We know that the vast majority of bac players like to following trends and surely such aficionados are well represented here.
We also know that the scientific counterpart world fully denies the possibility to get the best of it by a trend following (TF) strategy. In reality such scientific world denies every other opportunity to win on the long term (besides the old issue of card counting the side bets and stuff related to that), so we can argue that adopting a TF strategy won't do any worse than utilizing every other method.
Let's see first and generally speaking what could be the pros and cons of TF strategy.
Pros:
- Undoubtedly if we are able to find a valuable trend, we'll lose just one bet being every other possibility a winning one but the first wrong attempt and the losing end of the trend.
So a player must spot a trigger he/she thinks as a valuable one, he/she keep playing it until the opposite scenario will come out and then he/she must restart to find another valuable trigger spot.
- Choosing to bet toward some deviations tends to support the idea that equilibrium is a kind of exception in the chance outcomes, expecially considering a finite card dependent game like baccarat.
Therefore a player using a TF strategy wants to take advantage of the many deviations the game will provide.
- Deeply thinking and elaborating the above issue, there's no a single possibility to get an equilibrium over the bac outcomes, providing a careful assessment of those results (more on this later).
Cons.
- It's quite difficult to know from the start which direction will take place a given pattern, trend or outcomes' line along the way.
- No matter how good we are able to spot some possible valuable trends, we must accept the idea that everything will be almost always perfectly and proportionally placed with the opposite situations.
General considerations
"Ok", will say the TF lovers: "itlr we surely know to be long term losers, but we will be pleased to try to be winners on short human terms of intervention, as we don't care a bit about what will happen thereafter".
So it seems that the most important factor any TF lover would focus on will be the actual results over a forcefully restricted amount of played shoes.
Furthermore, some acute players will try to get the best of it adopting a TF strategy filtered by certain very long statistical shifted evidences.
Practical considerations
From a strict mathematical point of view and assuming one unit wagering, each TF strategy attempt will produce:
- 1 unit win if after every selected trigger we'll be right then we quit the betting.
- 1 unit loss after every selected trigger starting point of betting is a losing one (wrong trigger).
- an almost break even result (vig impact) if after any successful bet we'll lose the second one (WL pattern).
- a temporary 1 unit profit (before vig) if we'll get a WLW sequence.
- a break even situation if we'll get a WLWL situation.
- many situations where W exceed L in a short amount of hands whereas many losing patterns are erased just from the first attempt, as we won't go any further after having missed the first favourable opportunity.
Easy to notice that every TF strategy to be successful must have a higher amount of winning than losing bets right on the first wager.
The remaining winning combinations are definitely going uphill, either for variance and negative edge issues.
So for practical purposes any TF strategy should be directed to get a winning hand right after the trigger recognition.
Trying to force the WL ratio by a MM procedure whenever we didn't do any good after the trigger showing imo doesn't represent the best viable tool of options. Unless our TF precognition will be more restricted than what the game suggests.
Imo the main collateral effect every TF strategy will produce is about the frequency of such so called profitable bets.
Most players want to spot too many triggers, many of them trying to guess profitable triggers per every hand showing by a direct or reverse way of thinking.
What about letting go some fictional profitable triggers which went wrong or, even better, some statistically unexpected patterns that have shown up "too much"?
And what about a multiple trend and multi layered TF registration possibly capable to lower the variance and to enhance the probability to win?
It's the same thing I've found about a couple of precise patterns coming out more often than not and acting on quite long terms, still a very carefully multiple trend registration might lead to the same results.
as.
There are only four ways to get the best of it utilizing a TF strategy or, for that matter, any other winning strategy:
1- getting more W than L on the first trigger betting spots = flat betting winning strategy capable to invert the vig.
2- getting more W than L on an odd amount of wagers, knowing that after the first missed spot everything will become more and more logarithmical difficult.
3- hoping to spot the longer W streaks that the game will invariably provide, at the same time avoiding the shorter ones after a careful diversification of betting amount whether the former hadn't provide a long term positive expectation.
4- choosing the spots where the variance is more limited than usual so any decent MM could contain the game fluctuations.
Imo, 1 is the best point to focus on, then it's the point #2.
Point 3 is more difficult to assess as it's more diluted along the way.
Point 4 is the byproduct of the first two issues.
as.
An example of a real bac sequence.
BBBPBPPBBPBPPP
We want to find a trend.
B/P ratio = 7/7 = 1
singles/streaks = 4/4 = 1
doubles/3+s = 2/2 = 1
FTL strategy = -1
OTL strategy = 0
third FTL strategy = 0
fourth FTL stragey = 0
horizontal patterns by a two factor: 3-1-1-2-2-1-1-3 = 1s= 4, 2s= 2, 3s= 2 perfectly fitting the law of averages since 1 is twice more likely than 2s and 3s.
vertical patterns by a two step factor: BB, BP, BP, PB, BP, BP, PP.
BB =1, PP=1, BP=4 PB =1
vertical lines by a three step factor: BBB, BBP, BPB, PBP, BPP, PPB, PBB, BBP, BPB, PBP, BPP, PPP.
BBB = 1, BBP = 2, BPB = 2, BPP = 2; PPP = 1, PPB = 0, PBP = 2, PBB = 1.
Neglecting many other possible registrations, wholly considered this 14 hands sequence had provided just one "strong" pattern over the ten accounted.
We also notice that just in one spot over the 14 considered, we got 1+ unit profit always providing to wager the most likely occurence happened.
as.
Of course further registrations of the above sequence will provide other deviated situations:
3s isolated vs 3s clustered, 3s vs 3+s, each providing a 2/0 ratio.
There's no way to get a perfect equilibrium over a shoe sequence. In a way or another.
So imo we better choose the multiple deviation spots oriented to get the same chance result, naturally chasing the mininum profit.
And such occurences are quite rare, because we cannot expect to be "too" right and to get a huge profit playing an EV game.
as.
Very nice posts.
IMHO an interesting way of playing is to bet in favour of an unbalanced session.
