+ Register

[AsymBacGuy]

Probably Al played this game longer than half of this site members put together (not saying he's old) and he's strongly convinced the game is perfectly unbeatable, so in his opinion the efforts oriented to study some solutions were, are and will be a total waste of time. And this VL topic is just an example of that.

He's right and not alone in thinking that.
Baccarat is an unbeatable game because nobody can demonstrate a possible mathematical edge for the player, so no new Thorp will come on this way with 1 bllion % accuracy.

At any rate, some people are so stubbornly convinced that the game could be beaten in some way or another, so they keep studying and sharing ideas with other interested peers.
We do belong to this dreamers category. Rarely dreams come true.

Of course any mathematical expert will laugh at us, but sometimes we could laugh back at them while we are collecting a fair amount of money for "long" periods.

Personally I've studied the game several years as many of you did.
I got the conclusion that the game is full of traps but presents some "flaws". Or better sayed that the random world spinning around baccarat in some spots present a kind of "unrandomly placed events".
Actually is not the random world transforming magically into an unrandom one, rather that the unequal unstable force producing the results in some very selected spots will be amplified at such degree we may even say the edge is inversed in favor of the player.

The word "very selected spots" implies a rare occurency of those spots and by this perspective and according to my poor opinion (along with very long term data), the virtual losses topic takes a paramount importance.
That doesn't necessarily mean we have to railbirding hours and hours to get a possible favourable bet.
Anyone could set up a "basic" play just to give the casinos the illusion of action they aim for, then trying to stab them with very huge and rare bets whom they could do nothing other than hoping for a 50/50 favourable house outcome.


as.           


 






   

 












 

[Rolex-Watch]

Probably Al played this game longer than half of this site members put together (not saying he's old) and he's strongly convinced the game is perfectly unbeatable, so in his opinion the efforts oriented to study some solutions were, are and will be a total waste of time. And this VL topic is just an example of that.

And?  A lot depends on how bright the individual is, I know people who have played for close on 20 years, the same way now as back then, stuck in their own mold, unable to think outside the box, they didn't win back then and nothing has changed now.

Anyone could set up a "basic" play just to give the casinos the illusion of action they aim for, then trying to stab them with very huge and rare bets whom they could do nothing other than hoping for a 50/50 favourable house outcome. 

Yawn whatever, is this another p1ssing in the wind contest, mine is bigger than yours?  I think we have all come to realize that on the internet, we can say what we like and pretend to be anybody, it's our big chance to be a 'virtual Walter Mitty', "oh look at me".  What you sayed is utterly meaningless and irrelevant unless you provide detail, but keep living the dream, that's why gambling forums exist.

[AsymBacGuy]

What you sayed is utterly meaningless and irrelevant unless you provide detail, but keep living the dream, that's why gambling forums exist.

RW, I suppose you're a smart and prepared person so I guess you won't need the details....

Anyway you could make your own conclusions:

1. Bac is a statistically long term beatable game on rare circumstances, sometimes those are very rare happenings.

2. Those spots come out from more likely expected situations so if you think P singles are equally produced than any other situation you've spotted the wrong game (see point #3). 

3. If you still think that baccarat is a constant coin flip succession as you keep stating for months you don't need any detail, as any hint will be worthless.

4. Whenever A>B>C and A<B<C and providing the happening of some deviated situations of such ratios, you can't be wrong strictly applying what HBC calls a proper composure (patience and discipline).

Yes, I'm a dreamer. 

as.     

[Rolex-Watch]

okay, but really what is the point with everything you "sayed" for last 2 years, don't you fink people are feup with your hints?  Hint this and clue dat, are we children to be treated like your play thing, or do you just like to tease, is this what gets you off? 

Why aren't you in a casino 24/7 waiting for those golden triggers making more monies than y will ever need and giving it to the poors.  Game players are just as bad as system sellers, an unfortunate blip on the gambling community, maybe you are trying to collate an audience for a seminar, who knows.  You know your sh1t, butthe figures you post heps nobody. 

Many lines of emptiness follows;






















Just like your posts.....

[HunchBacShrimp]

There are two schools of thought pertaining to virtual losses.

