 shoes last night on a random stop at a casino and there were plenty of 4's, at least 4 lines going down of 4's and there was only 1 of 5 or more. Personally, if you have a 8-10 unit/chip stop loss---you better have some great luck real early on.......
Plenty of 1', 2's and 3's as always. No order. I would say equally as many 2's and 3's as 1's. Which is probably the largest factor by far to make the 'system' a disaster to follow.
Correct, 4's kill you. Pick your poison, 1's, 2's, 3's, etc. Something has to kill you.....His choice is 4's.
When there is a 4 showing, he bets it goes to 5. If that wins, he keeps on betting 1 unit until that breaks and waits for the next 2 in a row and resumes how I outlines he plays. If the 4 stops at 4, his out 7 units. His stop loss for the shoe was like 8 or maybe 10, I cannot remember. His stop win was 6-8 I think. Obviously, if a 4 pops out first, your in trouble! Otherwise, you can be up and down.....
I usually bet 100 then 200 then 400. or 200-300-600. I have won 10-15 units many times before 1/2-3/4 of the shoe is done. Usually at hand 50 or 55, if I haven't seen a 4, im done! But that's me......
The pitboss style ain't bad. But, like any anti-streak play ya can get clipped pretty bad in the short e
term, hey hey.
No matter what is our preferred strategy, we ought to remember without any sort of doubt that unlikely events will come out either in relatively long clusters or more likely in zero or single apparitions.
The main mistake we players do is trying to get the most likely results whenever long series of unlikely situations will arise, expecially if we consider the game splitted into single "one night" sessions where we want to be ahead at all costs or broke even after a huge loss no matter what.
As marinetech acutely pointed out, any strategy has a "poison": some poisons are worse than others (for example hoping to get long P streaks vs long B streaks) but itlr almost every strategy will broke even before the tax.
There are no "terrible 2s", actually 2s are one of the best outcomes to set up a strategy by.
as.
I think 'Terrible 2's' comes from parent's experience with 2 year old's. This is probably how the Steelers named their fan's towels.
(https://betselection.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.steelers.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Fimported%2FPIT%2Fphotos%2F2015-Photos%2F2015_Article%2F10_October%2FTerribleTowels_102615_Article_1.jpg&hash=ad900994713569ed7c759a7b6a9da1cc336b7585)
Quote from: 21 Aces on November 03, 2016, 12:52:04 AM
I think 'Terrible 2's' comes from parent's experience with 2 year old's. This is probably how the Steelers named their fan's towels.
Lol. Exactly.
as.