In 100 hands,the most probable unbalance between P and B is 10(square root)
When the unbalance reaches 5,start playing in order to reach 10.
To reach 6 or 7 is enough for my style of playing and I play only B....
The same tactic in a lower number of spins(20 or even 50) doesn't work.
Good Points...I would also add that it is important to understand the type of shoe you are playing. Some shoes will be very similar to shoes you've played in the past. I recently played at a casino that had a shoe that was very choppy so I made money betting on the chop. The very next shoe had very few singles or chop. It was full of Two's. Identify the type of shoe is very important.
Wewin2222
Quote from: roversi13 on December 25, 2015, 08:17:07 AM
Very nice posts.
IMHO an interesting way of playing is to bet in favour of an unbalanced session.
In 100 hands,the most probable unbalance between P and B is 10(square root)
When the unbalance reaches 5,start playing in order to reach 10.
To reach 6 or 7 is enough for my style of playing and I play only B....
The same tactic in a lower number of spins(20 or even 50) doesn't work.
Thanks.
Yeah, providing a decent amount of trials the probability to get the expected average deviation is slight higher on those situations getting closer to that value. Or at least it's less likely the silent situations will get that point before the already deviated counterparts.
Quote from: Wewin2222 on December 25, 2015, 08:53:13 PM
Good Points...I would also add that it is important to understand the type of shoe you are playing. Some shoes will be very similar to shoes you've played in the past. I recently played at a casino that had a shoe that was very choppy so I made money betting on the chop. The very next shoe had very few singles or chop. It was full of Two's. Identify the type of shoe is very important.
Wewin2222
Thanks.
Nothing wrong with your words.
Still the proper detection of the exploitable unbalancements running per every single shoe is very difficult, not to say impossible.
Again we are back to the first TF attempt and to the class of each TF attempts tried within a single shoe.
So our first step, at least from testing purposes, should be to register how many W or L we've gotten on such first TF attempts.
Mathematicians will be repeating to us that every attempt will be 50/50 placed no matter what.
Besides the fact that if I'm betting B side on every of those first attempts my average winning probability will be 50.68/49.32 and not 50/50, for a moment let's say is a steady 50/50.
I continue to stress about the importance of taking care of the very first bet as it's the most winnable one by any means.
Since we're just testing, we don't want to put any bet on the layout but only registering our best first attempts to get something by a whatever TF strategy.
In a word, we consider the game just as an infinite cluster of first wagers in the form of W and L.
After having be mentally crushed by some crazy asymb guy about the importance of wagering very few hands, let's say we want to play just 6 hands per shoe, that is an average of one time over 10 hands, giving some room to more hands just in case.
The BS is a sort of anyone personal TF strategy, strict or dynamic it doesn't matter.
We run the shoes and we register the outcomes in form of W or L. Any exceeding possible betting hand will be erased, as we want to register 6 W/L hands per shoe.
So we'll have:
WLLLLW
LWLWLL
LLLLLL
LWWWLL and so on...
After a decent amount of trials it won't be so difficult to see if our TF strategy had the best of it: over the possible 64 six-hand combinations and assuming a simple flat betting strategy (again, no FB winning strategy = no party, IMO), if we had had more than the average expected 32 first W combination we think to be in good shape. The same if the LWW starting combinations had outnumbered the LWL opposite patterns. Every other W combination or break even combination will get us going uphill.
In the other unfortunate scenario (having the same probability, will say the mathematicians) where we have registered more losing patterns than winning ones, only two possibilities are worth to be discussed:
a- the negative variance even if considered on fair long trials had caught us.
b- our TF strategy is a real sh.it.
Nevertheless this way of concentrating the results might be studied on several other angles.
For example, now we can evaluate the results shoe per shoe and by a very restricted amount of hands we're interested to bet (or observe).
Even utilizing the most unsuccessful TF strategy the bac world has ever known, we must accept the idea that we're playing a restricted amount of humanly chosen hands into a finite card dependent and asymmetrical game.
So we are betting an unrandomly conceived method into another partially unrandom system.
In a word and for example, the probability to get the exact same WL dispositions into two or more consecutive shoes is slightly different from the known assumption that everything will be proportionally placed.
We are playing the possible humanly conceived deviations into a multiple deviated system.
Naturally if we have ascertained that the sequences steadily got more W than L, we don't have to make any statistical arrangement.
The same procedure could be done on the second or third FT strategy attempts, knowing that now we are proportionally and logarithmically going uphill, unless we've considered the first attempt as a fictional one (so in a sense lowering the efficacy of our TF strategy).
Imo, even not getting a sure advantage of some more likely distributions, a decent and well diluted TF strategy could control the outcomes in some way.
as.
Asymbacguy...IMHO and what I have observed, Baccarat is a game of identifying the shoe and playing what is happening. Ie if it's a choppy shoe then you can trust it and wager on it. If it's not chopping than you can wager against the singles. These are just examples of course but the point I am trying to make is Baccarat is not a game of math.
Why?
1) I would submit to you that they're many reasons but I will sum it up in my own experience. I see the same things happen over & over again, shoe after shoe.....Run, Chop, Two's ect.
2) I have seen nearly 40 Banks in a row with 3 or 4 Players mixed in with a couple of ties. Math would say that this is not possible in a game that's 50 / 50.
3) However this is not a coin flip game, it is a game of cards with rules involved. However I think I am successful at this game because I understand it inside and out and sometimes it's hard to put that in words because not everyone has the same experience to understand what you would like to tell them.
Wewin2222
An example of a real bac sequence.
BBBPBPPBBPBPPP
I noticed a trend of reverse symmetry
B
B
B
P
B
P
P
__________axe
B
B
P
B
P
P
P
Plolp- Good observation but how do you know when it is going to do a reverses sequence? You are absolutely correct because it is a reverse sequence but I would aquate this to how do you know when it's going to run or chop.
1) How often does this happen and when can I trust it.
Good observation however.
Wewin2222
The symmetry and reverse symmetry are strong trends to simple chances.