1. Virtual losses make no difference. All real wagers will result in a 50/50 win loss ratio minus the house edge of the game. No stop bet trigger or amount of virtual losses will over come the mathematical expectation.

2. Virtual losses are the same as real losses and allow the bettor to avoid the loss of real money and increase profits as the win rate will climb above 50%.


I am enrolled in the first school, but I do peer over the fence and watch school 2. Some of my play is RTM related. This RTM effect does fall under the shadow of the Gambler's Fallacy. It is the same shadow that is cast upon virtual losses. The problem with the virtual loss conversation is that nobody ever talks about virtual wins. Virtual losses are always presented as a system that has 100% accuracy of predicting when a series of losses will occur. But that is impossible. It is a 50/50 proposition.

Nobody talks about what to do when the first bet after a stop bet trigger is a virtual win. Do you wait until the virtual losses out number the virtual wins? How often is your play indefinitely suspended as the virtual wins continue to out number the virtual losses?

A stop bet trigger doesn't prevent 9 or more LIAR. It only changes the structure of your nemesis pattern. I'd like to be on the record saying a stop bet trigger after X amount of losses is a great tool. Better to take a deep mental breath after 4 or 5 losses before you re-bet into another 4 or 5 consecutive losses than to continuously make 9+ losing bets in a row. Losing bets adversely affect the psyche, taking a breather after a handful of consecutive losses is a good way to avoid gambler's tilt. 

All bet selections are equal. Some say that this or that bet selection is a road to ruin. They are all the same. Bet P or B, OLD or FLD, TBL or OTBL. Record the win loss strings. Compare them, they are the same. Mix them up in a hat and draw one out, it will be impossible to determine which bet selection it belongs too. All bet selections lose 4 in a row, all of em lose 9 in a row just as often as each other bet selection. Play long enough and you will see winning and losing streaks for any bet selection larger than 12 in a row. In fact, given enough time, you will see any and every bet selection lose and win as many times in a row as the longest streak of B or P you've ever witnessed.

Every bet selection can be compared to the B and P outcomes of any shoe. They are the most easily recognized. I've seen 9 Banker followed by 1 Player followed by 9 more Banker. This represents the ability of any bet selection to lose 9 in a row. Possibly 6 virtual losses, only to win once, and then lose 9 more times in a row.

Consider the first 10 decisions of any and every shoe. They represent 10 consecutive losses of some bet selection. Bet selections aren't limited to OLD FLD TBL OTBL PLAYER or BANKER only. They can be any combination of decisions. After all OTBL is nothing more than FLD until 1 win then switch to OLD for one win and then switch back to FLD for one win etc.

IMO the virtual loss game can save you from yourself, but it cannot change the math of the game. It will change your nemesis pattern, but it will not reduce the number of times you lose 6,8, or even 10 in a row.

As for the deleted posts of alrelax.... I dunno, some of it was off topic, some of it absurd (umpteen times...), part of it was offensive or at least antagonistic, and a great deal of it was born of a misunderstanding of the post(s) he was attempting to respond to.

HBS

[AsymBacGuy]

There are two schools of thought pertaining to virtual losses.

1. Virtual losses make no difference. All real wagers will result in a 50/50 win loss ratio minus the house edge of the game. No stop bet trigger or amount of virtual losses will over come the mathematical expectation.

2. Virtual losses are the same as real losses and allow the bettor to avoid the loss of real money and increase profits as the win rate will climb above 50%.


I am enrolled in the first school, but I do peer over the fence and watch school 2. Some of my play is RTM related. This RTM effect does fall under the shadow of the Gambler's Fallacy. It is the same shadow that is cast upon virtual losses. The problem with the virtual loss conversation is that nobody ever talks about virtual wins. Virtual losses are always presented as a system that has 100% accuracy of predicting when a series of losses will occur. But that is impossible. It is a 50/50 proposition.

Nobody talks about what to do when the first bet after a stop bet trigger is a virtual win. Do you wait until the virtual losses out number the virtual wins? How often is your play indefinitely suspended as the virtual wins continue to out number the virtual losses?

