+ Register

[Garfield]

Some have stated that there is no point of betting less hand because every hand is independent. The cards have no memory.

Yes it may be true, but I just want to state that betting more hand ALSO won't make you a winner.

Because I believe every player have their own method. And in that particular moment your method is the best.

But when is the right moment? How will you know the "moment" is starting? How many of you experienced that you've just a little too late?

So, anyone want to share their mind / experience?

IMO, every method usually have their own "trigger". When the trigger is there, you should try to start. You may catch the moment or you may miss it also.

That's when MM matters. You may try the 2nd, the 3rd and so on and so on. Hoping when you catch it, you can parlay your winnings, or whatever it take to make you a winner.

[soxfan]

I'm confident that I can capture parlays regular to stay ahead of the game and profit. Like I say, it ain't rocket science, baby, hey hey.

[21 Aces]

Some have stated that there is no point of betting less hand because every hand is independent. The cards have no memory.

This is 100% false, but I encourage many to keep believing it.

[Garfield]

This is 100% false, but I encourage many to keep believing it.

Which one? The less betting or the cards don"t have memories?

[21 Aces]

The following hands in shoe are important: EVERY SINGLE ONE.  Each shoe is like a bull in Professional Bull Riding (PBR) except we don't have 100 bulls or whatever on circuit, we have infinite.  But within each shoe there are progressions that are very similar.  Sequences, progressions, the scores, score differentials, Naturals, ties, high payout wins, shapes and formations on the road, Bank/ Player/ high payout lines all weigh.  So back to the bull, they all have different power, ways to storm out of the gate, athletic ability, moves,personalities, but if they are on the PBR circuit, they are all mean.  So we see same and different.  That is baccarat.

For example, if a shoe is firing off Naturals repeatedly then the odds of a high payout win immediately coming should be lower than a part of  a shoe throwing out small/ small on each side for the first two cards.

Look at long Bank/ Player/ and Jumping Shoe Dragons.  Do you think that The Dark Wizard and his Black Riders just got some action and are in a cheeky mood and throw those slam dunks in for the players to capitalize on?

UPDATE:  I have to get off it, but I have had several times in the last week where I lock up for an hour to an hour and a half and just look.  Look for the perfect. NO. ENGAGE. BET MORE, WIN MORE.

Last night the professional driver, a few other big players, and I stared down the barrel of a substantial sequence and it chopped.  Previously the shoe had established a record of chopping so that's why I went.  I look at some crazy _hit, but clearly they look at more effective things than I do.  If I had straight piggy backed, I would have made substantially more, but there were so many strikes that I would not have taken because of what I look at.

Timing is important because easier progressions and shoes are right nearby or are coming soon.  That is the advantage of team play where you are all on the lookout elsewhere more effectively than one person can do.

Those that think every hand is some random event clearly don't play.  The more you think about what the shoe is saying, the better you will do.

[AsymBacGuy]

Tend to agree with some points discussed by 21aces.

Back to OP questions.

What's the best timing to place our bets?

My answer is: when the expected is more likely to either follow certain already formed expected situations or to balance some already formed unexpected situations.

We see that to do that we must define the words expected and unexpected, but if we think baccarat as a totally random game we cannot give to both issues any valid role.

Anyway the words expected and unexpected might be applied without utilizing complex considerations, just common sense.

Let's say me and you have played without any particular strategy one shoe ending up with a 60 units winning. Wow.

Now we have to decide if we want to play one more shoe or just quitting because of the fear to be more losers than winners.
I bet in the same circumstance most people tend to choose the quitting option. 

Wait. It's a random world, so nothing can prevent us to get another favourable shoe, hence getting us more winnings, maybe another 60 or more units profit.

Nonetheless a remote logic department of our brain is telling us that we better quit.

Unfortunately and admitting we didn't get there to have just fun in one single session, the fact we are leaving opposed to remaining to play doesn't change things a bit.
Next shoes will be burdened just by the 1.06%/1.24% tax...or there's something else we're fearing about?

Actually our next session, being the next day, week, year or decade, will be influenced in some way by this profitable shoe.

Casinos try to tie players at the tables the more they can not only because of the tax, but as players will make many mistakes.

Let's say in that winning session we have bet $25 units, so getting a $1500 profit.

Let's say in our future playing session our total bets will total an amount of $10.000. Then the house tax of an average 1.25% will get the house a mathematical profit of "just" $125.

Therefore after having pocketed $1500, we're expecting to lose an average sum of $125, so after two sessions we'll get a $1375 profit anyway. Why fearing so much next sessions if every our future bet will get a decent 0.9894% or 0.9876% return? 

Most gambling failures happen not for tax issues but for the extreme speedness of the outcomes searched by players, either in form of positive deviations or, worse yet, in the form of some too fast recovering plans.

When we're ahead of just one single st.upid fkn unit no matter how was our strategy, we know that not only our next bets will be mathematically unfavored but that in some way we must give back that unit.
At a lesser degree for obvious mathematical reasons, we know that whenever we are one unit behind, we'll expect to get a sort of balancement on the winning side.

+1 and -1 is the base of the problem, the rest is just variance.

as.