We can attack in a systematic way but also in a special way.
We can try to detect if the trend is symmetry whose axis is between prints or above.
The above example was a symmetry whose axis is between the results
Quote from: Wewin2222 on December 26, 2015, 02:19:06 AM
Asymbacguy...IMHO and what I have observed, Baccarat is a game of identifying the shoe and playing what is happening. Ie if it's a choppy shoe then you can trust it and wager on it. If it's not chopping than you can wager against the singles. These are just examples of course but the point I am trying to make is Baccarat is not a game of math.
Why?
1) I would submit to you that they're many reasons but I will sum it up in my own experience. I see the same things happen over & over again, shoe after shoe.....Run, Chop, Two's ect.
2) I have seen nearly 40 Banks in a row with 3 or 4 Players mixed in with a couple of ties. Math would say that this is not possible in a game that's 50 / 50.
3) However this is not a coin flip game, it is a game of cards with rules involved. However I think I am successful at this game because I understand it inside and out and sometimes it's hard to put that in words because not everyone has the same experience to understand what you would like to tell them.
Wewin2222
Hi wewin. Well if you state that baccarat isn't a math game you must provide the proofs confirming your assumption and if you are able to demonstrate it you'll be awarded the Fields medal along with a chair at MIT.
Probably you wanted to say that baccarat might be attacked by some statistical angles but this a totally another thing sailing into the empirical ocean world (btw, I'm a sailor of this last category).
About your points:
1) Your observation suggests the idea that along the way certain FUTURE patterns are recognizable in some way. Nothing wrong with it. They do are. But very rarely placed.
2) Math states the opposite thing you've sayed: everything will be possible itlr, not only 40 Bankers mixed with just 3-4 Players, but also 40 or 50 or more straight Bankers in a row. It's just a question of time.
3) I absolutely agree on that. But don't forget that imo and in the opinion of my very long trials either the card composition and the third card rule features always work within very diluted terms.
as.
Quote from: plolp on December 26, 2015, 06:55:12 PM
We can try to detect if the trend is symmetry whose axis is between prints or above.
The above example was a symmetry whose axis is between the results
Thanks for your contribute.
This post is all about sharing any trend following strategy or idea one is willing to expose. I just gave the prompt.
After all and as already stated by many, without getting an edge any TF strategy won't be worse than any other method and you never know whether a specific TF line could get some long term favourable results.
as.
Quote from: Wewin2222 on December 26, 2015, 02:19:06 AM
2) I have seen nearly 40 Banks in a row with 3 or 4 Players mixed in with a couple of ties. Math would say that this is not possible in a game that's 50 / 50.
A lot of people think this way. Ellis continually spoke of impossible odds against certain occurrences. It may seem "impossible" for such rare occurrences but actually the opposite is true. It would be impossible to NOT see such rare events within the realm of random numbers given an infinite number of trials. Consider a single person winning certain lottery events multiple times. Seemingly impossible. It happens.
Regarding to TF, IMO we could look for the trend not only in the main road. But sometime, the trend will show in bead road, and the 3 derived road.
Yes the only problem is how to know whether the trend is going to continue or not. I have been inspired by gr8 statement that "he wait until the play come into place". In my understand is like we TRY to catch the trend earlier. If it happened, than we might got some WIAR. But if not, we lose one unit.
Surely, when to start is rather subjective. It depend on one's method, approach , system etc.
Shuffle Master:
Players do follow trends but you need to have many tools in your tool box to be successful. The Shuffle Master from what I have observed gives the player an added advantage when predicting the upcoming hand. A friend of mine told me. "when the Bank has 3 Monkeys and the Player wins the very next hand will be a Player win." He was correct.....It got the wheels turning in my mind and I thought if it will do it in that instance it stands to reason that they're should be other opportunities.
I started tracking ever hand that comes out of the shoe and you will find certain cards that predict the upcoming hand 100% of the time.
If you are following a trend and you are also reading the cards and if they agree then you have more than one indication that the upcoming hand should win.
Wager on it with much confidence is my suggestion.....
so you are talking about tracking cards and card values!
Tomla- I can only speak on what I observe while playing and afterwords while studying. it's not the card value although others look at card value. Certain cards will come out which will be a (Tell) for the casino when using the shuffle master. A Tell Cards at one casino will differ from another but they all have tells and a savvy Baccarat Player in conjunction with a lazy staff with a weak shoe can be beat very badly.
I played at an empty table early in the morning and I guess the casino thought they had made hay for the day because the shoe was so weak & predictable that I won nearly ever hand.
Wewin2222
Time for the Guinness and cashew, again, hey hey!
we winn---what are your conclusions on card counts then?
Tomla- If you think about the example that I gave above and look for other hands that present Bank or Player winners after these hands occurred. It will give you an added advantage especially if it lines up with the trend you are already following.
Wewin2222
Have not stuides been done that show counting no work?
Quote from: Garfield on December 27, 2015, 04:10:06 AM
Yes the only problem is how to know whether the trend is going to continue or not. I have been inspired by gr8 statement that "he wait until the play come into place". In my understand is like we TRY to catch the trend earlier. If it happened, than we might got some WIAR. But if not, we lose one unit.
Hello, Garfield.
Hmmm...."the only problem is how to know whether the trend is going to continue or not." Well, that's why we need a method of play that "locks up", or "ensures" profits WHENEVER we are correct about a trend.
What do I mean by that?:
Well, if you know me at all then you know me as a variance player. And that means, in a nutshell, that I like losses. No, not REAL losses. But I do like the losses of the "fictional" or "virtual" variety. You know....losses that cost me ZERO.
With those under my belt, I then await my preferred trend to hit. Just once. But I do need a starting point, and that's it. But I start ONLY after certain losses (read: I'd prefer my "nemesis" appear BEFORE I put up my real dollars), and, even then, I look to "lock up" a profit as quickly as I can. Oh, don't get me wrong....I'm not cashing out just yet. It's just that on those times when I am right, I want...no, wait...I INSIST on taking profit.