A stop bet trigger doesn't prevent 9 or more LIAR. It only changes the structure of your nemesis pattern. I'd like to be on the record saying a stop bet trigger after X amount of losses is a great tool. Better to take a deep mental breath after 4 or 5 losses before you re-bet into another 4 or 5 consecutive losses than to continuously make 9+ losing bets in a row. Losing bets adversely affect the psyche, taking a breather after a handful of consecutive losses is a good way to avoid gambler's tilt. 

All bet selections are equal. Some say that this or that bet selection is a road to ruin. They are all the same. Bet P or B, OLD or FLD, TBL or OTBL. Record the win loss strings. Compare them, they are the same. Mix them up in a hat and draw one out, it will be impossible to determine which bet selection it belongs too. All bet selections lose 4 in a row, all of em lose 9 in a row just as often as each other bet selection. Play long enough and you will see winning and losing streaks for any bet selection larger than 12 in a row. In fact, given enough time, you will see any and every bet selection lose and win as many times in a row as the longest streak of B or P you've ever witnessed.

Every bet selection can be compared to the B and P outcomes of any shoe. They are the most easily recognized. I've seen 9 Banker followed by 1 Player followed by 9 more Banker. This represents the ability of any bet selection to lose 9 in a row. Possibly 6 virtual losses, only to win once, and then lose 9 more times in a row.

Consider the first 10 decisions of any and every shoe. They represent 10 consecutive losses of some bet selection. Bet selections aren't limited to OLD FLD TBL OTBL PLAYER or BANKER only. They can be any combination of decisions. After all OTBL is nothing more than FLD until 1 win then switch to OLD for one win and then switch back to FLD for one win etc.

IMO the virtual loss game can save you from yourself, but it cannot change the math of the game. It will change your nemesis pattern, but it will not reduce the number of times you lose 6,8, or even 10 in a row.

As for the deleted posts of alrelax.... I dunno, some of it was off topic, some of it absurd (umpteen times...), part of it was offensive or at least antagonistic, and a great deal of it was born of a misunderstanding of the post(s) he was attempting to respond to.

HBS

Hi HBS and welcome back.

Actually I mentioned the virtual winnings topic importance.
If I'm looking at some "bad distributed" virtual losses at the same time I'm looking at some "bad distributed" virtual winnings. 

But in practical terms, the difference is significant depending on which side (VW or VL) are you registering.

Imo, one of the key factors is time.

For example, a more likely succession (and they do exist as baccarat isn't a 50/50 game by any means) will be more controlled after a given virtual losses sequence or, better sayed, after a series of given VL sequences.

The counterpart of VWs, still not proportionally 50/50 outcomes, will be more randomly placed as the game rules and the finitess of the card distribution could alter it by a higher degree.

I mean that utilizing a proper approach we better care about what most likely happens after one, two or three losses than hoping to get some longer winning streaks as we know every class of winning streaks properly assessed will be proportionally more likely than the counterpart.
An exception is anytime a winning series will lack for several hands, knowing that one given "long" winning series will be due after a given amount of shoes observed/played because statistical findings dictated so.

Statistically speaking things don't change a bit, but for a fair control of the game it will.

Back to the "time" importance, imo one of the main factors for any bac player will lose (aside the sure negative mathematical edge to bear) is because he/she tries to win/recover on too short situations (that is one, two or even ten shoes).

At baccarat we could take advantage of a luxury feature every other gambling game won't provide (let's say they are restricted in more playable terms): we certainly know by a 100% degree that the most we play the more likely will take place some expected outcomes (so by some way I'm surely endorsing your RTM approach).

Starting with B/P ratio (very high variance), going to the less probably patterns that will have to come to normality more often than not at a degree capable to invert the house edge by a simple flat betting.

In my opinion there's no point to try to beat the game still thinking it as a mere 50/50 proposition. Unless stating that baccarat is a "restricted" 50/50 game.

as.     

       











     

[Rolex-Watch]

Excellent post

There are two schools of thought pertaining to virtual losses.

1. Virtual losses make no difference. All real wagers will result in a 50/50 win loss ratio minus the house edge of the game. No stop bet trigger or amount of virtual losses will over come the mathematical expectation.

Virtual losses are always presented as a system that has 100% accuracy of predicting when a series of losses will occur. But that is impossible. It is a 50/50 proposition.