In this way, Garfield, the "continuance" of the trend is not as important as the actual profit thereof. Now, lest anyone misunderstand, I'd love the trend to continue for as long as possible; I'm not against making as much money as possible on a strong trend. I simply want to lock up my profit first, and then I can proceed as I deem it suitable to do so.
Take care.
Wewin2222,
Why not post some more concerning card counting?
You have our interest.
Quote from: gr8player on December 28, 2015, 11:10:03 PM
in a nutshell, that I like losses. No, not REAL losses. But I do like the losses of the "fictional" or "virtual" variety. You know....losses that cost me ZERO.
With those under my belt, I then await my preferred trend to hit. Just once. But I do need a starting point, and that's it.
So how does this work? Let's say you want to bet for a chop trend, so you wait for chop trend to lose, say maybe 4 or 5 chops. While you wait, the first set of chops is 4 or 5, opportunity missed, or you want to bet repeating two's, so you wait for two not to repeat many times, and the next time, you will be all over them to continue and you make money, except, the two's while you watch, continue, opportunity missed. I could chose any trend, if you are waiting for it to lose first, it might not, opportunity missed. It doesn't compute
Quote from: Wewin2222 on December 28, 2015, 04:47:03 AM
Tomla- If you think about the example that I gave above and look for other hands that present Bank or Player winners after these hands occurred. It will give you an added advantage especially if it lines up with the trend you are already following.
Wewin2222
QUACK! QUACK!
Quote from: gr8player on December 28, 2015, 11:10:03 PM
Hello, Garfield.
Hmmm...."the only problem is how to know whether the trend is going to continue or not." Well, that's why we need a method of play that "locks up", or "ensures" profits WHENEVER we are correct about a trend.
What do I mean by that?:
Well, if you know me at all then you know me as a variance player. And that means, in a nutshell, that I like losses. No, not REAL losses. But I do like the losses of the "fictional" or "virtual" variety. You know....losses that cost me ZERO.
With those under my belt, I then await my preferred trend to hit. Just once. But I do need a starting point, and that's it. But I start ONLY after certain losses (read: I'd prefer my "nemesis" appear BEFORE I put up my real dollars), and, even then, I look to "lock up" a profit as quickly as I can. Oh, don't get me wrong....I'm not cashing out just yet. It's just that on those times when I am right, I want...no, wait...I INSIST on taking profit.
In this way, Garfield, the "continuance" of the trend is not as important as the actual profit thereof. Now, lest anyone misunderstand, I'd love the trend to continue for as long as possible; I'm not against making as much money as possible on a strong trend. I simply want to lock up my profit first, and then I can proceed as I deem it suitable to do so.
Take care.
What does a trend comprise of? How many decisions? What is your preferred trend may I ask? I got no issue with this. No different than choosing the last X number of decisions as a trend (read pattern) unless of course you are of the opinion (mistaken belief) that one trend has a significantly greater chance of appearing than another.
Well you could wait for your nemesis to appear and never see it. So as you're sitting there waiting and recording virtual wins at some point you say, "I'm going to make a bet." Because your trend hit, right? Maybe you win or maybe your nemesis appears and you lose x IAR. Whatever.
That's all fine. But it isn't much or any different than choosing a placement and waiting for x LIAR and then start betting because you know that LIAR are finite. For instance, I will generally always bet that a 5 IAR stops so I bet once or even twice that there won't be a 6 or a 7. How much I bet depends on my risk potential at that point in the session. Or just watching to see what run lengths are greater than average and betting that they will continue. So you can slice and dice this any way you want.
Locking up a win always a good idea. Still, as you have mentioned in the past, you got to have a recoup betting plan. You like to double up next shoe since you feel it is hard for you to lose 2 shoes IAR.
So all you are really doing is simplifying your game by playing less hands. That has merit because it allows for less confusion UNLESS one has a specific plan to bet every hand then there is no confusion because your next bet is always known whether the last won, lost, or landed on either side.
Quote from: Wewin2222 on December 28, 2015, 04:47:03 AM
Tomla- If you think about the example that I gave above and look for other hands that present Bank or Player winners after these hands occurred. It will give you an added advantage especially if it lines up with the trend you are already following.
Wewin2222
This has some point in it. Sometimes I even dare to say I knew what will drew next after the 2 first card.
I.e : player 4 and monkey, banker monkey monkey. The next hand for player, mostly in my experienced, is 7. And banker will win by 2 or 3.
Player 3 and monkey, the 3rd card is an 8.
Player double 5's, the 3 rd either monkey or 5.
That's just some of the "phenomenon" I've noticed.
It is not definite, but I've seen this happened a lot. The problem is how I would know that player will draw as I mentioned above? No one know.
Quote from: MarkTeruya on December 29, 2015, 02:53:56 PM
So how does this work? Let's say you want to bet for a chop trend, so you wait for chop trend to lose, say maybe 4 or 5 chops. While you wait, the first set of chops is 4 or 5, opportunity missed, or you want to bet repeating two's, so you wait for two not to repeat many times, and the next time, you will be all over them to continue and you make money, except, the two's while you watch, continue, opportunity missed. I could chose any trend, if you are waiting for it to lose first, it might not, opportunity missed. It doesn't compute
Hello, Johno.
You are not looking at my play from the correct "angle", it appears.
I do not wait for virtual losses. Rather, I await them to come to me. And make no mistake of it, J, come they will. One only needs to know exactly what to look for.
Think about it for a moment, if you will: To every trend play (yes, even mine) there exists it's "flip-side", or opposite. The astute player is the one that can make money from either side of the coin.
Take care.
Quote from: Jimske on December 29, 2015, 03:44:28 PM
What does a trend comprise of? How many decisions? What is your preferred trend may I ask? I got no issue with this. No different than choosing the last X number of decisions as a trend (read pattern) unless of course you are of the opinion (mistaken belief) that one trend has a significantly greater chance of appearing than another.