Correct, spot on...

Nobody talks about what to do when the first bet after a stop bet trigger is a virtual win. Do you wait until the virtual losses out number the virtual wins? How often is your play indefinitely suspended as the virtual wins continue to out number the virtual losses?

Comes down to patience, however as you rightly point out above, where is the advantage?

A stop bet trigger doesn't prevent 9 or more LIAR. It only changes the structure of your nemesis pattern.

< bingo, nail on the head, You are absolutely correct, however, "it changes the structure of your nemesis pattern", this is all you can possible achieve.  As we know truth tables show that all / any bet selection will resolve to a 50-50 outcome, there is no escaping that, the maths are what they are.  Stop banging your head against a wall, looking for some ultimate bet selection, stop wasting your life testing 1000's of shoes, binary outcomes are what they are, there is no circumventing the maths, it is impossible, no virtual loss strategy, trending will make one iota of difference.  That said, "structure of the nemesis pattern", this is the only aspect which you the player can change, that's it.  You can't escape the maths, however you can chose what it is you are prepared to lose against, what it is which will result in 4LIAR or more. 

As HBS points out with his hat analogy, you could not match a series of losses for any particular bet selection, so you know anything and everything can lose badly, which is why all the scribbling, stats, peering at the score board is as useful as the drunken newbie who comes to the table and plonks down his first ever bet and the one after that.  Given the maths of the game and our knowledge of streak distribution, IMO we can manipulate what it is we lose against, that is all we can extract from truth table testing.  We can make choices; are you prepared to lose against, chops, repeating two's, streaks, or particular streak lengths, or percentages of streak lengths even? 

What are you likely to encounter more often, less often?  Chops or two's, or say streaks of four.  Obviously it is the latter, but it doesn't preclude, yet accepting we can't escape from losses in a row.  Then we can explore other options to narrow it down even further.  We can choose / define the pattern which is result in us losing a series of bets in a row, there is nothing else.  So do you want to lose say against chops which comprise mathematically of 50% of all hands in the long term, or say streaks of 4 which occur 6.25% the time, and how can we reduce that further?

Will it result in a higher win to lose ratio, no, will it eliminate the possibility of 8LIAR, no, so what is the point?  It removes the emotionally draining guess work, peering at the score board trying to guess the trend.   I will go as far to say, a possible reduced frequency of "damaging losses in a row", however in proportion to actual bets placed the maths are what they are [no escape] and there is no real advantage, other than the player has a structure of when to bet and when not to bet, knowing that they will lose to for example 25% of any occurrence of a streak of 4.   Obviously you can lose three bets before you grab your win, the bet selection isn't failing, but your MM might be, which is where your MM prowess, discipline and composure comes in.  Advantage = Zilch, Disadvantage = Zilch..  Removal of certain emotional stress aspects (what is the shoe doing now, going to do next), I would say so.

IMO the virtual loss game can save you from yourself, but it cannot change the math of the game. It will change your nemesis pattern, but it will not reduce the number of times you lose 6,8, or even 10 in a row.

Yes it won't change the maths of the game, including any W v's L ratio's, it can be rare for subsequent column failures, the downside is the wait period waiting for in my case a column failure.  If selecting your nemesis pattern in advance is the only aspect you can manipulate, then why not use, explore it.   Admittedly friends have run a multitude of tests on my behalf, while the outcomes have not been what was expected [no escaping the maths], because the maths is only based on actual bets placed and if you test shoes via computer scripts in their thousands it will resolve to 50% regardless.  A few tests were promising, but the bet placement per shoe were nonviable and there is still no escape from variance. 


I think the topic of bet selection for the game of Baccarat results in a lot of delusional souls that frequent gambling forums as well as those you encounter in casinos.  I've met & engaged a fair few normal highly intelligent successful in their own spheres people, but when the topic comes to bet selection, you think, jesus borderline insanity.  It also makes you examine your own beliefs. It usually hawks back to, "in the absence of anything else, I am right because it can't be proven I am wrong"..  Unfortunately mathematical absence of any advantage, doesn't mean there is any disadvantage either.   