Well you could wait for your nemesis to appear and never see it. So as you're sitting there waiting and recording virtual wins at some point you say, "I'm going to make a bet." Because your trend hit, right? Maybe you win or maybe your nemesis appears and you lose x IAR. Whatever.
That's all fine. But it isn't much or any different than choosing a placement and waiting for x LIAR and then start betting because you know that LIAR are finite. For instance, I will generally always bet that a 5 IAR stops so I bet once or even twice that there won't be a 6 or a 7. How much I bet depends on my risk potential at that point in the session. Or just watching to see what run lengths are greater than average and betting that they will continue. So you can slice and dice this any way you want.
Locking up a win always a good idea. Still, as you have mentioned in the past, you got to have a recoup betting plan. You like to double up next shoe since you feel it is hard for you to lose 2 shoes IAR.
So all you are really doing is simplifying your game by playing less hands. That has merit because it allows for less confusion UNLESS one has a specific plan to bet every hand then there is no confusion because your next bet is always known whether the last won, lost, or landed on either side.
Hello, Jimske.
May I amend your "waiting for x LIAR and then start betting" to:
Await a virtual win before commencing to bet; regardless the length of your virtual LIAR. I much prefer to await some sort of proof that the "anomaly" is exhausted, and have a bit more evidence of the obviously-impending correction, before commencing with real bets.
When this sort of play is done correctly (do not forget about locking in the quick profit....IOW, never lose on a trend that you were correct on), there exists no equal to it as it pertains to even-chance play. The experienced, patient, and disciplined player would be hard-pressed to screw this up; but it takes a total, unwavering commitment (as does, frankly, any successful endeavor in life).
Take care.
Oh, and I should have added as well:
There is no room for any sort of greed with this sort of play; none whatsoever.
One must learn to pick up their profits (as limited as they are) and move on to the next opportunity.
It's relatively slow, and that makes it relatively frustrating as well, especially when you're wrong and dropped a couple of units. Now you've got to "re-load" and await the next opportunity...it can (and does, believe me) get frustrating.
But just know: As I said in my last post just above: There exists no viable alternative to this sort of play when considering the even chances. Whenever I get a bit frustrated with the current turn of events at a table, I simply recant that in my mind.
Take care.
Quote from: gr8player on December 28, 2015, 11:10:03 PM
Hello, Garfield.
Hmmm...."the only problem is how to know whether the trend is going to continue or not." Well, that's why we need a method of play that "locks up", or "ensures" profits WHENEVER we are correct about a trend.
What do I mean by that?:
Well, if you know me at all then you know me as a variance player. And that means, in a nutshell, that I like losses. No, not REAL losses. But I do like the losses of the "fictional" or "virtual" variety. You know....losses that cost me ZERO.
With those under my belt, I then await my preferred trend to hit. Just once. But I do need a starting point, and that's it. But I start ONLY after certain losses (read: I'd prefer my "nemesis" appear BEFORE I put up my real dollars), and, even then, I look to "lock up" a profit as quickly as I can. Oh, don't get me wrong....I'm not cashing out just yet. It's just that on those times when I am right, I want...no, wait...I INSIST on taking profit.
In this way, Garfield, the "continuance" of the trend is not as important as the actual profit thereof. Now, lest anyone misunderstand, I'd love the trend to continue for as long as possible; I'm not against making as much money as possible on a strong trend. I simply want to lock up my profit first, and then I can proceed as I deem it suitable to do so.
Take care.
Hello Gr8 ,
I don't fully understand what you mean by (read: I'd prefer my "nemesis" appear BEFORE I put up my real money)?
Could you possibly give us some sort of examples to understand it better.
Thanks.
Shrewd cats can make good cake with streaks based and anti-streaks based play. It ain't rocket science baby, hey hey.
Quote from: Jimske on December 29, 2015, 03:44:28 PM
What does a trend comprise of? How many decisions? What is your preferred trend may I ask? I got no issue with this. No different than choosing the last X number of decisions as a trend (read pattern) unless of course you are of the opinion (mistaken belief) that one trend has a significantly greater chance of appearing than another.
Well you could wait for your nemesis to appear and never see it. So as you're sitting there waiting and recording virtual wins at some point you say, "I'm going to make a bet." Because your trend hit, right? Maybe you win or maybe your nemesis appears and you lose x IAR. Whatever.
That's all fine. But it isn't much or any different than choosing a placement and waiting for x LIAR and then start betting because you know that LIAR are finite. For instance, I will generally always bet that a 5 IAR stops so I bet once or even twice that there won't be a 6 or a 7. How much I bet depends on my risk potential at that point in the session. Or just watching to see what run lengths are greater than average and betting that they will continue. So you can slice and dice this any way you want.
Locking up a win always a good idea. Still, as you have mentioned in the past, you got to have a recoup betting plan. You like to double up next shoe since you feel it is hard for you to lose 2 shoes IAR.
So all you are really doing is simplifying your game by playing less hands. That has merit because it allows for less confusion UNLESS one has a specific plan to bet every hand then there is no confusion because your next bet is always known whether the last won, lost, or landed on eith
It's not hard finding a trend or a pattern, you might see a strong B or P, or like today I found in the beginning of a shoe every time a natural came it always jumped. Or of course you could see a chop or a run, if you start to see this happen bet one unit on what ever your seeing, if you lose you only lose one unit if you win worst you can do is break even, keep following it until it ends and make units.
Quote from: gr8player on December 29, 2015, 10:06:02 PM
Oh, and I should have added as well:
There is no room for any sort of greed with this sort of play; none whatsoever.
One must learn to pick up their profits (as limited as they are) and move on to the next opportunity.
It's relatively slow, and that makes it relatively frustrating as well, especially when you're wrong and dropped a couple of units. Now you've got to "re-load" and await the next opportunity...it can (and does, believe me) get frustrating.
But just know: As I said in my last post just above: There exists no viable alternative to this sort of play when considering the even chances. Whenever I get a bit frustrated with the current turn of events at a table, I simply recant that in my mind.
Take care.