[soxfan]

In my experience different bets selections provide different w/l cluster with the confine of the over all 50-50 proposition, hey hey.

[AsymBacGuy]

In my experience different bets selections provide different w/l cluster with the confine of the over all 50-50 proposition, hey hey.

Simply out, that's the point to write on stone.

Nobody is going to convince anyone that the game isn't a primarly 50/50 system, but if we are continuosly stating that the sum of EVERY SITUATION or DISTRIBUTION will take place by a simple coin flip proposition we, imo, aren't going anywhere.

At a fair roulette, every single Black/Red spin (zero/es aside) is 50/50 placed and the sum of ALL situations and distributions will be again 50/50 formed, no matter what bet selecetion we want to adopt.

More precisely, as soxfan posted, at baccarat certain bet selections will provide different WL patterns with 100% accuracy.
It's not how many W or L we'll get that counts (obviously and wholly taken the counting will be closer and closer to 50/50), it's all about their distribution which tend to be unequal itlr.
To get a decent control of the variance and not willing to utilize a huge and a risky more or less aggressive MM, to get the best outcomes we should look at the situations where such distributions have deviated too much to the expected, always considering that any single shoe is a finite entity.
A more "uncertain" approach is of course to bet toward the more likely WL distributions not waiting some deviations' apparition. But without a very careful registration and proper composure (patience and discipline, HBS reference) and a huge MM, we'll sink more often than not into the random ocean.

Finally, I think that many of us are talking about the same ideas taken from different perspectives.

as.

   













       


 

[gr8player]

Hello, fellas.  Please excuse my disappearance for the past few days, as I was busy (winning, I might add) at the Borgata last Wed thru Fri and then again Sun thru Tues.  I am very obviously in the midst of a positive variance and have been winning rather regularly with almost flat bets, as I've needed no higher than "2-ville" in my Gr8Player's Progression.

Good, constructive conversation going on here; well done, all. 

It appears, as ABG pointed out, mostly discussion about "the same ideas with different perspectives".  Nothing wrong with that; in fact, that's most likely the best anyone could hope for on any public Baccarat forum.

To me, virtual losses are the simplest and easiest and cheapest way to CONTROL VARIANCE. 

Did you notice what I said in the first paragraph of this post?:  "I am very obviously in the midst of a POSITIVE VARIANCE"....

Variance is the name of the game.  I've come to terms with that fact a long, long time ago.  Control variance and you control the game (of course, this all begins with controlling oneself).

As to virtual losses, we ALL use them, even if you might be unaware of it.  How so?  Well, I'll answer that with this question:  Does anyone here bet every hand?  Me?  I know of NO SERIOUS PLAYER that bets every hand.  And so, we wait.  We pick our spots.  We await triggers.  Now, ask yourself, if you will:  What happens in that interim?  Are you not witnessing "virtual losses" go by while you're awaiting your preferred plays to appear?  Sure you are.

I've been preaching Patience and Discipline for years now....ever wonder why?  Well, now you know.  Learn to control, at least best you're able to, your VARIANCE.  Then the game is yours.

[HunchBacShrimp]

Hi HBS and welcome back.

Actually I mentioned the virtual winnings topic importance.
If I'm looking at some "bad distributed" virtual losses at the same time I'm looking at some "bad distributed" virtual winnings. 

But in practical terms, the difference is significant depending on which side (VW or VL) are you registering.

Imo, one of the key factors is time.

For example, a more likely succession (and they do exist as baccarat isn't a 50/50 game by any means) will be more controlled after a given virtual losses sequence or, better sayed, after a series of given VL sequences.

The counterpart of VWs, still not proportionally 50/50 outcomes, will be more randomly placed as the game rules and the finitess of the card distribution could alter it by a higher degree.

I mean that utilizing a proper approach we better care about what most likely happens after one, two or three losses than hoping to get some longer winning streaks as we know every class of winning streaks properly assessed will be proportionally more likely than the counterpart.
An exception is anytime a winning series will lack for several hands, knowing that one given "long" winning series will be due after a given amount of shoes observed/played because statistical findings dictated so.

Statistically speaking things don't change a bit, but for a fair control of the game it will.

Back to the "time" importance, imo one of the main factors for any bac player will lose (aside the sure negative mathematical edge to bear) is because he/she tries to win/recover on too short situations (that is one, two or even ten shoes).

At baccarat we could take advantage of a luxury feature every other gambling game won't provide (let's say they are restricted in more playable terms): we certainly know by a 100% degree that the most we play the more likely will take place some expected outcomes (so by some way I'm surely endorsing your RTM approach).

Starting with B/P ratio (very high variance), going to the less probably patterns that will have to come to normality more often than not at a degree capable to invert the house edge by a simple flat betting.

In my opinion there's no point to try to beat the game still thinking it as a mere 50/50 proposition. Unless stating that baccarat is a "restricted" 50/50 game.

as.

as,

Thanks for the "welcome back". I have had a small increase in work recently, enough I've had a hard time getting to the casino 1 day a week instead of the 2 days I'd like to go. Now I've got even more work piling up, enough that I may not make it to the casino this week at all. But since the weather is cooling off I won't have to start so early in the morning, so I'm likely to pick an evening and tough it out the next day at work if I end up in a marathon session.


If I understand you correctly, you are talking about tracking a series of VL patterns, maybe even a particular VL pattern. And after a given amount of repeated VL patterns of your choice, you anticipate the corresponding VW pattern to appear. And you expect the appearance to show strongly enough to generate a profit flat betting. Inverting the house edge, meaning to provide a short term player advantage.

This sounds... not tricky, but time consuming. I can see why your friend from several threads ago wasn't interested in your approach given a desperate win goal and tight time constraints of only 72hrs.

Now you mentioned, "The counterpart of VWs, still not proportionally 50/50 outcomes, will be more randomly placed as the game rules and the finitess of the card distribution could alter it by a higher degree."
This does not sound to me like an inverted house edge or player advantage for flat betting success.

Later you mention the strict outcomes of B and P only having a high variance. So, I'm assuming the VL pattern is a pattern of decisions that offer less variance. If that is true, than I would expect the non proportional 50/50 outcomes to be LESS randomly placed?

Some of what you mention sounds like the Gambler's Fallacy. Which I'm not condemning you for, we all engage in the belief of that 'fallacy' every time we increase our bets. But something I like to keep not in the back of my mind but in the front, making a nuisance of itself, is the possibility that the series of VL patterns I'm witnessing go by are a balance of a strong series of VWpatterns that happened earlier that I did not witness. And that there is a strong possibility the expected future VW patterns are more evenly spaced. That they appear in a neutral fashion as to offer no betting advantage.

How do I say that better?... That the observed series of VL patterns are actually the cluster of VW patterns inverting the house edge I'm looking for from a previous imbalance. And now, going forward, things will be distributed more evenly.

Heck, I'm not sure if that was any better.

HBS

[HunchBacShrimp]

Rolex,

Thanks for the compliment. We have a similar perspective when it comes to virtual losses. I don't have much to add, if anything, that isn't redundant.

Choose your nemesis pattern and plan for it. Expect to see it face to face at the absolute worst time. Work out a MM manipulation to endure it, because it cannot be overcome. A 'stop bet' is a great tool (intangible benefits), but is no guarantee the next series of 'no bets' are virtual losses.

I still operate under the belief that W/L registries of every bet selection are indistinguishable from each other.  And I adamantly believe MM is of greater importance than BS.

However, like you said, it is BS that most everyone seems to exert the most amount of energy exploring. Which is fine, keeps the mind working. And considering all BS's being equal, it matters not which one you pick. It does get boring doing the same thing over and over. But winning money is never really boring, and the repetition reduces the opportunities for mistakes. Still, I am starting to realize that 99% of gamblers have no clue what MM is. None whatsoever. But when it comes to bet selection? Experts!

I agree, normal looking and acting, regular, down to earth, easy to get along with people you see eye to eye with on controversial topics like politics and religion only to run into a brick wall of insanity when it comes to gambling. What? the score of the last hand? Natural means switch? Player never wins with 7? Banker after Player wins by 2 or less? Color of the cards!? Tie line? Player can't win 9 in a row? The list goes on and on. I never see any of these people do anything except dramatically increasing their bet after losses.