What you just wrote is so well put. Positive resulting swings lay among the land mined strewn landscape. The trick is to step on the potentially explosive devices and disarm them before being blown up. You must be comfortable running headlong into the beginning of downturns, knowing that you will sidestep their full potential, all the while proceeding through to the upturns.
All the talk of trend detection, data mining techniques, charting characteristics, and pattern following are nothing more than bet selection methods that allow someone to step on the downturns or upturns. So once you get past the minutia of trend following you are left to be hit by the real difficult part of being a successful player, frustration, greed, impatience, self esteem, pride, covetous ambition, and exhilaration; all of that combined together to prevent you from stopping when you should have. The trick to all this is to not get blown up.
If you have blown off a leg or arm you must not fall for the first sin of gaming theory, "don't chase your losses." That will take care of itself if you just trust your ability to detect good and bad conditions. It takes a win streak to counter the effect of playing too long in a losing streak. Why should a losing streak lead directly to a win streak? That's like expecting a win streak to start just as you happen to walk in the door of a casino. Because you just started playing does not dictate when an upturn will start or end. You must let the bombs and the "Get out of jail" cards come when they do. Randomness is the final say when it comes to consistent winning, not large number statistical probability averages and the need for futuristic predictions. That's not to say that baseline values to detect variations in the flow of deviations from the baseline are not useful as Gr8player uses them to detect upturns and downturns, and has clearly pointed out as a bet selection method. It's just another way to take advantage of existing trends. It's reading randomness and acting wisely from the detected results, nothing more.
I'm pleased many people replied here, and I agree with the largest part of the points discussed.
Anyway a "not so expert" player reading those pages might be disoriented knowing that from one part the game is absolutely unbeatable itlr but from the other part a careful assessment of the various trends (or every trending) widely considered (actual hand results, actual or fictional W/L ratio and so on) could be a viable tool to get the best of it.
In a word, that the dispersion and concentration of most part of baccarat situations could be "controlled" in some way, let's say to transform a random world into a more attackable partially unrandom world.
It's impossible to convince mathematicians this option could exist and actually there's no a precise trend following strategy ever publicized capable to demonstrate its validity.
So we must infer that any successful TF player keeps his secret well hidden. :-)
Or yet that any successful TF player should put in action some adjustments interfering with the common sense and the common laws of probabilities.
Any thought other than the composure, limiting the eagerness, etc issues?
as.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on December 30, 2015, 06:45:13 PM
Any thought other than the composure, limiting the eagerness, etc issues?
Yes.
Consistency. It's not that I don't realize that I am rather relentless in my posts that this most important (and, frankly, imperative) aspect of one's game is both explained and discussed, but please know that I do so only as a matter of emphasis.
Patience and discipline will both be rendered moot without a consistent bet selection process. And, lest we think otherwise, consistency is the toughest of the three to actually maintain.
Think about it for a moment:
Raise your hand if you've ever switched bet selection methods, either between sessions (geez, we're all guilty there, aren't we?) or, worse, even in the midst of any played session. Sure we have. We lose with a certain "favorite" play, and we're all quickly seeking our very next "favorite". And so it's back to the drawing board, seeking that one bet selection method that'll see us as consistent winners.
Well, allow me be the first to tell you: Stop it. You'll find no answers in any particular bet selection method; rather, you'll find only frustration, and, even worse, long term losses.
Rather, one must look within themselves for the answers to this game. Are you built for success? (Read: Is your Bac game built for success?) Yes, you are a vital part of the game. In fact, I'm quite certain, you are the most vital part. It is only when you come to terms with that that you will ever even stand a chance for any long term success.
And THAT is why I'm relentless in posts regarding patience and discipline and consistency.
OK. Now you're saying to yourself, OK, Gr8, I'm ready. I'm prepared to stay the course, I'm prepared to begin patient, disciplined and consistent play....so now what? Where do I begin, or, even better, HOW do I begin to make this all pay off for me at this game?
Well, you begin by learning your way around a shoe. You need to know what the average shoe looks like. Ever see a shoe streak out the entire way? Ever see a shoe chop out the entire way? Well, you might've, but, let's remember, I said that you need to know what the "average" (read: normal) shoe looks like, not the "anomaly" (read: rare) shoe.
I'll lose on the anomaly shoe that stays anomalous throughout. It's OK. I won't lose much anyway, what with my "virtual loss" strategy combined with "proof of correction" before commencing real betting. But, still, even losing a few units, it's OK. I fully realize that I simply ain't gonna win them all.
But I'll beat the majority of them. As my "virtual" losses are totaled, I'll be there for the impending correction, you can bet on that (heck, I do). (Make no mistake of it, most shoes have certain "corrections".) And so, in that regard, my bet selection process remains as consistent as possible. (There's that word again: Consistent.) I have no other play, and so I have no other option. As the shoe unfolds (or, even at the beginning if the prior shoe pointed toward an impending correction), I seek corrections only AFTER certain trends vastly under-performed (read: suffered "virtual" losses"). Sidenote: Very important: 1. Real play only begins after PROOF of the impending correction; and 2. Profit MUST be locked up, for you absolutely must learn to "pay yourself" whenever you are correct.
Yeah, it's slow. Yeah, it can get a bit frustrating at times. But unless someone can post right here and right now a nice and easy mechanical bet selection method that wins over the long term....well, you get my point. Ain't no "nice and easy" to this game; not now, not ever.
So get over it. Stop looking for that "magical" bet selection method. Much smarter people than you and I have sought that very notion for years, and, yet miraculously, this game still exists.
No, there's no magic formula. There's just YOU. What can you do to overcome this game? For most of us, there is nothing. It will forever remain an unbeatable game. And that's OK, too. Better to realize it as early (read: cheaply) as possible.
The only viable alternative is to LEARN what it REALLY TAKES to get the better of this game.
And, as always, I wish it for all of you. Stay well.