I still cannot explain, and have decided to never try again, that after I win my first bet I don't care if I lose my second bet. It's less than my first bet, I make money win or lose. To me this is pretty easy to understand.

"what?, do I think Banker is going to go to 7 in a row? I just won 5 bets in a row on Banker, I'm up 6u I don't care if I lose this 1u bet I'm still in profit. Why would I bet against the streak now? What? you don't understand? Why don't you go sit somewhere else."

HBS

[HunchBacShrimp]

In my experience different bets selections provide different w/l cluster with the confine of the over all 50-50 proposition, hey hey.

Hey Soxfan,

This I don't believe. But I don't adhere to it with fanaticism. I don't have the same experience. So I will ponder it, and search for it with what I have.

What you are talking about is a BS that has a predictable characteristic. Not necessarily significant, but noticeable and most importantly recognizable. Which means it can be exploited for profit with confidence. I suspect you are using it to your advantage. Good. I'm sure I'll have a question or two in the future about this.

keep on keeping on,

HBS

[AsymBacGuy]

Hi HBS!
So why you don't move to the dryer and warmer side of the US? :-)

I forgot to mention that my comments about VW and VL are strictly dependent on my method dictating a short multiple betting placement, yet I think that my considerations could be adopted and observed on many other betting methods (other than "randomly" trying to guess every hand or something like that).

Let's take the last shoe provided by Adulay on the "real live shoes" post.
If a player had a preordered simple plan of betting everytime toward Banker streaks with some stop losses (for example stop the betting after three singles, waiting for another B streak trigger), he would have won every single bet placed but one (the final one being a B single). Precisely he won 9 straight bets followed by a loss.
Of course there will be the times when he'll encounter the specular situation of 9 losses in a row, that is 9 B singles in a row.
Statistically the probability to get 9 B streaks in a row is higher than that of having 9 B singles in a row.
The difference, in this example, is that in such two specular situations he'll get 8 W (9-1) in the actual shoe and 3 losses in the identical opposite situation.
So the balance into two specular situations is +5 minus tax. 

Of course it's not the stop loss itself that counts otherwise the game will be easily beatable.
What, imo, matters, is the fact that the first scenario is more likely than the second, even if the tax will flatten (invert) the advantage.

The difference is that on every other INTERMEDIATE situation the likelihood to get more B streaks than B singles, each taken per every class, will be always slightly higher than the counterpart.

More importantly, we know that some very deviated situations like a B 3+ singles series followed by a B streak then followed by another B 3+ singles series followed by another B streak and so on, will be surely overcome by the specular situation of 3+ B streaks followed by a B single followed by a 3+ streak and so on.

We aren't going to find an edge on EVERY situation like this, we want to wait a given deviation to appear on the less likely outcome/s.

It's true that a highly unlikely situation could last per some shoes but it can't for every CLASS of opposed events. And it seems that the VL feature represents a more reliable trigger than VW. 

Thus I prefer to bet after some VL classes apparition rather than hoping to get a "long" series of actual W after certain VW triggers, because (as gr8player also suggested) long term statistical data concluded that variance is more restrained on the first situations.

Naturally this one is just a very simple example because fortunately there exist more reliable patterns to look for.

It's true that the final sum of WL will approach an almost zero point, anyway we should consider very differently a sequence like WWWWLLLL vs WLWLWLWL: both they'll get a zero gap and both they'll be 1/256 placed. Still itlr their occurence will be quite different.

Always imo, of course.

as. 







       









 

[soxfan]

My style is all about capturing the back to back win, and in my experience some bs styles are better at capturing those back to back win. Conversely some bs style are more efficient at capturing, say, a single win within so many decision. So, it is vital to match up yer bs style with the right mm-progressions scheme as it ain't a one size fit all proposition, hey hey.

Hey Soxfan,

This I don't believe. But I don't adhere to it with fanaticism. I don't have the same experience. So I will ponder it, and search for it with what I have.

What you are talking about is a BS that has a predictable characteristic. Not necessarily significant, but noticeable and most importantly recognizable. Which means it can be exploited for profit with confidence. I suspect you are using it to your advantage. Good. I'm sure I'll have a question or two in the future about this.

keep on keeping on,

HBS