Quote from: gr8player on December 30, 2015, 09:35:12 PM
Well, you begin by learning your way around a shoe. You need to know what the average shoe looks like. Ever see a shoe streak out the entire way? Ever see a shoe chop out the entire way? Well, you might've, but, let's remember, I said that you need to know what the "average" (read: normal) shoe looks like, not the "anomaly" (read: rare) shoe.
No need to make further comments, in my defunct "dispositions and distributions" post I stressed for months about our "average shoe" friend.
As always a great post from you and not only because you mentioned the above statement. :thumbsup:
Take care
as.
Thanks, ABG.
My methodology was designed by me as a means of "variance control".
As we all know, every bet selection method fails at some point because of the inherent negative variance that accompanies any even-chance event.
It is with that in mind that I finally realized what my true "nemesis" is, and then I focused on limiting variance's destructive tendencies.
Hence, the birth of my "virtual loss" methodology.
Stay well, my friend.
Yes gr8player.
Besides a couple or so of sure EV+ spots derived from statistically raising the non equal hands' probability, the trick to try to win itlr is all about assessing and measuring the variance and not about guessing right more often than not by magical features.
We could get a kind of scientific answer by falsifying the hypothesis.
Let's say we put in play the smartest TF player the world has ever known from one part and the counter such TF strategy player from the other one.
Not surprisingly in the end the acute TF player results will be the same of the counter TF player results, at least not accounting some valid adjustments made from either part.
Imo, valid adjustments could be made after having assessed what most likely happens per any shoe and per long series of shoes; not forcing the outcomes withing too restricted intervals; properly assessing the variance's impact; reducing at the least the searched profit per every shoe, per every sequence of shoes, per every session, per every week, per every month; knowing that certain distributions, either positive or negative (it's up to us to classify the word positive or negative), will surely show up along the way.
Imo and widely speaking, there are no better or worse bet selections, the only stuff we should interested of is about their distribution.
A wise player might very well get the best of it betting toward long P streaks apperance or P dominance, imo the worst selection any player could make.
Actually a P lover must solely rely upon the probability that some card distributions will favor this chance, whereas B side could get help either from card distributions and from the third card rule.
But this won't happen so often on either side.
as.
What the EF are you two going on about? This love fest of gobbly gook where you drone on about absolutely nothing that can be applied in the real world is making me go over to Ellis' BTC site. Of course I'll have to beg him to take me off of the forever banned list. But it will be worth it to get away from you two say nothing nincompoops (yes it's a real word). Why is it that neither of you have ever given one example of what you are talking about?
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on January 02, 2016, 10:31:37 PM
Yes gr8player.
Besides a couple or so of sure EV+ spots derived from statistically raising the non equal hands' probability, the trick to try to win itlr is all about assessing and measuring the variance and not about guessing right more often than not by magical features.
We could get a kind of scientific answer by falsifying the hypothesis.
How about giving an example of a couple of EV+ spots? How come you're not in Malaysia by now winning big bucks for Yung Leh? I'll answer that. You don't play! Measuring the variance? You mind explaining how one makes such a measurement? Surely if one can measure than one can achieve some specific measurable result, no?
Quote from: gr8player on December 30, 2015, 09:35:12 PM
Well, you begin by learning your way around a shoe. You need to know what the average shoe looks like. Ever see a shoe streak out the entire way? Ever see a shoe chop out the entire way? Well, you might've, but, let's remember, I said that you need to know what the "average" (read: normal) shoe looks like, not the "anomaly" (read: rare)
What's an average shoe? When do you determine if the shoe is average? After it ends? Every x number of hands?
This idea that one cannot or should not change a bet placement in a shoe is just absurd. A trender makes bets based on the TREND of the shoe. Hello? If the trend changes than well . . . maybe ... just maybe you might want to change the placement?
LOL. Anyway, it's a lot of fun listening to you two!
Jim, maybe it's you to deserve a Malaysia or Singapore trip, ask Lung for that I'll give you my privilege.
You claim to get a 52% WR playing a TF strategy that, sorry and according to what you wrote so far, it's a total gibberish with 1 billion accuracy.
You want to know the EV situations? Study!
You want to know the variance measurements? Study!
Don't ask, be proud to get your 52% WR.
as.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on January 03, 2016, 03:43:57 AM
Jim, maybe it's you to deserve a Malaysia or Singapore trip, ask Lung for that I'll give you my privilege.
Are you quite sure he hasn't already?
QuoteYou claim to get a 52% WR playing a TF strategy that, sorry and according to what you wrote so far, it's a total gibberish with 1 billion accuracy.
First of all my claim is a fact because I record every bet I make. To date 52.41%. Here is a sample from 3 shoes I played yesterday. This is how I record every shoe. Date. W, L # hands bet and % Win.
1.2.16 18 20 38 47%
1.2.16 23 19 42 55%
1.2.16 21 15 36 58%
So you can sit there behind your computer and RNG calculating 1 billion hands but after over 8000 bets made I will have to take a HUGE hit continually in order for this to get back to the EV.
There is a difference between your gibberish and my reality.
QuoteYou want to know the EV situations? Study!
You want to know the variance measurements? Study!
Huh? I really don't care how . . . I never asked for you to tell all. I just asked for simple percentages. HOW MANY BETS PER SHOE ON AVERAGE AND WHAT IS THE % WIN RATE! Heck, you already said you are "more selective" than Gr8's 15 average bets per shoe where he wins 54% (1 unit a shoe which I'm not knocking - a win is a win - at least he gives real player facts). So what's the harm in giving the same statistic?
You're the one who has been telling everyone on every site that you will soon publish a book revealing all.
QuoteDon't ask, be proud to get your 52% WR. as.
Pride got nothing to do with it. Patience, discipline, MM, betting what the shoe is giving you.
The strange world of Baccarat players, where nothing is better or worst than a coin flip, therefore in players heads, the irrational actually has merit. Maintain that for a few decades and you end up with sane yet insane deluded folk needing to keep secrets, for obvious reasons.
That reminds me, Maverick Ultimate anybody?
Quote from: MarkTeruya on January 03, 2016, 04:13:04 PM
The strange world of Baccarat players, where nothing is better or worst than a coin flip, therefore in players heads, the irrational actually has merit. Maintain that for a few decades and you end up with sane yet insane deluded folk needing to keep secrets, for obvious reasons.
That reminds me, Maverick Ultimate anybody?
Yes, twenty heads in a row is quite debilitating to endure. Sometimes my skin breaks out in a rash and I am compelled to go on-line and confess my needy ways. I learned a long time ago that keeping it hidden inside leads to fits of uncontrolled narcissism. At times like that I can't resist telling people what other people's needs are too. Thank God that I don't suffer from co-dependency anymore too. Back then I would take all disagreement as being personal criticism. Now it's much easier to disregard the nonconstructive projections of fundamentalist oriented attention seekers. Anybody?
The following is not directed at anyone in particular:
Frequentists, BTW, that's a properly peer reviewed and accepted term describing a person's opinion of two possibilities concerning probability mathematics, frequentists make a primary assumption regarding gambling outcomes based on strict house advantage odds. Based on that they assume that any claims that are beyond that strict belief are delusions based on fortune telling claims.
Conditional probability is Bayesian inference. It too is a belief system. It accounts for the current occurring state and makes no claim of fantastic or magical assumptions. These two worlds of thought have been at each others throats for centuries. Amateur arithmetic enthusiasts are never going to break any new ground in that regard.
This is the primary reason that my signature says "It's against the law to break the law of averages." The posse is always lurking out there somewhere. C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) ...
Quote from: Gizmotron on January 03, 2016, 05:24:44 PMSometimes my skin breaks out in a rash and I am compelled to go on-line and confess my needy ways.
How did you get on selling flogging those coins a few years back, manage to keep the wolves from the door?
You could always try and befriend that spike character, discover he won't share anything, because there is nothing to share and fall out spectacularly.
Quote from: MarkTeruya on January 03, 2016, 06:58:23 PM
How did you get on selling flogging those coins a few years back, manage to keep the wolves from the door?
You could always try and befriend that spike character, discover he won't share anything, because there is nothing to share and fall out spectacularly.
Let's see, I sold that silver dollar for about $217 and the commemorative 50 cent coin for around $87. Not bad for two coins sitting in a box collecting dust. Funny what you consider doing once you know you won't live as long as you hoped you would.
I said I would teach ten students and I did. Then two years later I shared almost all my secrets. The only thing missing is actual one on one tutoring. I never divulged much before this website opened. You are a complaining, negative, nobody, trolling for attention in the area of unproven research and claiming that everything that is here to be known is already known and has been proven to be known, and is like claiming that the global warming science is already settled too. Attacking me is the reaction of a defeated, probably debilitated needy victim seeking dependency typed personality. There is no way on God's green acres that you are here to save mathematics. You need confrontation. It's like food for your personality. Only I don't need it like you do. I enjoyed insulting people over at GG. I've probably insulted you many times already without even knowing it. But This forum is different. We don't waste time on insults. In fact, the moderators take proactive action with regards to trouble makers. I dare you to tell use something threatening to you, on this forum, something about yourself that others could easily criticize. If you can't do that much then you are nothing but a scared-cat. Let's see how strong you really are. You can dish it out, but can you take it?
Quote from: MarkTeruya on January 03, 2016, 06:58:23 PM
You could always try and befriend that spike character, discover he won't share anything, because there is nothing to share and fall out spectacularly.
Let's see just how much Spike actually shared.
1. He brags that he coined the phrase "Reading Randomness." He used reading the random as a concept in an email to me first. It was in a discussion that went on regarding reading the random flow. He coined the concept after years of us discussing the flow of random events to base our guessing from. I posted the phrase first but he talked about it as a concept first. But we both talked of the use of guessing and not foretelling the future as a method to beat Roulette or any other 50/50 chance game.
2.Spike clearly shared that I had showed him that combo bets, placed on the inside, gave him a better chance at guessing more wins than losses, his number one divulgence, guessing more wins than losses.
3. He started the educated guessing argument. He never claimed to use magic as his critics claimed to pigpen-hole him as saying he did.
4. He stayed with the 50/50 bets only, and clearly explained why.
After Spike got mad at me openly for sharing in-depth my descriptions of randomness characteristics, and for teaching ten students, he claimed that all I was interested in was his secrets. I had my own secrets. I never needed his secrets. That was his sophistry & red herring to muddy the waters of that debate. My journey with randomness began back in 1993. I first encountered the like thinking of Spike back in 2007. I wrote software analyzing hot number distribution back in 1997. That was my foundation for the characteristics of randomness. I did far more research than Spike was even capable of. I arrived on the scene with full knowledge of my description of elegant patterns. I knew about dozens sleeping back in 1993. I followed Spike's lead of not sharing too much. But a few years ago I came to the conclusion that Spike was wrong. Reading randomness and making educated guesses was too difficult for anyone but a few to grasp. I knew I could share it. It was just after my heart attack. So I did share it. And look! There has still failed to materialize the threat to the casinos that would cause a major shift in the way they allow table games to be played, much the type of changes that have occurred since "Beating the dealer" has been published, Spike's admitted main concern.
Yes, Spike has shared plenty.
Giz, who is this Spike you are talking about?
Thanks.
as.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on January 03, 2016, 09:49:05 PM
Giz, who is this Spike you are talking about?
Thanks.
as.
He was a guy that I discovered posting on the internet back in 2006 that was a self made evangelista for randomness as a bases for educated guessing. He openly hinted at concepts that were then considered unbelievable by just about everyone. Later he posted as Cheese, but most of the time he went by Spike.
The spike is a serious cat who managed to win 72 percents of his placed bets at the even chances at the roulettes, hey hey.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on January 03, 2016, 09:49:05 PM
Giz, who is this Spike you are talking about?
Thanks.
as.
This one is an interesting link that many know here, anyway...
http://journal.sjdm.org/10/91117/jdm91117.html
as.
Bead Road and the Big Road mostly, at times I do a combo of the other 3 if things are looking strong or weak with them.